Blood vessels, cells and proteins(!) discovered in dinosaur bones

Faith means not having a reason for what you believe. Exceptionally strong faith means holding on to a belief even in the presence of contrary evidence. This isn't the proper thread for a discussion of dating techniques, but if you'd like to question whether acceptance of ancient dates has sufficient supporting scientific evidence then you should join one of the threads in the [forum=-3] forum.You and Creation Safaris have the mistaken view that scientific skepticism about the discovery is because it calls evolution into question. That couldn't be further from the truth. All the scientists expressing skepticism would be delighted if it holds up to scrutiny, because it can only add to our knowledge. The skepticism stems from an understanding of just how fragile complex organic molecules like protein and DNA are.You might recall that some years ago evidence of bacteria was discovered in an Antarctic meteorite that had come from Mars (the meteorite is known as Alan Hills 84001). Expressions of skepticism came from all sides of the scientific community, for the same reasons skepticism is now being expressed about the dinosaur protein discovery. Spectacular claims require spectacular proof, and in the case of the Martian meteorite it turned out they were mistaken about evidence of bacteria.It seems absolutely incredible to most scientists that protein could survive for millions and millions of years, and that's why the skepticism. It has nothing to do with fears that it calls into question evolution and even physics itself.--Percy

As has been suggested a couple times now, if you want a more in-depth discussion of dating methods then you should find a thread in the [forum=-3] forum, but as Mr. Jack points out, if our dating methods are wrong then much of science is wrong. For example, if we don't understand nuclear decay then how is it that we're able to design working nuclear bombs and reactors?But ask yourself which of these is the least likely:

1. That the scientists claiming they've discovered dinosaur proteins are mistaken.
   ​
2. That as incredibly unlikely as it seems it is possible for some proteins to survive for millions of years.
   ​
3. That a hundred years of physics, evidence gathering and validation of dating methods are wrong, as well as all the associated lines of evidence from the fields of geology, astronomy, astrophysics, oceanography and so on, calling into question significant findings from these fields and potentially calling into question almost all of science.

These are the possibilities scientists must consider, and none are going to give serious consideration to the possibility that the results from one lab are going to subvert the huge amounts of evidence across all of science. Each little piece of evidence by itself means little, but in science the evidence is woven together into an extremely tight, strong and highly interconnected fabric. You can't rip the fabric with just one tiny tug.We already know that when an organism dies that preservation as a fossil is a very unlikely event. If you doubt this then think about all the life alive on earth today, and all the life that must have been alive over the history of the planet, and ask yourself where are their bones? For the most part they're gone, returned to the environment due to scavengers, erosion and decay. If this weren't true we would be awash in bones.When an organism does die under circumstances that are conducive to fossilization, the conditions are still highly variable. Some circumstances are conducive to fine detail preservation, some aren't. Often the preservation layer is buried more and more deeply, and it is not uncommon for it to reach a depth where heat and pressure destroys the fossil. For instance, marble is formed from limestone under great heat and pressure. Some buried layers disappear into subduction zones. Some buried layers never return to the surface, so their fossils remain hidden forever. Some buried layers are affected by earthquakes, volcanoes or erosion (think Grand Canyon, where huge quantities of embedded fossils must have been destroyed as the Colorado River cut its way downward). But some fossils survive this process and in various states of preservation are eventually discovered by someone, hopefully a paleontologist.While it isn't that common, some fossils are preserved in layers that remain almost completely undisturbed until the time of their discovery, and such fossils are the most likely candidates for retaining intact protein and DNA.Another point to consider is that there is no proof that protein is too fragile to be preserved for millions of years. It's just an assumption. But this assumption means that little to no effort has been exerted looking for ancient protein. And if you read the article (Dinosaur proteins, cells and blood vessels recovered from Bracyhlophosaurus you'll see the extreme care and complex methodology that had to be employed by the scientists, another reason why it may have taken until now. Of course, the discovery might not hold up, we'll have to wait and see.--Percy