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.
the jolly for me is the way they seem to think that rot "just happens" and at some form of stable rate which would permit 6000 years but prohibit 68,000,000years.
silly ignoramuses - don't know the difference between systemic death/dysfunction (death), cellular death/dissolution (necrosis), and rot (caries)
the organism dies and its systems cease functioning. thereafter the cells of its tissues die as their internal metabolisms run short of fuel and oxygen, and smother under excess levels of carbondioxide and metabolic wastes. The lysosome organelles rupture and the internal membranes and other organelles are dissolved in the process called necrosis.
BUT...
decomposition beyond necrosis requires the activity of fungi and/or bacteria EATING the dead tissue. Any scenario which would prevent this activity for 6000years could do so just as effectively - if left undisturbed - for 68million. The equivalent of pickling and durable vacuum-sealing would produce conditions apt for either timeline, for example.
I'm just agog at the bloviation-in-ignorance paraded about by the YEC crowd on this thread.
*shaking head in mixed amusement and disgust*