So while you think you've found some glaring error or make “blatant lie” slanders and cry ‘strawman’, you show again why it's necessary for me to use very simple words to reply to you.
It's called deliberate obtuseness.
“My citation was from “New ancient fungus finding suggests world’s forests were wiped out in global catastrophe”, which was the first reference in the posted article.”
So was the quote in post 17 to which you took issue. That poster was therefore correct in his assessment.
Let’s go over this from the beginning the author stated:
Scientists were investigating organic chemicals trapped in an Italian sedimentary rock formation when they found evidence that an extinct fungus feasted on dead wood during a time when the world’s forests had been catastrophically eradicated.1 What could have caused such a universal effect on forests, and why does organic material remain in rocks that are supposedly 251.4 million years old?"2
The article he cited did not stated :
By analysing the carbon and nitrogen content of the fossilized remains of the microscopic organisms,
By omitting the fact that these were fossilized the author is being designious by implying that these finding were not in fact fossilized