Bill D:

As usual, Pete's relying on the very partial and heavily-edited comments on the creationist web sites he goes to for his "scientific" input, without, as I've pleaded with him many times, making the effort to gain some true understanding of real science himeself.

I *could* spend some time here correcting his misapprehensions about dinosaur DNA. However, re the "C14-diamond" discussion, where I took a long time over explaining his misconceptions only to have him dismiss my detailed rebuttal with a couple of lines showing how *totally* he'd misunderstood both the explanation *and* the evidence that the sites he relies on for his "science" continue to use discredited explanations sometimes for years after they've been discredited, it'd be a waste of time and energy.

In fact, the early "dino DNA" discoveries...from around 1995-2004 were shown not to have been dino DNA at all but to have been due to sample contamination. Since the 1990s to the present day, Schweitzer et al have been working with samples from which they've isolated *cell-like* structures and probably proteins. However, there is no reliable evidence that they've actually isolated dinosaur DNA.

To quote her own reactions (and she's a very strong evangelical Christian, not an atheist or agnostic):

Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer's work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer's work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer's research was "powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible's account of a recent creation."

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She's horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. "They treat you really bad," she says. "They twist your words and they manipulate your data." For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science.

It might be worth a look at:

Discover Magazine Article