Dinosaur soft tissue proves the Earth is only a few thousand years old!...right? WRONG. And here's why it's actually evidence AGAINST a young earth:

I'm going to rob Young Earth Creationists of one of their favourite new arguments.

The "soft" tissues discovered are not actually soft. They're not cracking open a dinosaur fossil and finding rubbery, goopy tissue. They're finding mineralized fragments of tissue which, once chemically treated, can become elastic.
To say that this is actual soft tissue is like saying a dinosaur fossil is actually the bone itself.

We're only finding the most robust biological molecules known like collagen or chiton and even then they are extremely rare, fragmented and only occur in even more specialized conditions than normal fossilization.

[b][i]So how does this support an old earth and contradict a young earth?
[/i][/b]
Because Young Earth Creationists believe that god created all the animals at the same time and that almost all of them died in the Great Flood which accounts for most of the fossil record, we should be finding this soft tissue [i]everywhere[/i].
Additionally we should be finding the same [i]types[/i] of tissue in everything from Dinosaurs to saber toothed cats to ancient humans...but we don't.
In dinosaurs we've found these incredibly robust molecules but none of the much more fragile molecules like DNA. Whereas in fossilized Neanderthal human bones (in conventional science, much more recent) we have been able to find enough DNA to sequence their genome!

If the earth is young and most humans and animals died at the same time in the flood, why does the type and preservation of organic tissue we find correspond to the old Earth timeline where we would expect to see more ancient organisms with less organic tissue preserved and more recent organisms with more and more fragile tissue preserved?