First, you're back to talking about DNA, even though the strongest corroborating evidence you're talking about isn't about DNA, and what has been claimed about DNA from 65 million years ago is highly controversial at best at the moment. Proteins and DNA aren't the same thing.
Second, you talk about 20 years of research repeatedly corroborating her work, as if this has been a settled matter for decades, when in fact one of the recent critical papers was from 2008 and the response was from 2010 (and these weren't about DNA, BTW, they were about proteins and collagen). So as recently as that the question was unsettled, and just because they published a paper claiming one thing in 2010 doesn't mean the question is settled in 2013, much less that it was settled decades ago. You seem very confused about how scientific research actually works.
Third, you're ignoring the point that just because a result challenges prevailing ideas about protein degradation, doesn't mean you immediately jump to the conclusion that the fossils must be young. What she's doing is what a real scientist would do in that situation, which is to re-examine the assumptions that would make the result surprising, and calling those assumptions into question. Note that she's re-examining the most immediate assumptions that are called into question, not jumping to the conclusion that the bones must be young based on a false dichotomy motivated by a particular interpretation of an ancient religious text.
And yet you call her dishonest, and that other guy calls her an idiot. Amazing.