I’ll try to make this as simple and BRIEF as possible for you. Extant dinosaur tissue, at a minimum, is 65 million years old. I find the discovery if such soft tissue surprising. If that highly emotional response on my part bothers you, I have a suggestion. It involves an uncomfortable posture.
Why would you tr to claim your surprise “bothers” me after I so explicitly and lengthily just finished saying your feelings about the matter weere sujective and not relevant to the discussion? You make it appear that you are trying to change the subject away from the topic of the original thread, which attempts to ridicule the sciencee of evolution by dismissing the idea that the dinosaur tissue could be 65 million years old or older.
Simply put, what evidence obtained by the scientific method is there to support the author’s implied conclusion that the dinosaur tissue could, should, or must be less than or substantially less than 65 million years old?