when people believe stuff that is unproven experimentally, whether it be creation and theism, or evolutionism and atheism [yes I hear you, you are not claiming entire atheism] imo that is a faith position.
ie, I believe that something from nothing via no one is impossible but that a creator is perfectly logical.....so long as you don't try to define him in non spiritual terms [ie himself needing a creator]
your faith position consists of believing that something has come from nothing via no one[ though you are slightly more open minded than many of the more strident atheists here].
the "some" soft tissue preserved, seems to be more and more as time passes, yet still you prefer dating methods evolutionaly interpreted, despite some obvious errors and contradictions/ disagreements by scientists using them. these methods seem to be your reason to believe there must be some reason these soft tissues are preserved.
the more logical explanation, till otherwise demonstrated, is that these dino bones etc are not as old as claimed.
imo, that is a faith position. in fact, I would say that it requires less faith to accept an explanation that ties in better with experimentally verified time frame.
neither of us are geologists, but I don't accept that evolutionary geologists would forsake their deep time dogma, and that it is as deeply ingrained as in creationist geologists.
you may continue to reject my analysis, but I have explained why.

I am inclined to think stu , that it is you who is being wilfully ignorant , and evasive.
horse in burgess shale.....there might be, might not be, either way it is not evidence for evolution other than an argument from silence .
soft tissue finds....according to experimental science , not to be expected to survive aeons......a scientific argument for a more recent life of dino.
thing is, stu, you explain very little....more evasion .