So, let me get this straight. It was preposterous to conclude that the dinosaurs became extinct because they were denied a ride on the ark, but it is not preposterous to conclude that they therefore must have been on the ark? It is also equally preposterous to conclude that the story was allegorical and that the fossil evidence that demonstrates that a pair of dinosaurs, that represent the size and variety of all dinosaurs that ever lived would have swamped a hundred arks?
First, have you read the dimensions of the ark? It was as tall as a three story building, over 400 feet long.
Second, the young dinosaurs (ones needed for reproduction after the flood) wouldn’t have been the largest dinosaurs.
Third, not every dinosaur that was ever found fossilized would have needed two representatives on the ark. Only each kind of dinosaur. I believe we have had the discussion of kinds before.
From what I have read, there were possibly about 55 different kinds of dinosaurs. Lots of dinosaurs that are of the same kind and possibly even the same species are named differently (example ceratopsian dinosaurs would have only needed two dinosaurs representatives).
Mistakes can be made when naming a new dinosaur. (think brontosaurus).
IOW, not as many dinosaurs needed to be taken on the ark as you think and the ones that did need to be taken on would need to be young (smaller) and fertile. Also, not all dinosaurs were gigantic, some were small like sheep and even chickens.
It is preposterous to me to think that they were denied a ride because God commanded Noah to take ALL the land dwelling animals.
Also thanks for the civil discourse without insults. I have always enjoyed talking to you. I realize that you think my ideas are nuts but I don’t believe you have ever treated me like a nut. :)