Yeah there are quite a few out-of-place fossils, I think there is a tendency in evolutionist-thinking, to treat it this way; "this is an exception to the rule, generally fossils are not out of place". So they will try and explain away what they see as a few exceptions.
The problem with that type of evolutionist-reasoning, is that it ignores the problem of the fallacy-of-exclusion.
The fallacy of exclusions is when people dismiss a piece of evidence, even only one piece of evidence, that can turn over a whole case.
For example, here is an example of the fallacy.
Let's say someone was accused of being racist (person x). Now let's say we had a witness that said the person accused had said insulting racist things, that he repeated the same racist statements all of the time, in the bathroom, on the train, in their presence. Let's say that some racist literature was found on the person's computer, the very same statements. Let us pretend the person accusing person x, wanted to make people believe that person x was a racist. All of the evidence seems damning, but imagine if the person accusing person x of racism, was leaving out one crucial piece of evidence. It wouldn't matter how large that induction of evidence was if the excluded evidence changed the whole picture of this scenario.
Let us imagine the evidence that was excluded, and was not brought forward, was that person x was an actor, who had a role in a play where racist language was used, and they had to recite their lines constantly. Can you see how that would swing the whole case, even though it is only one piece of evidence.
Similarly, because T-Rex with soft tissue was found, it can't be argued that, "this is just a one-off, all of the other dinosaurs in that jurassic layer don't have younger tissue". The reason that can't be argued is because since they all lived at the same time, if one of them is found with young flesh, they all would have had to be young. Deductively that is inescapable, because it would be the same as finding a sunken ship that hasn't been found or touched by anyone, or went near by anyone. Let's say it's a ship like the titanic, buried deeply. Now let's pretend we find coins on the ship. Each coin is from the 1960s. You have a 1960, 1961, 1962, lots of coins from the sixties. Now you could argue the ship was sunk no earlier than the 1960s. Even if you found one hundred coins and they were all from the sixties, it would not matter if you found one coin that was a 1992 coin. That ship MUST have been sunken after 1991 AT LEAST.
So it's not as though you could say, "well, even though we find a 1992 coin, that coin is an exception to the rule, we must focus on the majority of the evidence which is sixties coins".
This is what we see with young dino-flesh. Logically, if a dinosaur taken from provably jurassic rock even by evolutionary reasoning, is found with young flesh, then all of the dinosaurs in the jurassic rocks logically, MUST be as young as the one dinosaur. For how could the same era be both old and young? No - so then finding ONE young one is all you need.
Sorry for the rant, but this is my opinion of their attitudes towards out-of-place fossils. There is a very strong case for pre-cambrian pollen also. They choose to ignore the most crucial evidence, by focusing on the majority of the circumstantial evidence, which is not consequential. You can only focus on the majority of the evidence if the majority-evidence is extremely consequential, then to only focus on the minority of evidence would be slothful-induction fallacy.
(And I really am on one of those days where I can't stop writing. Lol. It would be understandable if you were to even say of me, "and I must say El-stiffo is really starting to freak me out!" - Dustin Hoffman)