Robert sent in another link. However, first see https://phys.org/news/2022-10-dinosaur-mummies-unusual.html … which is derived from a research paper in PLoS ONE online journal https://www.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275240 … dinosaur mummies might not be as unusual as previously considered. A process of desiccation and deflation might explain why dinosaur mummies are not exceptional. These are dinosaur fossils with fossilised dinosaur skin which are thought to be rare. It is normally considered that such ‘remains’ only form after quick burial or desiccation in order for the skin to be fossilised. The new study claims that scavenged animal carcasses can be eaten out [the insides of the animal] leaving behind just skin and bone. Subsequently, they become desiccated – and buried. How they become buried is not said but is assumed to be an ongoing process with all fossils. Naturally. Hence, the burial process is still a necessity – so why not bury them first of all? Well, they think they have discovered a dinosaur that has been scavenged and buried, as a result of teeth marks on the skin.
In the modern world a badger might eat a hedgehog from the belly upwards, leaving behind the skin and its coating of needles. Are there any fossilised hedgehogs? Do they get buried? Or do they rot away? What is required perhaps is the laying down of a deep sedimentary layer, in order to preserve the animal and subsequently allow it to be fossilised, either by catastrophic processes or slowly, and gradually.
Robert’s link is to https://crev.info/2022/09/dinosaur-skin-dazzles-scientists/ … and concerns the remains of a hadrosaurus poking out of a hillside [see earlier post on this subject]. According to uniformitarian geochronology, it has been dead for 76 million years – found in Late Cretaceous sedimentary rocks. It is so well preserved scales, tendons, and the skin of the animal has been preserved. The thrust of the article at the link is that it can’t really be 76 million years ago and might be younger. These dates are of course uniformitarian in nature and may well be shorter – or longer. The author is of course keen to present a Creationist view of the past and his interpretation is coloured in order to achieve that end. Apparently, beteen 400 and 500 dinosaur skeletons and skulls have been found at the location, jam packed together. That sounds very much like a catastrophic ending to their lives. Hence, the author has a good point as far as that is concerned, but he is perplexed by the preservation of soft tissues etc. As the finds date to the Late Cretaceous, is this another example of sediments laid down prior to and shortly after the Chicxulub asteroid encouter?