You assume a lot of things, things which don't make a lot of sense. Considering the flood, you find a small rationalization ('Midrashic sources') in the prior coexistence of dinosaurs and mammals (nothing new), yet you still ignore the obvious problem of why the fossil record mirrors the molecular phylogenetic analyses of extant organisms and NOT in a way which would be suggested by a flood - sorted by density, size, etc. You know that common reference, no rabbits in the precambrian? I have yet to see a creationist actually address that in a way that doesn't result in them simply throwing the evidence out of the window and exposing themselves as hypocrites.
Why wouldn't soft tissues like those found in the tyrannosaurus femur survive 70 million years? Do you have knowledge of the patterns and variations in fossilization that is deeper than the foremost experts in the related fields, as would be necessary? The original author of the paper, while pointing out the similarities between her discoveries and what you would expect from original preserved tissue, makes her statements tentatively because alternative hypotheses have not been excluded, such as bacterial biofilms, etc.
Of course you, a random creationist, know better. Have fun with your assumptions.