Here are the reasons why young Earth creation science is wrong:
- In order to conclude with the level of certainty that young Earth creationist have that this dinosaur was killed in the great flood one would need to prove that all such dinosaurs were killed in a flood right at the same time.
- ' ' they would also need to explain why a flood would have killed many aquatic animals such as the plesiosaur and icthyosaur among others. They lived in an ocean and could likely tolerate immersion in Fresh water too. Why would that harm them?
- ' ' they need to show proof that all the other animals including other human like hominids, and amphibians right back to tiktaalik were all also killed in a flood at about the same time as that dinosaur.
- ' ' they need to explain why all the other signs of actual past mass extinctions did not kill off these life forms. In particular find a non-avian dinosaur in a higher stratum than the K-Pg boundary layer. Better still find a Pelycosaur....a "mammal like reptile" such as dimetrodon living at the same time as humans.
The bottom line is that for something to be called science it has to have at least a hypothesis which can be tested by experiment and observation. That hypothesis has to then stand up to observational and experimental test. That hypothesis must predict future observations which can be tested. Then once tested the hypothesis matches nature.
The simple fact that we never see dinosaurs, homo habilii, Icthyosaurs, horses, dogs, birds, Pakicetus Natans, dolphins, and modern humans in the same geological layers shows that the hypothesis of young Earth creationism does not match observation! The hypothesis is falsified by observation in a way that is not open to interpretations at all.
Even consider what the bible says, if that's all one will believe.
2 Peter chapter 3 verses 8-9:
with the lord one day is as 1000 years and 1000 years are as a day.While that does not directly address creation's days... Peter certainly knew the Tora as did his audience. They would have seen the reference to days as a reference to creation and the ultimate power of God.
Then there are interesting approaches like computing the age of the universe in the frame of reference of the big bang/whole universe. When this is done, according to Danniel Shcroeder PhD PhD (That's not a typo he has two from MIT both in branches of physics) there is no conflict between a universe of about six days old and one of about 12-15 billion years old. I have not personally checked his math, being a double PhD does not make him infallible, but it is a very interesting perspective. One wonders why creationist don't embrace such a thing?
My personal beliefs:
Personally I believe there is a God, that God at most set up the laws of physics, and that God is observing our universe but not intervening. I think that an afterlife exist, in the sense that some real physical consciousness survives the bag of meat and bones we call a body. We discard this body just as we once discarded the placenta, and enter a new stage of being; Closer to God. How close... depends on how we act. I'm sure God does not want to hang out with jerks for eternity. I believe that there is no God but the one God.
I would never call it science or state that anything could ever prove or disprove such a belief system. Science is not designed to address that.
TLDR: I am not an atheist, and even I think what young Earth creationist are claiming about that skeleton is wrong.