The article attacks young-earth creationists, but they really don't offer any justification besides a snobby "we've ALREADY PROVEN that the structure is millions of years old, so THERE!" I'm sorry; let's dispense with the ipso-facto arguments. Who's up for re-checking the aging dates on that? Why do you conclude that this contradicts the established age of the fossil, and what suggestions do you have for rechecking those dates?