Ha!  Dude, this is totally a great thread to start a discussion.

Many people are completely closed to the idea of Creationism due to formal education and the Theory of Evolution.  It is seldom that I hear people actually use passages in scripture to use as almost an historical record in regards to biological evolution, but Bravo!  This is a very interesting topic to ponder and post about. 

I'm not necessarily saying that I think this is fact, but discussing the possibility of this as reality is very interesting.  No one ever (in an academic setting, anyway) even considers that Creationism is a theory that could hold scientific merit.  In the same way that evolution has some theories with scientific merit, and many unsubstantiated presumptions...I think that the same or very similar could be said of using creationism to explain the world. 

I love that you brought up dragons, and aside from the bible, the dragon has been a symbol since ancient times.  They are peculiarly similar to dinosaurs, aren't they?  I don't think we ought to look for winged carnivores for proof, though.  I think that perhaps artists were told stories of other people's encounters, and the images we have all seen are simply composites of various descriptions (this is, of course, on the basis that the Bible can be used as a reliable historic record.)  Imagine hearing of a pterodactyl and an alligator.  There is some evidence written here in the Bible, but of course, many holes and not able to be proven as fact.  As far as the depth of fossilized remains and carbon dating....now I'm not a historian, anthropologist, philanthropist, forensic scientist, archaeologist or whoever else might be an expert on the subject-but as I understand it, Carbon is the basis for life in this planet.  It has four valence electrons which very easily bond to Oxygen and Hydrogen atoms to create polar molecules.  These polar molecules enable the flow of electricity through molecular matter, enabling electrochemical energy and thus, life.  I can only suppose that Carbon dating is based upon an algorithm, or exponential function (presumably similar to Newton's Law of Cooling) of how readily and to what extent all of the molecules present in a sample have bonded with other elements.  I think that this, too, could be subject to error and render it a theory as opposed to fact...

With regards to the depth beneath the soil, the dinosaurs were presumed to be killed off by a meteor hitting the Earth, disrupting weather patterns, killing by impact and...fallout.  Lots and lots of fallout.  Is it possible that scientists are given an average depth to expect to be yay deep as a rate or constant given normal levels of erosion and accumulation and that an event like a meteor strike may very well throw enough fallout into the atmosphere to render the figures used inaccurate?  And as for Carbon dating...if my assertions are true about how the science works, then I have to bring up that within systems of reactants, there is energy and pressure.  In some reactions, like bonding, pressure can greatly affect rates of reaction between the reagents-and in the universal fact that energy may only be transferred and never lost or destroyed...this means that it would affect rates of reaction-rendering rates used in determining age based off of the before mentioned technology inaccurate as well.

I'm not asserting that this is fact, and if anyone else knows more specific or accurate information about how things like carbon dating are calculated-I'd love to know.  I'm just using some scientific reasoning to dispute the other theory if we're to use the Bible and ancient cultural texts as historically accurate texts.