Your argument here raises two questions:
Is paleontology "hard science"?
Definition of "soft science":
Definition of "hard science":
Chemistry, biology, physics and astronomy are here listed as "hard science" and all provide evidence confirming evolution theory.
Evolutionary biology is sometimes called "soft", but that was in the days before detailed DNA analysis began upsetting the old order of biological classifications & relationships.
Paleontology itself is not found listed in either "hard" or "soft" category.
Bottom line: it's not clear if the pejorative term "soft science" is anything more than a polite way of saying: I disagree with your conclusions, so I'll call you "soft", pal.
Were dinosaurs reptiles?
Until Bob Bakker in the late 60s, dinosaurs were thought to be cold-blooded like reptiles.
Today dinosaurs are classified along with birds and reptiles among the archeosaurs a clade-order in the class Reptilia.
But where, exactly, they belong is still unclear.
When & how, did ancestors of dinosaurs split from those of birds or mammals, is not fully known.
But the real question here is whether that term "soft science" is simply euphemism for "inaccurate guess-work", and if so, then the biological classification system has gone from "soft" to harder & harder over many years, as more and more hard data (i.e., DNA comparisons) came into the picture.
Archeosaurs include two main sub-clades, "Pseudosuchia, which includes crocodilians and their extinct relatives, and Ornithosuchia, which includes birds and their extinct relatives (such as non-avian dinosaurs and pterosaurs)":
Examples of Archeosaur Ornithosuchians (Avemetatarsalia) and Pseudosuchians:
![]()
Simply, bone marrow cross sections of dinosaur bones show that the animals were warm blooded. This evidence was always available to see.