You expect me to seriously believe that there aren’t archaeologists out there who wouldn’t destroy any evidence like that if they found it? Not buying it.
Realistically, would you expect human and dinosaur bones to be co-mingled if they lived at the same time? Sure, they decide to build their little village right in the midst of a clutch of dinosaurs. That makes sense. /s
One has to wonder why an organization that can spare 27 million dollars to build a museum could spare a few dollars for field research.
Besides, the discovery that strata can be reliably identified by their fossils was made by a businessman, not a scientist, and before Darwin was born.
You seem to know very little about science and scientists, and what they are finding.
How many bone discoveries hit the newspapers before they are investigated by scientists? Quite a few, actually. Look at the famous Manis mastodon site in Washington. The first thing archaeologists knew about that one was a picture in a newspaper. Happens all the time.
This makes a complete shambles of your claim that archaeologists are destroying the evidence. A huge number of archaeological sites are discovered by bulldozers during construction, and any dinosaur or other huge bones would be common knowledge statewide or nationwide within a day.
Ever think about what dinosaur bones would look like if they were truly about 4350 - 6000 years old? They would be all over the place! And huge! And all you would have to do to find them would be to go look in 4350 year old dirt! And that is as common as, well, dirt.
Realistically, would you expect human and dinosaur bones to be co-mingled if they lived at the same time? Sure, they decide to build their little village right in the midst of a clutch of dinosaurs. That makes sense. /s
Even for large dinosaurs, some parts would be easy to hack off and drag back to the residential bases or hunting sites. Look at the number of elk and other large animal bones in archaeological sites. But for very large animals, such as buffalo, mammoth and mastodon, the campsites move to the kill sites, and butchering is done in place. This leaves a lot of very obvious evidence behind.
Your problem is that you are arguing from an overriding disbelief in evolution and evolutionary sciences, and you are willing to take the silliest assumptions and the flimsiest data as accurate when they support your beliefs. And you are eager to discount solid, well-supported science because of your a priori beliefs.
The real world doesn't work that way. Nor does science.
Exactly, they have been shown to fabricate evidence they find attractive, therefore they are equally capable of destroying or throwing away evidence they dislike.
Dating schemes come to mind for one thing.