.
>> “I don’t understand why people/scientists would not have been interested in mammoth bones that still had skin on it.” <<
Because they have no desire to expose the fraud of their “old Earth” scam.
Most of the dinos were still thriving 1000 years ago, although not able to grow as large as the pre-flood dinos did due to our oxygen starved atmosphere.
What do you think all the mideval writings about “dragons” are about?
.
1,000 years? So Jesus could have ridden a T Rex?
That’s a funny idea.
The worms of the middle ages were large eels, which is why they're found and killed in rivers. In Ireland they're known as "horse eels" and in the 20th century still got seen once in a while (in the 1970s, one died because it got caught in a sluice gate on a canal). It is an eel species that gave rise to the Loch Ness sightings.
Dinosaurs, by contrast, have been extinct for 65 million years.
I think that the medieval writing on dragons was probably based on information from China where dragons were prominent in art. They no doubt had found many skeletons of monster animals which they called dragons, but which were in fact dinosaurs. There are large numbers of such skeletons in the Gobi desert. Where on earth were these dinos thriving 1000 years ago and where are their mini skeletons found????
As to skin being on mammoth bones that were more than 10,000 years old, that was certainly possible if they were in a desiccating sand dune environment. Mummies/bodies buried in Egyptian sands as much as 7,000 years ago still have skin.
