Replies

I'd say they only confirm that under ideal conditions, some organic material can be preserved indefinitely.
They only 'confirm' that if you start from the unassailable assumption that the bones were down there 'indefinitely'. The 'logic' goes like this.

A)Dinosaurs have iron blood. B)dinosaurs have soft tissues still C)Dinos are millions or years old. D)Iron might work as a preservative

A+B+C+D= iron can preserved something darn near forever.

But if you use A+B+D=?
Well nothing really.

In other words they went, "Well we KNOW they are really old. And they are soft in places. So there must be a mechanism that allows that. Iron might do that in some magic ideal setting that we cant prove will work for ten million years. Therefore.... Iron DOES do that! It is a prove fact!"

TalonDJ: "But if you use A+B+D=? Well nothing really....
Therefore.... Iron DOES do that! It is a prove fact!' "

You understand basic scientific methods, right?
We begin with data -- apparent soft-tissue from Dinosaurs.
We "brain-storm" a hypothesis to explain it -- does iron in dino-blood slow down decomposition of soft-tissues?
We test the hypothesis -- two tissue samples, one soaked in blood, the other in water. See Schweitzer's work reported in post #22 above.
After two years Schweitzer found little decomposition in blood soaked tissues, but complete decomposition otherwise.

Of course, I couldn't say whether such a test confirms Schweitzer's red-blood-cell hypothesis enough to call it a "theory", but it is surely more than just wild speculation.

Alternative speculations -- such as dino soft-tissue somehow proves a Young Earth hypothesis seems to me problematic in the extreme.
For example, it would require us to throw away everything else we think we understand about the age and evolution of the Universe, Earth and life.

And before I'd consider doing that, I'd want extraordinary scientific confirmations that a Young Earth is even possible, much less necessary.