>>If for whatever reasons you choose not to believe that particular paper, there are many others with evidence that support the story. The evidence comes from archeologists, geologists and other scientific types from various parts of the world. They all tell essentially the same story; would you believe any of them?<<
I am not aware of a major credentialed archaeological group whose position is that there was a world wide flood and that dinosaur bones are recent enough for dinosaurs to have coexisted with man. In fact, I’m pretty sure about that.
Early creationist geologists gave up on the flood for lack of evidence. The last holdout was about 1831.
Archaeology likewise has not found any evidence for a global flood at the appointed time, about 4350 years ago.
Such a flood would obviously have left world-wide evidence, yet archaeologists and sedimentologists can't find it. Nor can the life science folks. All we see are continuities across that time period. Continuities of fauna and flora, human civilizations, genetic indicators--you name it.
Well, if you choose to stay with the PC safe peer-reviewed articles to be found in the elite scientific journals -- don't hold your breath. For whatever reasons, they have chosen to ignore the evidence which points to catastrophic changes on our little blue planet. Particularly events occurring during human history. After all, early Man is no longer around to confirm his "myths".
...and that dinosaur bones are recent enough for dinosaurs to have coexisted with man. In fact, I’m pretty sure about that.
Mastodons and wooly mammoths and their contempories aren't, and weren't, dinosaurs.
Some ADDITIONAL READING.
FWIW, the University of New Mexico has preserved Frank Hibbens work in the Alaska muck. I think you have to order it. Or you can believe the excerpts you read from the web...