if steve can quote scientists that were on record pre 90.s that expected it ,he may have an argument.

Yeah, sure. We were all running round insisting that it be put on record that we were "expecting it." Silly man.

As a matter of fact, I was using maceration techniques to study soft plant tissue (not fossil wood, in other words, though I studied that as well) from the Carboniferous and Jurassic in the late 60s/early 70s at Imperial College. I still have my drawings somewhere. You can walk on the beach at low spring tide at Westward Ho! and pick up superbly-preserved acorn cups that are 8000 years old, pre-Ark! Nothing like a bit of clay and salt water away from oxygen! Soft tissue of insects, preserved in amber for tens of millions of years or more, has been known about for nearly two hundred years. You see, pete, you pick up snippets of stuff here and there that you don't understand and dishonestly set aside the stuff that doesn't seem to help your yarn. For example, you won't be impressed by any of this because you reject the perfectly good science of radio-isotope dating. Sadly for you, the only person fooled by your dishonesty is you.