Here is an article to help you with your confusion about this MOSASAUR. I agree with the title so very much. It mentions the weak, imaginative claim of soft tissue but doesn't mention anything about a meal. I did find an article about a prehistoric fish fossil from Canada, that had the remains of a mosasaur in its jaws. No mention of finding mammoths in any of these reports.<quoted text>
Well, looks like there is more to it than talkorigins is telling you.
Now look at this, we have a Monasaur with soft tissue and dinner in his mouth in the high basin of South Dakota,(buried in turbidites), Plesiosaurs found the high deserts(4000 ft+)level in Oregon and Montana,(buried in turbidites), all dated around 70-80 MY. But wait a minute, when we find Mastodons in the same condition,(buried in turbidites), excavated in the same manner, in the same condition, evolutionists date them recent. But why? Both have soft parts? But wait! we have the geologic column to help us here, lucky us, Mastodons can't be that old!, they were not even around waaaaayyy back then, or were they? And of course we have to stick to this line of Dogma for the Jurassic, or the Column would be dead wrong, and that would be a publicity nightmare. Fossils are doing evolution in.
Now tell us how to bury a Monasaur while he's alive having dinner, "here nice little monasaur, lay your little head down and go nighty while you hav din din, and we will through some nice mud on you to sleep under, just like what happened to all your little Plesiosaur playmates today." That are 50ft long, sure.
No, it was the same world-wide catastrophe that got them all. Its over 4000 ft up there and there are Plesiosaurs found world-wide buried the same way. This is telling a story.
Extraordinary Mosasaur Fossil Reveals Creationist Can't Read
Finding soft tissue remains was at one time thought to be impossible, but evidence of soft tissue and small amounts of preserved remains of tissue (not fresh tissue) seem to be mounting as reasons to look and techniques to find it have become more widely available. New discoveries happen a lot in science and science has to take these in, evaluate them, and toss them or accumulate them on the merits of the evidence. If it turns out that this is a feature of some fossils previously overlooked, it will just be new useful information for us to examine. It does not change the age of the fossils and you have offered nothing to show that it does. You are clinging on a thread of speculation.