you may not like the word "evolutionist", stu , but that was what I googled and a few links came up, as I have been describing over last few posts. if you have the answer lacking in those items, I suggest you tell us what it is, and if you need to, do a link , IN ADDITION, that might clarify and validate your explanation. in the meantime, you will have to excuse me if I think your post is evasion and bluff.

thats ok ed. certainly I am convinced about my position, but that does not mean that I don't want to learn what the opposing arguments are. but on this item , it appears to me that the argument consists of claiming complete impartiality by evolutionists, coupled with an assurance that new info will be followed without bias, and of course discounting any creationist explanation a priori.
I realize that I am engaging a challenging community of skeptics, who educationally far out compete me, which is I why I try to keep to the simpler ideas.....ie like preservation of soft tissue being against observational science......at least so far, and as I say, I suppose they have faith that they will find an answer.
my worldview is unlikely to change but I hope that I would concede an argument if genuinely evidenced.

bill,...we are never going to agree, because I view the deep time mind set as just as entrenched as the creation view. and in my opinion , it is "science in general", that does support a far younger era for dinos, and just assuring that evolutionism is willing to follow the evidence where it leads, does not answer the question.
if you have no answer to the substance of the question, it might be better to admit as much, but that you still trust the evolutionist scientists anyway for their explanations of other lines of argument.