[DittoJed2]

That would take many examples of 2000 year old dinosaur bones (not fossils)
An earlier poster said that dinosaur fossils aren't really necessary to evolutionary theory. There is evidence that dinosaurs are recent (which is what started this post-war), including non-fossilized bones, bones with possible blood cells still in them, and archaeological records which indicate that humans lived with them.

the name of Cain's wife
The Bible doesn't say, so can't help you on that one. She was likely his sister or niece though. I sure would like to know the name of the first human who married a part-ape though!

a newly discovered Dead Sea scroll with an explanation of how all the sauropods fit into an ark that was way too small,
Don't need a Dead Sea Scroll for that. Noah took young (and therefore small)creatures, and he only had to take two. He was 600 years old. He had a few years to develop some wisdom.

wake up in the morning and find all our technology was just a dream
Don't understand how that one relates.

and receive lots of ice cream (my wife bribes me with ice cream, too). ;)
Ice cream bribes are good!

[<1/1,000,000th%]

An earlier poster said that dinosaur fossils aren't really necessary to evolutionary theory. There is evidence that dinosaurs are recent (which is what started this post-war), including non-fossilized bones, bones with possible blood cells still in them, and archaeological records which indicate that humans lived with them.

The unfortunate part of this is that outside of creation/ID websites, the authors of the articles tend not to agree with the interpretation given. The specific references you gave just happen to be articles that are too old to appear on the internet, or in the journal archives. I can't find a reference to them in anything published in the last ten years.

I'll give it a go the next time I can get to a library and see what the story was.

[Junior]

There is evidence that dinosaurs are recent (which is what started this post-war), including non-fossilized bones, bones with possible blood cells still in them, and archaeological records which indicate that humans lived with them.

Links, please. This is one of your more "interesting" assertions; I want to see this evidence. BTW, if you are planning to use the Paluxey River tracks as evidence, be forewarned that nearly all other creationists have abandoned them as untenable. Specifically, I want the information dealing with unfossilized dinosaur bones.

[jennyp]

That would take many examples of 2000 year old dinosaur bones (not fossils)
An earlier poster said that dinosaur fossils aren't really necessary to evolutionary theory. There is evidence that dinosaurs are recent (which is what started this post-war), including non-fossilized bones, bones with possible blood cells still in them, and archaeological records which indicate that humans lived with them.

Yes, I don't think that 2,000 year old dinosaur bones would kill the theory. They'd be extremely surprising in their own right - and would be the find of the century - but they wouldn't do anything to the theory.

What would harm the theory of evolution would be finding 2 billion year old dinosaur bones, or 20 million year old Homo sapiens bones. It's when you find something that's much older than the theory says it must have split off from its "parent" species that threatens to upset the applecart.