see #1002
Yes, that was a good point. It actually makes it seem more likely that at least a few more instances of dino tissue will be found eventually. I mean, they've found neanderthals who were so well preserved that they were able to extract some DNA sequences from them, and DNA is much less stable over time than the collagen they found in the T. rex.
I guess I'm just amused by this basic assumption on the part of the YEC's here that soft tissue not being able to be preserved is some sort of metaphysical certainty - even while they blissfully handwave away all the interlocking evidence - I'm thinking radiometric dating mostly - that says the T. rex is indeed 65 million years old.
When a scientist gets a result that is surprising, it means that one or more assumptions have to give way. Usually it's the assumptions that have less evidence going for them that has to yield to the ones that have more.
But for creationists it's the assumption that's more dangerous to the dogma that must give way, in favor of the one that's more compatible with it. In this case soft tissue is obviously evidence against radiometric dating, instead of being against the assumption that it's impossible for soft tissue to be preserved for a long time.