I think we are talking at cross purposes bill.
maybe I was not clear enough, though I thought the context was clear.
when I said that the evidence points to dinos being much younger, I was referring [again] to the soft tissue finds that were such a surprise to the evolutionists involved.
I am presuming that darwinists are now saying soft tissue can survive in dino bone for 68 million yrs.
assuming that to be the case,scientific norms appear to have been radically revised to facilitate the evolutionary paradigm.
steve seems to have understood my meaning, judging by his challenge.
as I understand it ,it has been estimated that preservation of blood residue and other tissues would require a consistently low temperature over the claimed aeons, but this is apparently contrary to what evolutionism itself posits.
never-the-less I did look at some of your evolution 101 link,esp macroevolution. it does explain what the theory posits, but in no way presents anything that demonstrates it's veracity.
I certainly will not be reading all the mass of articles on the subject that you linked to.i would be very surprised if it was anything more than the Darwinist interpretation of the same data that creationist scientists use in the alternative presuppositional approach to origins.
for example cladistics being used either as evidence for common descent, or of a common designer.

btw,i am using a laptop at home.seven stars just happened to be where the folk club was at the time when I thought I should use something or other to start posting.