No, I used two different, independent peer-reviewed professional papers research results and appled them using real data which strongly supports a young earth creation. Based on the reported half-life of DNA of 521 years, the estimated beginning amount of Dino DNA of 2B base pairs and the amount of DNA remaining discovered and reported by Dr. Mary Schweitzer, I used the standard half-life formula to arrive at 10,000 years. Which is roughly about what I would expect. It seems you evos have a real problem on your hands.
Sorry, science does not work this way. I have explained a number of things wrong with just slapping numbers into a formula and why that does not past mustard in real science.
Further the Dino DNA remnants indicate that the Dinos in question were at least 1.5 million years old (how long it takes for aggrated DNA to become unreadable) base on the hypothized 521 year half life.
Even worse for you is that the 521 year estimate was based on AVERAGE half life of bird DNA (Moa) that were dated with the same geological techniques that dinos are dated. The standard dating methods were authoritative as they are in all real science.
It is also noted that DNA half-life is going to be very dependent upon the environment the DNA is deposited in. Can you think of a better environment than a O2 free, bacteria free, dry, hermetically sealed chunk of fossil? Me neither.
At any rate it is clear (AGAIN) that you don't know anything about the real world application of science or the standards science has for how research and analysis of data is conducted.