Pete.. we have gone over that "discovery of stuff that should not have survived" several times. Finding of soft tissue was unexpected, but once discovered after a new type of test it had to be investigated.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/soft-tissue-dinosaur-fossil1.htm Read about it...carefully! Nothing in there contradicts the basic age of the find.. it merely adds new data to what can happen under certain conditions.
You cannot just keep referring to an argument that has been refuted without a relevant counter argument! "It shouldn't be there!" is not relevant if it WAS there!