Mary, one of the leading scientists making the discoveries of soft tissue from multiple dinosaurs, including the t-rex soft tissue, rejects the notion of them biofilms.

Researchers Debate: Is It Preserved Dinosaur Tissue, or Bacterial Slime?

Schweitzer says her team considered the hypothesis that the material they found in the original thigh bone was a bacterial biofilm, and rejected the possibility. She says there’s no reported evidence that biofilms can produce branching, hollow tubes like those noted in her study [Science News].

I don't agree with Mary that the soft tissue is 68 million years old or anything close.  I don't think such things could be preserved for so long.  I believe in a young earth.

Sorry but I stopped 2 minutes in:

"finaly we will examine one of the most accurate and trusted historic records known to man the Bible"

@g-value

There's over 4,500 different religions and they all think there right. What make you think you are?

(goes to the entry gates "oh sorry, thats not  the answer we where looking for, thank you for playing guess the right religion.)

Oh, I see, the number one reason to believe, Fear, I get it. Fear of sin, Fear of god, Fear of hell, Fear of other religions and they are the evil ones, fear of the Lord. If someone  don't believe me I will just hit him until he fears me enough to believe.  By the way I do not operate on fear and also don't believe in violence or some sort of punishment for living. thank you please drive through.

@highwaystar101

Yes, you understand right, I'm a Young Earth Bible Believing Authorized King James Using Self Professed Christian.

Geological column - stratigraphic layers, radiometric dating, carbon dating, and all the like have been address and explained numerous times by creation scientists many times before.

Of their ilk Kent Hovind is the creationist with whom I agree most with, I've also studied his work more so than other creationists.  If you'd like to understand these points better, and at the same time gaining both sides of the argument I'd recommend watching some debates (may'be search for some with your favorite scientists.)

@highwaystar101

Yes, you understand right, I'm a Young Earth Bible Believing Authorized King James Using Self Professed Christian.

Geological column - stratigraphic layers, radiometric dating, carbon dating, and all the like have been address and explained numerous times by creation scientists many times before.

Of their ilk Kent Hovind is the creationist with whom I agree most with, I've also studied his work more so than other creationists.  If you'd like to understand these points better, and at the same time gaining both sides of the argument I'd recommend watching some debates (may'be search for some with your favorite scientists.)

.... Ok how about

1. Loess deposits (deposits of wind-blown silt) in China are 300 m thick. They give a continuous climate record for 7.2 million years. The record is consistent with magnetostratigraphy and habitat type inferred from fossils (Ding et al. n.d.; Russeau and Wu 1997; Sun et al. 1997).
   
   
2. Varves are annual sediment layers that occur in large lakes. They are straightforward to measure, cover millions of years, and correlate well with other dating mechanisms.
   
   
   • In seasonal areas, sedimentation rates vary across the year, so sediments often show annual layers (varves) distinguished by texture and/or composition. We can be confident that the layers are seasonal because we see the same sorts of layers occurring today. Even if they were not seasonal, the fineness of the sediments is often such that each layer would require several days, at least, to form. Some formations have millions of layers, such as the varve record from Lake Baikal with five million annual layers (Williams et al. 1997), and the 20,000,000 layers in the Green River formation. They must have taken hundreds of thousands of years to form at the very least.
     
     
   • Dates obtained by counting annual layers of varves match dates obtained from radiometric dating. One varve formation, covering 45,000 years, was used to calibrate carbon-14 dating using terrestrially produced leaves, twigs, and insect parts that also appeared in the sediments. The varves were easy to count because they included an annual diatom bloom (Kitagawa and van der Plicht 1998).
     
     
   • Varves record climate changes, too, since climate affects the amount of sediments. Climate is affected by orbital cycles known to occur at about 400,000-, 600,000-, and million-year periods (the so-called Milankovitch cycles). Climate cycles of these durations occur in the varve records. For example, Lake Baikal contains annual layers from twelve million years ago to the present. These sediments contain periodic changes matching the orbital cycles (Kashiwaya et al. 2001).
3. The abundance and distribution of helium change predictably as the sun ages, converting hydrogen to helium in its core. These parameters also affect how sound waves move through the sun. Thus one may estimate the sun's age from seismic solar data. Such an analysis puts the age of the sun at 4.66 billion years, plus or minus about 4 percent (Dziembowski et al. 1999).

1. Archaeology supports at most the general background of the Bible and some relatively recent details. It does not support every biblical claim. In particular, archaeology does not support anything about creation, the Flood, or the conquest of the Holy Land.
   
   If a few instances of historical accuracy are so significant, then an equal claim for accuracy can be made for the Iliad and Gone with the Wind.
   
   
2. Archaeology contradicts significant parts of the Bible:
   • The Bible contains anachronisms. Details attributed to one era actually apply to a much later era. For example, camels, mentioned in Genesis 24:10, were not widely used until after 1000 B.C.E. .
   • The Exodus, which should have been a major event, does not appear in Egyptian records. There are no traces in the Sinai that one would expect from forty years of wandering of more than half a million people. And other archaeological evidence contradicts it, showing instead that the Hebrews were a native people
     
   • There is no evidence that the kingdoms of David and Solomon were nearly as powerful as the Bible indicates; they may not have existed at all
     
   • .........
     
   
   Many claims that archaeology supports the Bible, especially earlier ones, were based on the scientists trying to force the evidence to fit their own preconceptions.

You'll see in two weeks or so. I'm telling you, I'm not like eveybody. You WON'T be able to deny my prove.

@highwaystar101

Yes, you understand right, I'm a Young Earth Bible Believing Authorized King James Using Self Professed Christian.

Geological column - stratigraphic layers, radiometric dating, carbon dating, and all the like have been address and explained numerous times by creation scientists many times before.

Of their ilk Kent Hovind is the creationist with whom I agree most with, I've also studied his work more so than other creationists.  If you'd like to understand these points better, and at the same time gaining both sides of the argument I'd recommend watching some debates (may'be search for some with your favorite scientists.)