First of all, I didn't make the statement, Dog Gone did. And second, the claim of this fossil is that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. So it is a reasonable request to show where human fossils and dinosaur fossils have been found in the same strata - and they don't even have to be in the same vicinity - say, dinosaur fossils in a Late Cretaceous formation in Montana and human fossils in a Late Cretaceous formation in Asia.
...the claim of this fossil is that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. So it is a reasonable request to show where human fossils and dinosaur fossils have been found in the same strata
I do not deny that it is a reasonable request, except to note that such a fossil would have to come from a minuscule sliver of a percentage of the huge number and kinds of fossil species. If vertebrates comprise only .0125% of all fossils, and most most of those are fish, the percentage of land dwelling primates in comparison to the total is extremely minute.
If regarding the presumed absence of such a fossil in 00.01% of the fossil record as positive evidence for Darwinian evolution is not unreasonable, then neither is it unreasonable to regard the absence of any specimens from what are purported to have been major events in the history of the earth, transitionals leading up to the complex invertebrates, and between invertebrates and vertebrates in the other 99.99% of the available fossil evidence (most of which is of much higher quality than that in the 00.01%) as evidence against the theory.
Surely out of that huge number of fossils in the 99.99%there must be some shred of evidence of transitional fossils leading up to the complex invertebrates, and between invertebrates and vertebrates?
Cordially,