Summations Only

After breaking. Such as? Why? Fantasixing is the ,more appropriate word.

What jumble of bones where?A plausible scenario is better than your impossible scenarios. If it had happened, it would have.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

And not a single animal that the mainstream says existed only before or after 66-69 million years ago. Why? Yes. Why not normal deaths?

[qs][qs] Three miles horizontally. Not a lot .It has extrtemely high tides trapped. Which has nothing to do with wavelength. Irrelevant ad hominem noted. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

That's not an answer to my question.Note that many different animals live in the same environments today and no doubt did then. Note that there are hundreds of thousands of animal found in the fossil record that are not found in the Lance formation. Was that a gated community of only dinosaurs?

Really? Show us. And exclude all other animals? So they did live in a dinosaurs-only gated community. Got it.

There was no "triceratops that has flesh on it." There was a triceratops in which some soft tissue cells were found in the bone matrix after removing the matrix with acid.Please point out the "definitely elastic flesh" in photos 5-6: I have a hard time seeing it.Unlikely, maybe, but not impossible.

Your opinions do not affect reality.I do admit you are an expert on believing impossible things.

Not so much observations but the wild and unsupported claims you make about them. E.g. the many things you see that you claim are impossible in the mainstream scenario

The ordering of the fossil record is a demonstrable and demonstrated observation.You are not justified to ignore it just because it so obviously falsifies your fantasy.

Your ignorance and prejudices do not affect reality. I would challenge you but you never respond to such challenges with anything more than unsupported assertions such as the one above.

So you admit there is an order, you have no explanation of it, and you think the mainstream explanation is stupid.Reality isn't affected.

She does not and cannot comprehend how radiometric methods differ in their principles but not in their results.

Wrong. You have no clue about the wide range of independent dating methods that destroy your fantasy.First, "radiometric dating" does not mean a dating method. It refers to a wide variety of inpendent methods based on different and independent processes so fundamental to the operation of the Universe that any change in them would have gigantic Univrese-wide effects. The near-perfect agreement between these different and independent methods (your pathetic attempts to claim otherwise notwithstanding) is solid evidence of their accuracy to anyone who knows enough to evaluate it.In non-radiometric methods, thermoluminescence dating goes to 500,000 years. Various effects of cyclic astronomical processes such as Milankovitch cycles easily extend to 25-50 million years with progress on extending that continuing. Heliosesmology (sun quakes) go back to the origin of the a Solar system and yield an age of 4,570,000,000 years. Lake varves easily go back to 90,000 years (lake Suigetsu). Ice cores go to 160,000 years. Coral, stalactite, stalagmite growth rings. The list goes on and on.

A wide-ranging and consistent collection of thousands of dates covering from 10 years to billions of years.Your ignorance does not affect reality.