Step one....start with a false title to mislead the reader into thinking they found actual dinosaur cells.
Tests have shown that the fossil still holds cell-like structures
Now it's not "cells" as the title exclaims....it's "cell-LIKE structures".....hmmmm....cell-like structures made of "what"?
although the proteins that made up the hadrosaur’s skin had degraded, the amino acid building blocks that once made up the proteins were still present
NOW, it's not even "cell-like structures"....NOW it's "degraded proteins......as in "they found some amino acids".....now it's gone from the ludicrous title of "reveals skin cells".....to "reveals amino acids"..... as in....We're looking at the altered products of proteins from the skin of this animal, locked within the three dimensional mineralised skin
So we're really talking something more like fossilized skin, not "skin cells".....like fossilized bones are not "bone cells".
ALWAYS, under all circumstances, ignore RATIONAL explanations:
They believe that the dinosaur fell into a watery grave, with little oxygen present to speed along the decay process. Meanwhile, very fine sediments reacted with the soft tissues of the animal, forming a kind of cement.
As a result, the 66 million-year-old fossil still retains some of the organic matter of the original dinosaur, mixed in with the minerals.
.....and by "organic matter" they're not talking "flesh"....they're talking "amino acids".
I don’t blame you for defending your Evo-religion, but if you go back and read the Nat’l Geographic article, it is they who refer to the degraded cells as “skin” not unlike bird or croc skin. And as for rational explanations, the most obvious rational explanation for unfossilized dino blood, blood vessels, connective tissue, and now skin, is that dinos are far more recent than the Temple of Darwin would have us believe.