[stormer]

I guess I would ask you the inverse: Why is it not? Clearly you are of the camp that believe the soft tissue is indeed what it appears to be and not an artifact of the extraction process, i.e. dissolving the mineral component of fossils and seeing what is left behind. I remember when this story came to light; someone had mentioned that these particular fossils stunk - one paleontologist (I think it was Jack Horner) said, “Hell Creek formation fossils always stink.” It never occurred to him what that may indicate (volatile organic compounds), but he also said it wouldn't occur to him to purposefully destroy the very fossils they had spent so much time and effort to acquire. You point to this research as proof that dinos are much younger than believed; do you think that some cutting edge and poorly understood result carries more weight than a couple of centuries of research and methodology that presents an undisputed (by people that actually do this for a living) view of geologic time? And by the way, my science education - both undergraduate and graduate - was received at two of the top 10 and largest research universities in the United States.

[Tailgunner Joe]

So in other words, you have NO explanation at all. You cannot even begin to attempt to explain how soft tissue could possible last tens of millions of years. Just as I thought.

Yes you sound exactly like the people who could not give up the Ptolemaic model. After all scientists were sure that Ptolemy was right for over a thousand years, and how could a thousand years of scientists possibly be wrong? Your arguments are not scientific, they are appeals to authority, they are logical fallacies, and they are wrong.