I know where you are coming from because I've read the same arguments.
kgov.com
I choose not to believe in dinosaurs because of what is said in my second link, too much for me to write out here.
I'll address the points in the order presented:
10: Argument does not apply to the Hydroplate theory, which is the theory I hold to, which allows for the existence of dinosaurs. The flood is what killed all life on earth (except that which is specified by the Bible, and those on the Ark),
9: Argument does not apply to the HPT. God created a lush world for His creation to live in, thus there would have been plenty of food for ALL creatures, including dinosaurs.
8: This one I kind of get, but the evidence (bones, soft tissue, fossils, etc.) says they do exist. So far, you (Ktoyou) haven't really presented any convincing evidence that they did not.
7: This one has a valid point..... for very large dinosaurs. But as I mentioned in my previous post, the average size of a dinosaur was about the size of a sheep, well within the weight restrictions. Creatures like Behemoth, on the other hand, are described as being very large, with "strength in his hips" and "power in his stomach muscles," a "tail like a cedar" and the "sinews in his thighs are tightly knit," "bones like beams of bronze" and "ribs like bars of iron."
6: Does not apply to the Hydroplate theory, or at all, really. Most of the fossils we have today of ancient creatures were formed in the flood, not by creatures being buried over thousands or millions of years. Have you seen how quickly roadkill decays? Yeah, don't expect dead creatures to last more than a few years at most, let alone millions...
5: This is an argument IN FAVOR of the HPT, and against naturalistic theories. In fact, there is C-14 found in many fossils. Here's more on C-14 being
everywhere it shouldn't be.
4: Again, I point to Job 40 and 41. But either way, So what? Also, the author of the article is making an argument from silence here, in addition to a false dichotomy. Just because we don't find any reference to dinosaurs in mythology doesn't mean that such references NEVER existed, let alone that the creatures themselves never existed, and who knows, maybe the last of the dinosaurs died out shortly after the flood (perhaps around Job's lifetime), long before they could have become well known enough to have myths and legends created about them.
3: Simply false. There are plenty of full or mostly complete skeletons of dinosaurs that have been discovered, most which are discovered in the ground as if they had been buried there after having their flesh and organs removed. (NOTE: I'm NOT saying that they were buried there by human hands recently, but simply emphasizing that such skeletons are usually found as a set in the shape of the creature they belonged to. The fact that they WERE buried there is a result of the Flood, not man's hands.)
2: I'd like to see the evidence he has for some of the things he says here. Until such evidence is presented, there's nothing to say.
1: Does not apply to the Hydroplate theory.
I think most of the big animals in the ark were babies. But none were dinosaurs because they never existed until imagined by evolutionists.
Because you say so?