I'll answer that but first a question of my own. If I give or mention some proof, some scientific theory, or fossil evidence, for this or any other topic, would you look into it? Or are you so secure in your own theology that you wouldn't want to rock the boat? I will promise I don't mind.rocking my boat I will look into anything you all mention. there are rock carvings made of people interacting with dinos. Also, there is one fossil of a human foot print alongside those of a dino... both thought to bet he same age, of course. do you know that one thing that must happen to create a fossil is berial? It must be quick too. This is rather interesting. Dead reptiles sink while dead mammals float. What about the dino bone found with soft tissue still intact? Young earth is a scientific theory. It's based on the same science that carbon dating is based on. elements that decay or increase at a rate we can measure. I guess you would be surprised to learn there are quite a few scientists who are also Christian. So if you are so sure please rock your boat. It's funny you would accuse me of being narrow minded yet not look into what I present. thus showing you are not truly interested in all knowledge.
I don't mind at all discussing your side of the story. Do be prepared for me to bring up fraud if fraud is involved, bad science if bad science is involved. For instance, I assume the man track/dinosaur track you're talking about refers to the Paluxy River tracks in Texas. A fairly balanced critique of the findings can be found here: http://ncse.com/cej/2/4/paluxy-man-creationist-piltdown
You are free, of course, to side with the possibility that they are real. Most creationists have come to the conclusion that they are not, and of course scientists have concluded that they are not real too. I feel that there is adequate evidence to support the conclusion that they are eroded dinosaur tracks, not human tracks. Their size alone would seem to minimize the possibility that they were human, except you guys have a giant in the bible, and you can use that to point out that of course giants would have larger feet. In any case, one piece of questionable evidence is not adequate to get me to change my mind.
The 8th-14th century Cambodian temple stegosaur is a bit mysterious. But it was carved somewhere around a thousand years ago, long after any flood, so if all the dinosaurs died during the flood, how would one representation of those critters show up 2000 years later? It is one carving, in one place, at the wrong time, and is more likely something fanciful than something real. But to be fair, I will call it one possible bit of evidence that dinosaurs lived longer than scientists think. That would not automatically mean that the earth is only 6,000 years old. It could mean that one species survived millions of years longer than anyone suspected. One carved rock, while possibly interesting, proves nothing concrete. It only means that there is a possibility that we should be more open to dinosaurs living longer than we thought.
The big problem, from the scientific point of view, is that the stegosaurus was one of the oldest dinosaurs, and the only place we've ever found their fossils is in North America. Science says they died out 150 million years ago. A stone carving from a thousand years ago implies that they existed elsewhere during that time period. If the flood was supposed to kill off all the dinosaurs and one type survived, you have as much explaining to do was us.
I'm not quite sure where you got the humans float/dinosaurs sink idea. Not all humans float, water temperature plays a role, and not all dinosaurs were big hunking monsters. Many were dog sized. Seems like they would float. But show me something that convincingly explains why they floated and we didn't and I'll listen. And if you have an explanation as to why all the dinosaurs are always buried in the same order (science says that the stegosaurus lived 150 million years ago, the T. Rex lived 66 million years ago, and you never find a T. Rex buried deeper than a Stegosaurus, for instance), that would be nice.
You should know that a scientist can walk into a newly found fossil field, estimate the date of the rock, and accurately, before the digging starts, tell us what kinds of dinosaurs they will find. They can say with certainty that they will or will not find T. Rex fossils in the rock because of its age. And they have yet to surprise themselves and be wrong.
If your creation scientists can simply go out and find a stegosaurus and t.rex fossil side by side, you win. Have your guys get on it.
The soft tissue thing has been explained to the satisfation of many scientists. There was a controversy even among scientists about whether or not it was real. They have now found that the high iron content of blood cells appears to ward off degradation. This may or may not be the last word on the subject, but it is being accepted as plausible in the scientific world, and since that's the side I'm on, I'll live with it for now.http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/5107/20131127/iron-preserves-ancient-dinosaur-soft-tissue-fossils.htm
The big problem you have is that we have literally billions of fossils to study, and we find them in specific orders. And we do not find any modern mammals mixed in with the dinosaurs either. So I'm guessing that all mammals float, all dinosaurs sink. (Added: We do find mammals fossilized along side dinosaurs. But they are old, long extinct mammals, not the newbies you insist were on the ark.)
And I guess we should ignore the fact that birds are actually dinosaurs, further evolved. Not all the dinosaurs died off when the asteroid hit. Some were evolving into birds during that time period, and those little chickadees in your back yard are, indeed, tiny little dinosaurs. You could test one by putting in the water and seeing if it sank (just kidding)
Anyway, the world of science has found billions of pieces of evidence that point to an old earth. Not only via dinosaurs and plant fossils, but there is also evidence in geology, chemistry, the study of continental drift, plus other sources in biology, along with, for more recent times, the addition of anthropology/archaeology. And of course, the findings of historians who study the oldest times that they can study. None of those researchers can find anything that even hints at a world-wide flood.
Consider these bits of evidence.
Aspen trees grow at a known rate. Aspens, more often than not, grow out of the same root system, and any given clump of aspen trees is likely to be genetically identical (meaning all the trees are coming from the same seed via their vast underground root system). And it has been found that, while the trees themselves live a relatively short time (less than 200 years), there is a colony of aspen that covers 106 acres, and every tree in that colony is genetically identical. Meaning they all came from the same seed. How long ago? Based on what we know about the growth rate of aspen, it is estimated that that colony is 80,000 years old. Which, if I remember right, predates your flood.
Researchers have been drilling ice cores out of the snow fields in Greenland for many years. The can easily see the annual layers in the cores because the top of the now melts in the summer and the summer snow also gets a layer of pollen blown over the ocean from Canada. And these layers pile up, one atop the other, for years and years and years (and they also occasionally find ash from volcanic eruptions, which is cool). How many layers have they found in one deep ice core? At least 110,000 years. But don't worry too much about them. You'll need to be more concerned about the ice corps drilled out in Antarctica, which go back 750,000 years.
One of the layers of volcanic ash they found clearly comes from a volcano that was estimated to have blown its top 57,500 years ago. Where was the ash? Right where it was supposed to be, 57,500 layers deep. (Note: at that depth, the layers are so thin it is impossible to count each one with exact precision, so the exact year is not possible to discern. But the source of the ash was provable, and scientists are comfortable with their date estimates both for the ice core and the actual date of the eruption, which had already been calculated using other means years earlier.)
I know your side feels otherwise on these and other related subjects. And I'm sure you have more evidence to present. If you want to continue this discussion, we should probably start a new thread, because we're drifting off the subject of this one. If you want to do that, let me know.
We are most likely going still going to disagree when the discussion ends, but if we both put forth our various reasons for what we believe or think is true, at least we will understand each other a bit better. And who knows, maybe one of us will be more persuasive than the other and someone will change their mind.