[PugetSoundSoldier]

I have read many articles and papers on this find, and it seems their is a bit of confusion about what to call “fossiled” any more, seeing how they are finding so many “fossils” with soft-tissue still intact.

Is it painful going through the mental contortions to twist the original article so severely to reach what you (and ICR) do?

READ THE SOURCE ARTICLE. It's not intact soft-tissue; it's fossils with the soft-tissue detail preserved! Typically when most organic matter is fossilized, most of the fine, cellular-level details are obliterated. What's exciting is that we've found a few that had such details intact IN THE STONE OF THE FOSSIL.

Seriously, just go and read the source article; I even quoted AND BOLDED the relevant portion for you. It's a complete fossil, no soft-tissue at all, and never claimed.

Your whirlwind contortions notwithstanding...

[editor-surveyor]

"READ THE SOURCE ARTICLE. It's not intact soft-tissue; it's fossils with the soft-tissue detail preserved!"

Sorry, no. Its the original article that I have been quoting.

From the article:

"We noticed that there had been very little degradation since it was originally fossilised about 18 million years ago, making it the highest quality soft tissue preservation ever documented in the fossil record"