Dinosaur Soft Tissue: Proof that Evolution is a Lie--NOT ENOUGH TIME

AARTICLE: The research, headed by Mary Schweitzer,
...... The find was also controversial, because scientists had thought proteins that make up soft tissue should degrade in less than 1 million years in the best of conditions. In most cases, microbes feast on a dead animal's soft tissue, destroying it within weeks. The tissue must be something else, perhaps the product of a later bacterial invasion, critics argued.
...... Then, in 2007, Schweitzer and her colleagues analyzed the chemistry of the T. rex proteins. They found the proteins really did come from dinosaur soft tissue. The tissue was collagen, they reported in the journal Science, and it shared similarities with bird collagen — which makes sense, as modern birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs such as T. rex.
....... The researchers also analyzed other fossils for the presence of soft tissue, and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago, Schweitzer said. "The problem is, for 300 years, we thought, 'Well, the organics are all gone, so why should we look for something that's not going to be there?' and nobody looks," she said. Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained By Stephanie Pappas, Senior Writer | November 26, 2013 07:01pm ET
....... RESPONSE: So right on que--they discount all the evidence right in front of their faces--JUST TO KEEP EVOLUTION ALIVE--even though, both Lab Work, and 300 years of "BELIEF" and teaching about biologicals, went right out the window. Instead of questioning the age of the bones and biologicals--they kept the evolutionary time scales--and again threw all the evidence "under the bus."
...... AND Mary Schweitzer's subsequent meager 2 year, lab controlled study--supposedly confirming the ability for biologicals to last Multi-millions of years--appears on its face to be JUST ANOTHER JUST SO STORY TO PROP UP Darwinian Evolution. Iron in the blood is a FREE RADICAL that destroys tissues, IT DOES NOT PRESERVE IT. And for Mary Schweitzer, and her team to find biologicals in at least 50 percent of the samples they have gathered over the years--is phenomenal, and Prima Facie Evidence for a young Creation. Biological Material is now not a "rare find."
Now I have to break one of my rules not to use evidence from a Creationist Scientist because no one else dare talk about it. The man in the video is Mark Armitage
Lets Watch the Video https://youtu.be/iN04I8HuFGw
Why was Mark Armitage fired?
Do “evolutionists” seem to care about following the evidence where it leads?
Do “scientists” in general have a bias?
What is wrong with Mary Schweitzer’s theory of “Free Radical Iron” acting like a tissue preservative?
ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM VIDEOS
https://studio.youtube.com/video/uZ0Fg2Jju0Y/edit
https://studio.youtube.com/video/Ld_3cCjM0SU/edit
Why won’t scientists allow a Carbon 14 test to be done?
Why—is the previous “science belief” of 1 Million Years max for biological materials thrown out—instead of realizing that perhaps the Dinosaurs in question are NOT older than 1 Million Years?
What happens to Scientists that don’t toe the Evolutionary Fairy Tale?
A GOOD HELPING OF EVOLUTIONARY BIAS ANYONE.
THIS IS WHY I WILL NEVER BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION—EVERYTHING—EVEN SCIENCE IS PC.