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?
Because I didnt read the four page thing you sent me because you long ago got boring. You originally took issue with the idea that soft tissue surviving 65 million years was somehow surprising.
Newsflash: it is surprising.