evolution and the extinction of dinos

Its been a great gain for YEC creationism to have the impact thing arive to explain the great fauna/flora change in the world suddenly.
this creationist sees the k-t line as the flood line.
so what did for us is to demonstrate a instant die off and a dramatic and different recovery in a point in history.
We simply say this was the biblical flood.
A great die off and different recovery in fauna/flora.
The impact is simply misunderstood as to when it happened.

We're not liars.
The fauna below the k-t line or as this creationist sees it the flood line is exactly what one should expect to find.
The earth before the flood was different then later.
first the bible says there was a ratio of clean/unclean taken on the ark. Unless this was the ratio at the time then its expected the fauna ratio after the flood would be different then before.
the fossil record shows this as so.
Then it must be remembered that it was only post flood diversity that brought the modern type of creatures as is. before the flood there was no rabbits but simply the rabbit was of a kind that isn't recognized or found in the record. And so on.

I don't know if the iridium is that widespread. in fact it demands a layer over top of rocks created after it was laid. this alone limits how common it is.
Options could be, for those areas with it, of sorting as a last act from the flood year which would include the remains of massive volcanoism.
Another option is that it was part of incoming of the over top layer. I mean volcano action being a great part of the formation or at least stirring about during the rock strata being created in episodes some centuries after the flood.
Iridium is uncommon in normal processes but not big upheaval ones as creationism models would talk about.

its well known creationism doesn't accept these dates. So no error from here.

Is it common in asteroids/ how many of these are a accurate sample?
Anything of mineral nature can be created by great forces. the flood models provide this. in fact i understand they now accept diamonds, under microscope, were created by great forces and no time is needed.
I explained in another post options for iridium as from sorting of volcanic outpourings during the last stages of the flood or as part of the origin of the upper layer laid after the flood.the impact crator is just one of many.

No. The only way to have fossilization is from great mechanisms.
So by the time of the great post flood fossilization event the dinos had vanished. unless some simply adapted a bit and were the later creatures but not recognized. this is another option.
I see the dinos and others as part of the unclean group and since the ark was a ratio of surviving clean/unclean 12:2 then it fits nicely to see the complete post flood overthrow of the old unclean dominance before the flood.
There are no actual dino creature group. there are just kinds. simply like mammals or reptiles kinds tend to have like features for like needs. So there were the kinds that today they call dinos on the ark.

Yes all creatures on the dry land were taken. The clean by seven pairs and the unclean by one pair. After the flood one of the pair of the clean were sacrificed.
So the world was populated by the six clean and one unclean.
A line of reasoning.
Did this ratio represent the pre-flood world.
Was the pre-flood world dominated by the clean animals or was it 50/50 or was it the opposite with a unclean domination.
In fact this question could of been asked at any time in history.
Therefore only the chance to examine the pre-flood world could answer this question.
We can do that today.
The fossil record shows from the flood, as we see it, that the pre-flood world was a unclean dominance. It included the dinos in this.
After the flood it became a clean dominance.
I'm presuming "mammals' are largely clean.
In fact the reason for the ratio can be speculated to have included at least a design to make the post flood world very different in fauna.
After the flood the unclean kinds didn't survive ,largely, on land or sea.
Every fits fine with biblical creationist models.

The evidence is clear that creatures have changed from original looks.
To us the original look was a kind.
Yet at the fall the kinds changed greatly. The example in the bible is the snake. It lost its legs and probably was a tall beautiful creature.After the fall and the flood creatures can change to some extent but i guess would be recognizable if one knew the original look.
For example i'm confident bats are only post flood rodent creatures that found a empty sky. They have wings but still look like rodents.
I say seals are just bears. They look alike somewhat but there is a difference.
Diversity is fine and welcome as long as it stays within kinds.
Its possible one would not recognize anything in the world before the FALL however.

The research on boundaries would be a lot.
Yet I introduce that the concept of kind can be liberal and like morphology a very good guide.
It needs to be that kinds are more inclusive and so wolves, bears, seals, marsupial wolves, bears, are easily to be seen as the same kind. It could have more creatures from the fossil record and otherwise.
Flexibility. As another poster said kinds are not defined so one can fit lots in.

Nothing to do with kosher.
The fossil record simply indicates the creatures living at the time that area with its sediment/life within was fossilized.
The areas that have fossils need only be seen as special segments of the world at that time. so just the wilderness areas and not close to humans. likewise the humans lived in areas overcome and changed by the sediment loads or separation of the continents.
I never expect or want to find humans living with these great assemblages of creatures. Dino fossils are from the wilderness areas on the old earth.
For the record i don't accept there are dinos. Rather there are just kinds and some kinds had like features. they just define the creatures by the few like features. Just as their are no such groups as mammals or reptiles.