[dynoman]

BTW, why do you insist on going off on a tangent like this? Are you unable to discuss the subject of the thread?

The reason the original article was posted was to cast doubt on the age of the duckbill by implying it had soft tissue. That is the subject of the thread right? So I linked a similar article that pertains to T rex soft tissue which some will use to imply dinosaurs are not 70 million years old. Like I said in post 49 the idea these remains might not be 70 million years old is too bizarre to believe.

[Sopater]

The reason the original article was posted was to cast doubt on the age of the duckbill by implying it had soft tissue. That is the subject of the thread right?

Actually, the reason that the original article was posted was to expose the common fallacy that it takes thousands (or millions) of years for fossils to form, and that a great deal of scientific (looking) articles are in fact, very poorly written, implying something that is not really true (i.e. presence of actual soft tissue).