LOL. OK, so I was referring to not being able to use ELITE TRADER QUOTES, as in: See how your quote came up in quotes? I have only been able to copy and paste Stu's words because he has been blocked. But now I see how I was using the word "quotes" to refer to Elite Trader style of quoting, and I should have been more clear. MY GOOF!
And here is evidence that iron can not be the explanation for the preserved the soft tissue: https://www.icr.org/article/can-iron-preserve-fossil-proteins-for/
The article you reference, https://www.icr.org/article/can-iron-preserve-fossil-proteins-for, has The reference title "Fibres and cellular structures preserved in 75-million–year-old dinosaur specimens" doesn't exactly scream "Young Earth." https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8352 So the Institute for Creation Research at best seems to be ignoring the content (and title!) of a reference. Or maybe, the "Institute" is simply violating the Ninth (or sometimes Eighth) Commandment.
There is no need for this because I've already posted evidence the Institute for Creation Research either doesn't really believe in the "young Earth" theory and/or the Institute is not a credible organization. And remember, the link I posted before that the Institute for Creation Research references has 4 million is significantly greater than 6,000 (so is 75 million). Feel free to keep on
"...Randomness is speculative. It attempts to ascribe mystical, purposeless evolutionary causes in the absence of known function. It’s a proven failure as a secular research model..." "...Biblical creation is the best scientific explanation for our universe and the wondrous life we see on Earth." Roffle copter. So the Bible, a book written by men, is the best "scientific" explanation for the entire universe, and life on earth. I cannot WAIT to see their encore performance when organic life is discovered on other planets. Their tune will change to "OK, life on earth is not the only divine creation, but earth was HIS his first choice to create". Anything to support the superiority of the Papacy. It's puerile and stupid.
Figured I'd better dumb it down a little: The OP cited the ICR Iron writeup. Your stating whether or not the ICR believes in "young Earth," or Santa Clause, is not addressing what they've said with respect to iron. Citing your opinion as to their credibility is not addressing what they've said with respect to iron. If they lack credibility, then it should be real easy for you to refute the iron writeup, which you've aggressively avoided addressing so far. In my opinion, there are a lot of trolls on this site.