10.
An extinction-level event of this magnitude would have destroyed all life on Earth, not just the dinosaurs; this would be evident archaeologically.
Extinction-level events don't destroy all life - extinction is not defined by the ending of life, but the sudden disappearances of species.
There are 5 known major extinctions, where more than 60% of species were suddenly wiped out, but in none of these extinctions did
all life die.
Wikipedia has a nice summary:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#Major_extinction_events
9.
There would not have been enough food or fresh water for plant-based animals this big to have lived
The earth was about 12 degrees hotter in that era (i.e 65 millions years ago).
Have you ever noticed the difference in the size of bugs/pests between tropical and non-tropical areas of the world? In tropical areas, animals can spend energy growing instead of dealing with the elements. Plants also grow much bigger in warmer climates - that's why people build greenhouses, to give plants that warmth, because cellular division in plants requires less energy in a warm climate. Now imagine the whole planet being a tropical jungle - basically a massive greenhouse - and you've got these huge plants with huge insects cross pollinating them like crazy, and then you have enough plant mass to grow big ass creatures.
That's not to say there were no cold areas/seasons, climate models do suggest that snowfall occurred in some regions, but overall the earth was warmer.
Unfortunately, we have no idea how these animals functions physiologically. Without having a living sample, we can't know how these animals processed energy and water on a chemical level. It's possible that dinosaurs were adapted, like modern day desert reptiles, to be extremely water efficient. Perhaps they were also more energy efficient as well - because it was so warm, they didn't need to use energy to maintain body temperature, so they shifted their metabolism to a super-efficient manner of running (in contrast, in the human body, we waste the majority of our energy as body heat - we are extremely inefficient in the use of our energy, but that does mean we deal with environmental cold stress with relative ease). So even if there was not enough plant matter for giant creatures with modern metabolism, it's possible that dinosaurs had a different metabolism that allowed them to grow to a huge size.
Furthermore, we don't know if dinosaur fossils are a representative sample - it's possible that most dinosaurs were a lot smaller, but only the biggest baddest dinosaurs had bones sturdy enough to fossilize. Paleontologist do admit that the fossil record is relatively non-representative, because only an extremely tiny percentage of dinosaurs actually became fossils. So even the scientists admit that the picture we have of dinosaurs is currently still very incomplete. That means that maybe dinosaurs were actually smaller than we suppose.
8.
No one is allowed to question the Dinosaur Orthodoxy without extremely harsh criticism
Sometimes people are criticized for violating social standards or threatening the powers of the elite.
Sometimes people are criticized because they are being silly.
I admit that it can be hard to tell the difference at times.
Let's put emotion aside and discuss dinosaurs without putting our egos into it. Let criticism be met with counter-argument, not with empassioned victimhood.
I am open to believing dinosaurs are fake, given enough reasonable evidence.
I don't believe science has hard, definitive answers to anything in life. It only gives reasoned guesses, at best. So I don't see the need to be dogmatic, but I also don't see the need to accept any counter-argument that comes along that cannot withstand critique.
7.
Dinosaurs were too big to have existed with the confines of the laws of physics
We don't know how dinosaur metabolism worked so we can't say how they transformed energy into power. We also don't know what their soft tissue composition was really like.
It's possible that they had absolutely no fat, making them extremely lightweight. Considering that the earth was mostly a giant tropical jungle at that point, it would make sense not to have any fat stores, because food was plentiful, so fat energy was not required, and insulation was not needed, so heat trapping by fat was not required.
Another possibility is that their bodies consisted mostly of air sacs, making them extremely light despite their large size. This article discusses that possibility:
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic...t-ancient-gravity-made-sauropods-super-sized/
6.
Lack of perpetual fossil evidence - everyone should be finding these bones in their backyards
Fossilization is an extremely rare event. It's just that so many animals have died over millions of years that we have managed to inherit some fossils into our modern age. Fossilization is basically like winning the lottery, which makes finding one in your backyard also like winning the lottery - it happens, but not to everyone.
Here is a story of a guy who discovered a fossil while hiking near his home:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-whale-fossil-rescued-20140801-story.html
5.
Radiocarbon dating, also known as Carbon-14 Dating, cannot date back longer than 40,000 years
That's why uranium and potassium dating is used.
Admittedly, dinosaur bones don't usually contain uranium or potassium. Rocks do, though.
So the age of the dinosaur bones is usually guessed from the surrounding rock the bones are found in.
4.
Dinosaurs did not exist in mythology in any culture before the 1800s
Debatable. Large monstrous creatures exist in every mythology. Where did the inspiration for these stories come from?
3.
A full skeleton or a dinosaur has never been found - not even close to one
Depends on what you define as 'close'.
This skeleton is about 98% complete:
I don't see why the lack of 2% should cancel out the existence of the 98% - evidence of an absent 2% does not mean there is an absence of evidence of dinosaurs.
2.
There is more evidence for the presupposition of dinosaurs than the other way around
I don't understand what this means. I'm guessing it means that there is evidence that people uncritically accept the existence of dinosaurs?
I can't really critique this without a detailed list of the so-called 'evidence'.
1.
Even an extinction-level event would not have destroyed the dinosaurs who lived in the deep-ocean
Why not? It's weird that argument 10 claims all life must be destroyed, while argument 1 claims that some life must survive.
We don't know why the dinosaurs died out, so we don't know if the dinosaurs in the ocean would have survived the extinction-triggering event/s. Presumably, ocean-going dinosaurs had similar physiological features to their land-going cousins and the same environmental stressor may have affected them both.
Also, the deep ocean is filled with fish. Since dinosaurs were much younger than fish, it would have been an uphill battle to find an ecological niche in the deep ocean. Dinosaurs were presumably much fewer in the deep ocean to begin with and may not have been well adapted to survive in the long run anyway.
Furthermore, the deep ocean has not yet been fully explored and for all we know, dinosaurs are still down there.
