[ZX12R]

If soft-tissue discoveries in dinosaurs presents a logical or rational dilemma, I welcome that.

You are not interested in any real dilemmas, you are merely on a mission to find that which seemingly supports an assinine idea. And you apparently have no familiarity with either rationalizing or the application of logic. Foregone conclusions are the identifying marks of the illogical and the irrational.

[GilesB]

It seems to me that anybody either completely accepting, or completely rejecting the subject matter of this article has reached a conclusion before reading it.

I remain agnostic on the specifics of the article. I find the evidence presented interesting, and I acknowledge there may be different causes for the evidence described.

I don’t know enough about it to reach an independent conclusion - and I suspect that is true of almost everyone who reads this.

You characterize as assinine an idea that this evidence MIGHT support - which presents the obvious question: Did you read this article with your own foregone conclusions?

[ClearCase_guy]

You are not interested in any real dilemmas, you are merely on a mission to find that which seemingly supports an assinine idea.

We should at least agree that this statement goes both ways.

The idea that we are finding soft tissue that is 65 million years old is interesting and surprising. It might cause someone to ask, "Should we check our assumptions? Is there any reason to update any of our current theories?" To ask such questions is to engage in science.

I won't say that one side or another is correct, but I will observe that asking questions based on the newest discoveries is a respectable pastime. If each side sticks their fingers in their ears and says "Those guys are wrong! They're stupid! Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!" then this is unfortunate. No one wants to be on the receiving end of such a closed-minded approach to science. I know I don't. And I'm sure you don't either.