I am in he middle of a heated debate with a co-worker about the age of the earth. He came up to me and started to talk about how they found a "fresh" dinosaur bone with blood still on the bone. Naturally I researched this but all I could find was a couple of sources which were in Answers in Genesis and other Christian sites.
This topic is covered pretty well in talkorigins.org. Basically, the AIG people seriously distort the findings and what they indicate. No "fresh" dinosaur bone has been found with blood inside. Rather, incompletely permineralised fossil bones have been found, and when chemically processed, structures have been recovered that resemble minute remnants of soft tissue and such. To my knowledge, no intact proteins have yet been recovered from the material.
Unfortunately, popular press reports like the New Scientist one you linked to often have given the false impression that the material was "fresh" when found and practically had red blood dripping out of it. That is simply not the case.
Even if blood was found as falsely described there is too much other evidence for a very old earth. One would be taking the less unlikely course to try to explain the blood preservation over a long period of time. However, that is almost as unlikely as a young earth.
The lesson for your co-worker to take from this (and many, many other things like it) is that the sources they have listened to are dishonest or ignorant or foolish. The whole YEC camp is rife with those who have a disregard for accuracy.
The question is not what evidence supports a young earth, but how do they explain the evidence that supports an old earth - what evidence needs to be denied to maintain a position based on faith.
It is possible to find evidence that supports a flat earth at the center of the universe, but it is rather impossible to deny the evidence that the earth is round and orbits the sun in the outer reaches of a rather unsignificant galaxy among millions.