Replies

Here's scientific evidence that the soft tissue is indeed dinosaur tissue: Molecular Analysis Supports Controversial Claim for Dinosaur Cells - “Here’s the data in support of a biofilm origin,” Schweitzer said in her presentation as she showed a blank slide. “We haven’t found any yet.”

No evidence supports the argument that the tissue is not dinosaur tissue. Do you care? Or will you in your wisdom reject anything that challenges your preconceived guesses based on nothing but your own personal disbelief?

Here's scientific evidence that the soft tissue is indeed dinosaur tissue: Molecular Analysis Supports Controversial Claim for Dinosaur Cells

You're aware that the evidence you cite is based on evolutionary theory, right?

I can't speak for stormer, but for me, I find it a lot easier to believe that, under the right conditions, fragmentary bits of soft tissue can be preserved inside fossilized bones for 70 million years than that the methods of determining the ages of rocks and fossils developed over the past 200 years are millions of years off. The latter is like claiming the heliocentric theory is right after all; the former is like finding an asteroid that orbits the earth rather than the sun. They're not equivalent challenges.