These arm-chair, ad hoc refutations will not do. Three pieces of evidence
contradict this first point. First, the dinosaurs did not use just any old
hollow in the ground, but excavated their own with great care, even lining
them with vegetation. Second, the eggs were laid in careful spiral patterns
in upright positions, not simply dumped as if in a hurry. Third, many of
these nests contained fossils of young dinosaurs that had hatched, but were
not yet developed enough to leave the nest. This indicates that the babies
had to be cared for. Together these three pieces of evidence demonstrate a
level of patience and care that indicates the nest sites were being used to
hatch and rear young dinosaurs year after year, possibly for generations.
They were not simply dumping grounds for desperate females trying to escape
a flood.
>...that the nest sites were water-laid....
>
Some nest sites are located on top of water-born sediments, but others are
not. Besides, the evidence indicates that at the time they were being used
the sites were dry, even arid, not muddy or marshy or boggy.
>
>...indicating inundation of the areas....
>
To my knowledge, no (or at least very few) nest sites were covered by
water-born sediments; virtually all were covered by volcanic or wind-born
sediments.
>
>...and that the multiple layers show repeated inundations.
>
To my knowledge any multiple layers within the sites (not above or below
them in the strata, but at the same stratigraphic level as the sites) simply
represent generations of continuous use, coupled with occasional volcanic or
wind-storm disasters.
Sorry, but nesting sites are more evidence that the global flood as you
envision it is impossible.
Kevin L. O'Brien