1) All medium to large dinosaur fossils are found beneath the K/T boundary layer, even the large Marine Reptiles that were competent swimmers.
2) Only smaller dinosaur fossils, structurally similar to current day birds, are found above the K/T layer.
3) No large mammals (e.g., rhinos, giraffes, lions, bears, tigers, etc) have been found in layers below the K/T layer. In fact, they are not even found immediately above the K/T layer. They appear after smaller versions, with similar anatomies, are found below them.
4) Rather gigantic dinosaurs are found (presumed drowned?) at deeper strata than even awkward or shorter large mammals who - - by all rights - - should have drowned long before Brontosaurs drowned, or even before the large Marine Reptiles presumably drowned.
5) Whales, of all varieties, did not drown along with either the terrestrial dinosaurs or the Marine Reptiles.... but only long after (i.e., above) these creatures of the Dinosaur age are found in the strata.
6) Why would cows and land turtles and sloths all be drowned in the strata where whales drowned, but not earlier, when slow-moving dinosaurs were found to have been drowned?
7) Why didn't Marine Reptiles of the Dinosaur Age not survive flood waters at least as well as whales did, or at least more effectively than triceratops and other bulky or armored reptiles?
8) Why are no marine reptiles and whales found in any of the same strata?
9) Based on chronological estimates for the Global Flood, it would have occurred sometime after the 3 pyramids of Giza, Egypt were built. But we find no record or archaeological record of the Egyptian society being traumatized by a global flood? Nor do we find the corpses of millions of Egyptians and other human populations of the same epoch, in any of the strata in which we find the dinosaur fossils?
10) No evidence of human hunting of dinosaurs for food or skins has ever been found, especially not below the K/T boundary, where humans have never been found, and where dinosaur remains are exclusively found. Similarly, we have never found remains of dinosaurs feeding on humans, or on whales, or on any other of the larger mammals that do not appear in the strata until above the K/T layer.
11) Ice Cores at either polar region, can be precisely analyzed, and aligned to match changes in warm and cold seasons (versus yearly rather than seasonal intervals) and show - - clearly and with no confusion - - 100,000+ years of uninterrupted patterns of snow fall and freezing, with no massive flooding in the top 6% of the ice layers.
Compiled By George.Brooks.
Let's start here...
A fossil has been found of a large mammal ( Repenomamus robustus ) with the dinosaurs...well, at least one large enough to prey upon dinosaurs! A Psittacosaurus fossil was found within the stomach of this fossilized dog-like creature...How interesting.
Now, some evolutionists would say that the size of this creature does not count as "large," saying that this thesis proves that mammals could not evolve above a size where they could easily hide from 3-story predators. However, given that the average size of a dinosaur ranges from a chicken to an American bison, predatory dinosaurs were by no means all "3-story." Thus, thesis 3 is still disproven by the above pictured evidence...Unless the problem of wondering what it was actually supposed to prove still stands...
Let us start here. "All" is such a strong word. Given such drastic terminology, if any fossils of "medium to large" sized dinosaurs are found above the K-T (K-Pg) boundary, thesis 1 is proven incorrect. In fact, dinosaur fossils have been found above the cretaceous layer, in the Paleocene. Around 34 fragments of a hadrosaur (now those things are by no means small!) fossil have been discovered above the K-T boundary within the Ojo Alamo formation in the San Juan Basin (see map below)...
Some scientists tried to say that the fossils had been "re-worked," but that is highly unlikely due to the fact that the bones were consolidated to some degree. Also, some of the bones are quite large, such as the femur which is over 3 ft. long, and does not show signs of abrasion, which would be expected with re-working. The irony is that evidence that goes against a dogma of evolution (possibly such as this) is likely to be dismissed outright, or explained away. Science is based on forming views based on the facts. Evolution (umbrella term, so let us please not argue over the terminology) is one of the few scientific phenomena that I know of where the facts are liable to be modified in order to support it as opposed to the theory being modified so as to accurately describe the facts. P.S:
I feel that this point is disproved with the refutation of point 1 (keywords: "all" "only")