No, there was clams and mammal fossils there. " Sedimentary evidence indicating bone transport means that we see the dinosaur burial site today, not the “park” in which they lived. Mammals are not depicted in “The Age of Reptiles” icon, but mammal fossils are well represented in the Morrison Formation at DNM.7 "
"And what did you think of the time frame of the catastrophe?"
I didn't see where it concluded a time frame, I was dissappointed that the article did not provide specific evidence for a short time frame. It did say this though. "Finally, the age for the deposit has been “adjusted” so many times over the last 80 years that there is little reason for confidence that the currently accepted age is the correct one.8 "
Now, what was your point?
That a global flood fits better with the evidence than localized river flooding. And that the so-called scientific community are often grossly wrong in their assumptions and conclusions because their world view / religion influences their science.
Strange about all that emphasis on clams, eh?
And, mammals, eh? Funny how they didn't point any out. Would these "mammal fossils" be full grown elephants, modern gorillas, or some already known shrew-like proto-mammals from 65-million+ years ago?
I didn't see where it concluded a time frame,
Ditto, except for the well defined term Jurassic.
And the adjustment of the estimated age? Was that adjusting from 79 to 80 million years ago or 65 million to 6 thousand? Not the 6,000, eh? Didn't think so.
That a global flood fits better with the evidence than localized river flooding.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh, you make me laugh so much.
At least the authors weren't foolish enough to stick their necks out and mention a "flood", global or otherwise.