[Old_Mil]

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

In other words, let's set aside the obvious conclusion drawn from the empirical data because we're slaves to old-earth evolution and all data must be fit into our hypothesis of origin. If it does not, it must imply that dinosaurs had magic blood vessels.

[GourmetDan]

Exactly right.

It is the 'old-earth' crowd that has 'hijacked' and 'misrepresented' the evidence.

When did 'evolution' *predict* that 68 million year old fossils would have soft tissue in them?

It *never* did.

[Antonello]

In other words, let's set aside the obvious conclusion drawn from the empirical data because we're slaves to old-earth evolution and all data must be fit into our hypothesis of origin. If it does not, it must imply that dinosaurs had magic blood vessels.

The obvious conclusion is that we were wrong about the effects of time regarding the decay of soft tissue. That is not being ignored; in fact this has opened up whole new avenues of research as the implications are being investigated. Science is recognizing that this is new evidence and embraces the effect it has on previous suppositions.

It is not evidence that the timeline is wrong, but rather that under the right conditions certain soft tissue cells can be preserved over extraordinary lengths of time. In fact, if it were the timeline that was wrong, the tissue evidence would be overwhelming in its abundance.

[edsheppa]

In other words, let's set aside the obvious conclusion drawn from the empirical data

Like the empirical evidence for the rock formation's age?

[stands2reason]

I never knew there were so many YEC'ers here. The IDers like to pretend you guys don't exist.