Don't like inconvenient facts?
Discussion
You need to learn the difference between fact and wish.
You have just made personal attacks and not actually refuted the facts that there are drawings of sauropods made before dinosaurs were discovered. I know of no way this can be true other than people saw sauropods. This is just one of many examples of artwork showing dinosaurs that we now know existed. There are many more. It also makes sense that the dinosaur "legends" from almost every culture on every continent ,except Antarctica, are based on people actually seeing dinosaurs.
Dinosaurs are found in 100 million year old geological formations. Homo Sapiens has existed for around 100,000 years. Go argue with the rocks.
Rocks don't say how old they are. You have to use assumptions to figure out the likelihood of their age. There are 2 primary ways that ages are determined.
The first is circular reasoning that the rocks are millions of years old because of the fossils that are in them and the fossils are millions of years old because of the rocks they are in. They need to have millions of years for evolution to even be plausible to the uninformed. The reality is there is zero evidence that any new kind of animal/plant ever turned into another. There is only evidence of small changes within kinds. No matter how hard people have tried, there is no means of creating the first life naturally.
The 2nd way or supposedly saying the rocks are millions of years old is radio isotope dating. Radio isotope dating is based on several assumptions. It assumes the starting conditions (how do we know the starting conditions when we don't even know how old the rocks are), that no parent or daughter isotopes ever left the rock (water gets into everything and most isotopes are water soluble so this is so unlikely as to be basically impossible), and that the decay rate is always the same. (This is the most likely to be right but there are radio halos in rocks that strongly suggest that decay rates were much higher in the past). When we do radio isotope dating on rocks of known ages, they always (or almost always, I don't know every example) give a much older date than the known date. Some examples include Mt. Etna Basalt was 29 years old but tested to be .35 million years old. Kilauea basalt that was < 200 years old was calculated to be 21 million years old. Mt Stomboli that was 38 years old was calculated to be 2.4 million years old.
The age of homo sapiens is equally poorly proven.
As an aside there are over a 100 dinosaur fossils with soft tissues in them. You can see and test the blood cells and blood vessels and the osteoblasts. The tissue is still flexible and stretchable. It was only recently that anyone looked because everyone assumed dinosaurs died out millions of years ago. Physics proves that there should be zero organic tissue left in even the most ideal conditions, but they are there. This strongly suggests that the dinosaurs were around much more recently. Mary Schweitzer in Montana was the first to find the soft tissue in a T-Rex bone, but many more have been found.
The evidence doesn't match the claims that man has been around for 100,000 of years or that the rocks or dinosaurs are millions of years old. Saying it is fact or saying "the experts say" doesn't change the actual facts.
No one who matters agrees with that analysis. If your purpose is to attract people to Christianity, it’s not helpful to torture potential recruits with evolutionary denialism. It’s bad for the brand you seem to be trying to promote.
I'm sorry you think it is bad for the brand. I believe in the truth even if it is unpopular. I don't believe something because "experts" or "authorities" tell me it is true. I believe things when I analyze the facts and I go where they lead. The evidence does not support evolution or the big bang theory. Both theories keep being revised because they fail to explain the evidence. People believe them for 3 reasons. They don't want a god to exist because they would need to obey him; they blindly follow the crowd and don't analyze the evidence openly; or they follow the crowd because that's what they have to do to be successful. "Science" still destroys those who don't follow the accepted "science". It doesn't matter if it is
Evolution, the Big Bang, Covid-19, vaccines, etc. If you want to make a living in "science" you don't disturb the accepted narrative. Too many people have made their careers on that narrative and would look bad if it was found to be wrong.
I'm sorry you won't even look at the evidence. I won't bother you any more.