What's the creationists thought on this?

Aren't these statements a little bit contradictory. If there are many articles on the topic, it has indeed been talked about widely. It was reported in just about every popular science outlet there is, so I'd call that a fair amount of fanfare.I had a look over on Scienceblogs, a collection of blogs from various scientists, and the topic's been dicussed widely there, with a search for Schweitzer AND "soft tissue" returning 102 articles. Follow up research was covered, including analysis of the protein structure to try and include the T-Rex proteins in the family tree of living organisms. It popped up exactly where you'd expect a dinosaur to lie, as the closest relative of birds. More recently, incidentally, Schweitzer's team seems to have found proteins from another dinosaur - BrachylophosaurusThe scientific community isnt' exactly hiding this finding under a bushel.Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.

Jan Peczkis claims to have an MA in Geology from Northeastern Illinois University, and there are two citations on Jstor for someone of that name from the same university, both in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology:Implications of Body-Mass Estimates for Dinosaurs
Jan Peczkis
Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Vol. 14, No. 4 (Feb. 15, 1995), pp. 520-533Trends in the Description of Extinct Genera among Mammalian Orders
Jan Peczkis
Journal of Paleontology, Vol. 63, No. 6 (Nov., 1989), pp. 947-950He's also written well over a thousand book reviews on Amazon.com, assuming there are no shenanigans involved here.-----------Who he really is isn't so relevant here, though. The important point should be that "some person says radiometric dating is rubbish" is not a substantive argument. Let's hear some specific explanation of why it's so rubbish.