My comment was based on the fact that AiG by its own definition and requirements is a theological organization, not one based on science.
One needn't be free of theological commitments or be 'based on science' in order to do good science. In fact, according to traditional Christian theology, it is incumbent upon Christians to 'do good science' in order to fulfill God's command to subdue to the earth and practice good stewardship of it.
Thus, 'doing good science' is a direct outgrowth of a YEC theology.
I am not sure that your comment about the "dinosaur soft-tissue" is accurate. What was the soft tissue? How often do we find it with fossils?
You must have been hiding under a rock for the last few years
In 1997 Mary Schweitzer, protoge of the famous Jack Horner, reported finding soft tissue in a T-Rex femur bone. CMI commented here
. Here is a snapshot of what Schweitzer found:
The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center. Then a colleague took one look at them and shouted, Ã¢â‚¬Å“YouÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve got red blood cells. YouÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve got red blood cells!"
Later, she found more
- this time including fibrous tissue:
Tissue fragments from a Tyrannosaurus rex femur are shown at left, when it is flexible and resilient and when stretched (arrow) returns to its original shape. The middle photo shows the bone after it is air dried. The photo at right shows regions of bone showing fibrous character, not normally seen in fossil bone.
Schweitzer said that after removing the minerals from the specimen, the remaining tissues were soft and transparent and could be manipulated with instruments.
The bone matrix was stretchy and flexible, she said. Also, there were long structures like blood vessels. What appeared to be individual cells were visible.
Ã¢â‚¬ËœIt was exactly like looking at a slice of modern boneÃ¢â‚¬â„¢. But, of course, I couldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t believe it. I said to the lab technician: Ã¢â‚¬ËœThe bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?Ã¢â‚¬â„¢
of a reviewer of her paper:
The Discover article went on to document the unwillingness of many in the scientific community to believe the findings. Even to the point that Dr Schweitzer Ã¢â‚¬Ëœwas having a hard timeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ trying to get her work published in scientific journals.
Ã¢â‚¬ËœI had one reviewer tell me that he didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t possible,Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ says Schweitzer. Ã¢â‚¬ËœI wrote back and said, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Well, what data would convince you?Ã¢â‚¬Â And he said, Ã¢â‚¬Å“None.Ã¢â‚¬ÂÃ¢â‚¬â„¢
Note the philosophical commitment. When creationists make such comments, they are ridiculed for it. Apparently, sauce for the goose isn't sauce for the gander.
Of course, this was all met with extreme skepticism by the establishment (note that Schweitzer is a cheerful member of the establishment). There were allegations that she and her team didn't not do their work properly and that what they found was probably a 'biofilm' (see commentary
at CEH). Then, earlier this year Schweitzer found more such material in a Hadrosaur bone
This time, she silenced her critics and answered all of their objections. CEH reports:
The hypothesis that endogenous proteins can persist across geological time, as first reported for T. rex (MOR 1125), was met with appropriate skepticism. However, the inclusion of additional sequence data from extant reptiles and B. canadensis strengthens the hypothesis that the molecular signal is preserved at least to the Late Cretaceous.
The submicron differences in texture (Fig. 1 and fig. S1), elemental differentiation, sub-Ã¢â‚¬Å“cellularÃ¢â‚¬Â inclusions in osteocytes and vessels, identification of the posttranslational Pro-OH modification not produced by microbes, differential binding of antibodies by both in situ and immunoblot studies, collagen protein sequences, and phylogenetic analyses do not support a microbial origin for either these microstructures or peptide fragments. Coupled with evidence for cross-linking and unusual chemical modifications, the congruence of evidence strongly supports an endogenous origin for this material. The most parsimonious explanation, thus far unfalsified, is that original molecules persist in some Cretaceous dinosaur fossils. Still unknown is the chemistry behind such preservation.