Google searches on 'dinosaur' and 'soft tissue' or 'tyrannosaur' and 'soft tissue' turn up the fact that researchers have been finding soft tissue in dinosaur remains for the past ten years or so: which indicates that dinosaurs died out much more recently than 60M years ago.
No it doesn’t, not really and not at all.
http://www.icr.org/article/4827/
"....Yet another hadrosaur has been described by UK scientists as "absolutely gobsmacking."8 Its tissues were "extremely well preserved" and contained "soft-tissue replacement structures and associated organic compounds."9...."
Just a tip: don't rely on Brian Thomas for your scientific facts. For example, in that story, he says "soft, squishy tissues have been discovered inside fossilized dinosaur bones." No, they haven't. They may be soft (in the sense of flexible), but they're nothing like "squishy." And the story he quotes doesn't say the tissues were well preserved, it says the dinosaur was well preserved, which could just mean the bones were mostly intact. And what was "gobsmacking" was that "You're looking at cell-like structures." "Cell-like structures"--does that sound like soft tissue to you?
Thomas is a propagandist and, yes, an anti-science charlatan. I call him that not because he disagrees with me, but because even though he has (or claims to have) a science degree, he distorts facts and quote mines to intentionally give people the wrong impression.