I read about that discovery. I also encountered some evolutionists [on a thread related to it] that were as obnoxious & dishonest as anyone I have encountered anywhere on the Net. It made an impression on me. A negative one.
Dishonesty & obnoxiousness don’t necessarily go w the evolutionist territory. There’s an element of it, however, & they don’t realize how much damage they do to their cause. Anybody w the truth on their side can be honest, and a modicum of courtesy never hurts one’s cause either.
Not to conflate you w any of that. Obviously you were no part of the discussion. That is to your credit.
mdmathis6: "I call BS for the 100 million year old canard!
Something is very wrong in science of age dating!"
from the article: "why the fossilized specimen remained intact after 70-million years."
PAR35: "As they carefully ignore the obvious answer - it hasn't been 70 million years."
Bulwyf: "Their dating methods have been shown as a joke decades ago, yet we still let them get away with it."
Nateman: "My first guess is that it has something to do with the cold.
I’ve read stories of Soviet inmates finding frozen fish thousands of year old..."
Fantasywriter: "Btw, how do you know that even if it did remain in a constant deep freeze for 70 million yrs, it wd be this well preserved?
Has there been a test case?"
Clearly, a lot of misunderstandings here, beginning with Fantasywriter's suggestion that those who disagree with her/him are "obnoxious & dishonest".
In fact, most of us try our best to be neither, regardless of provocations.
But the key point which everyone here needs to understand is: when you read words like "mummified" and "soft tissue" or "skin" relating to dinosaurs, then nine times out of ten those terms are used very loosely, because what they're really talking about is not organic material, but rather rock fossils.
Only rarely do these reports actually mean organic material like collagen, and never do they refer to confirmed DNA recoveries.
So in this particular case, 70-million year-old Hadrosaur "skin" is just like the rest of it: fossilized rock, in this case shaped like skin.
That's why there can be no question of material "frozen" for 70 million years -- that's not what happened.
What did happen in this case is unusual conditions allowed soft organic material to fossilize before it could naturally decompose.
As for how these ages are established scientifically, there are some dozens of independent radio-metric decay methods which form the basis for our theories about the age of Earth and its geological strata.
Allegations of occasional errors in processing certain materials notwithstanding -- they do not negate the fact that laboratories have used these techniques for decades on thousands of samples, with results which confirm basic scientific theory.