I don't remember quoting ken ham, bill.mind you, sounds good to me.
dinos were on the ark.
dinos grow progressively larger, so it would have been juveniles taken on board.
the ark measured 450 ft long and had plenty of room for all the original kinds of the creatures aboard.
the recent discoveries relating to dinosaurs strongly suggest a younger age for them.
previous to these discoveries no-one expected soft tissue and blood residue etc to survive 68 million yrs.
but ,of course ,they now know it can, because evolutionism is true [deliberate irony!]
I call that drastic scientific revision.i know that we been here before but I don't recall getting an admission yet that this is what is transpiring.
as you so often do bill,you assert generalizations, ie reel off various disciplines as unquestionably proving the long age,evolutionary pathway, when it is that very paradigm that is under question.i would say that was begging the question, though I suspect it may not technically be ,as that's your area of expertise.