What's the creationists thought on this?

Could you perhaps say more explicitly what it is you're trying to be wrong about. Creationists have made lots of mistakes about radiocarbon dating, and it is hard to tell from your vague ramblings which particular blunder you're trying to refer to.

As has been pointed out to you, the soft tissue was mineralized. As Schweitzer et al wrote: What no-one has yet mentioned is that the scientist who discovered this, Mary Schweitzer, is a former YEC who left the young-Earth cult as a result of her scientific studies. As she explains: If she had found evidence that she had in fact been right all along, surely she would have been the first to appreciate it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

She describes herself as having been a "hard-core young-earth creationist", so I guess that that is what she was. She's not a creationist any more, but she remains a Christian (per the link I've already supplied). I trust that you're being facetious.

Back in the real world, it was evolutionists who discovered the fossil, evolutionists who dug it up, evolutionists who freed it from the matrix, evolutionists who made a TV program about it, and evolutionists who published the National Geographic article which brought its existence to your attention in the first place.Meanwhile it is you who is ignoring the evidence, namely that the skin was mineralized. And your saying that would be more convincing if you could point to any actual lie. Or even something that you thought was a lie. Instead you have cited an evolutionist article which you apparently think is true. No it doesn't, for two reasons: first, it is not nonsense; and second it has not been debunked.