Originally posted by sonhouse
And, since you actually have a Phd in biology, you KNOW all those readings are false. Have you published your results in a journal yet? I'm sure there will be a lot of controversy when your results are published.
Have Scientists Explained Soft Tissue on Dinosaur Fossils ?
The correct answer is NO.
Within the Creation and Evolution debate, anything that is strong evidence for a young earth is a matter evolutionists take seriously – in short, they are driven to find a way to explain it away. In recent years, one of the strong evidences has been the finding of soft tissues still preserved on dinosaur fossils. Scientists have been at a loss to answer how tissue could survive for 60 million years (the age which they claim dinosaurs disappeared from history). Recently, Mary Schweitzer has suggested that iron could act as a preservative on soft tissues as described in this article: Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained.
Her actual experiment was soaking blood vessels in an iron rich liquid. After two years, the blood vessels were still recognizable. I find this interesting, but even if iron acts somewhat as a preservative, there is a huge difference between 2 years and 60,000,000 years. Her explanation states that:
Dinosaurs’ iron-rich blood, combined with a good environment for fossilization, may explain the amazing existence of soft tissue from the Cretaceous (a period that lasted from about 65.5 million to 145.5 million years ago) and even earlier. The specimens Schweitzer works with, including skin, show evidence of excellent preservation. The bones of these various specimens are articulated, not scattered, suggesting they were buried quickly. They’re also buried in sandstone, which is porous and may wick away bacteria and reactive enzymes that would otherwise degrade the bone.
As I read a statement like this, many questions come to mind. Do we know that dinosaur blood was (especially) rich in iron? The slippery words of ‘may explain’ and ‘may wick away bacteria’ could undermine the entire idea and does not sound like a solid explanation at all. Furthermore, describing something as well preserved because of quick burial makes me think of expected flood conditions.
From a creationist perspective, the answer is simple. Soft tissue still exists on dinosaur fossils because they formed only thousands of years ago rather than millions.