"there was the claim that iron might have been a binding preservative, so they soaked ostrich bone in it, and after 2 yr, it was still "recognizable""

eeeek! "claim" that it 'might' is not a serious claim! It was a guess... and 2 years, against millions of years is hard to test !

" then there was the.... we never knew it could last so long till we found it in dino bone......don't you call that circular reasoning!"

NO! As I said back up there, you are flatly misusing the term 'circular reasoning'! **WHEN** it was found in old bones, a reasonable scientific explanation had to be found. One WAS found. Circular reasoning would involve making the conclusion without doing the tests! It was simply the scientific method of modifying a theory to fit observable evidence, then understanding how & whether the newly modified theory held up.
You MUST understand that the hard evidence, gathered over many years and using many tests, is that the basic age of the bones was no in doubt! YOU wish to go "ah-ha!" and cast doubt based on one odd discovery before the odd discovery was explained. THAT is a logical error of making an assumption that the odd discovery could not BE explained, because you 'knew' or 'believed' that the bones could not be that old in the first place!
You never quite explain how, if dinos & humans were there at about the same time, why no references to being chased by a tyrannosaur is found in old writings.. including the bible.... and why, if they lived together, soft tissue is not found in most of them!