This is your field of expertise?
Do you have a reference for "current understanding of collagen rate of decay"?
"in bones, hydrolysis [breakdown] of the main protein component, collagen, is even more rapid and little intact collagen remains after only 1-3x104 [10,000 to 30,000] years, except in bones in cool or dry depositional environmnents."
With a lifespan of 30,000 or so years, collagen should not exist in a 68-million-year-old sample. To get around this, some evolutionary scientists challenge the measured molecular decay rates. "Schweitzer's work is 'showing us we really don't understand decay,'" paleontologist Thomas Holtz said in Smithsonian magazine.2 But even allowing 100,000 years for collagen longevity, perhaps due to superior preservation, this is still only 1/680th of B. rex's assumed age.
Dinosaur Soft Tissue: Biofilm or Blood Vessels?
There should be NO collagen there according to current understanding of collagen rate of decay.
They've also found supposedly millions of years old DNA.
Researchers have uncovered biological molecules like proteins, DNA, and pigments from rocks that are supposedly millions of years old. Laboratory studies on many of these materials indicate that they will only survive thousands, not millions, of years.
DNA is particularly prone to decay, yet ancient fossil "plants, bacteria, mammals, Neanderthals, and other archaic humans have had short aDNA sequences identified."2 Such remnant DNA should not be able to last more than 10,000 years.3 Just as finding the phrase "cell phone" in a reputedly ancient stone inscription would immediately identify it as a fraud, finding a ribosomal gene in bacteria supposedly 250 million years old causes deep suspicion of its assigned age.4
Fossilized Biomaterials Must Be Young
There's a number of other articles along these lines at the ICR website.
In the sense that understanding what I read and describing it accurately is my field of expertise, yes.
I admire your chutzpah in citing Brian Thomas, MS articles to argue against my contention that Brian Thomas, MS is a deceitful writer. "He's not lying--see, he says so himself!" Oh well, Brian cites his own articles in his references all the time, I guess you might as well too.
It's also amusing that you cite an excerpt with a scientist saying "we really don't understand decay" in support of your assertion about the "current understanding of collagen rate of decay."
I can't follow Brian's references in the second excerpt because they're behind paywalls. I've followed many of them before, though, and I've usually found that he's misrepresented their content. You'd be better off not accepting his representations at face value.
There's a number of other articles along these lines at the ICR website.
Oh, I know. Blyin' and I go way back.