No Love for Dinosaur Soft Tissues

Keep in mind that the word fossil is often used loosely in paleontology, not always permineralized (turned to stone). Soft tissues and the like have been found for many years, and fossil hunter Mary Anning did paintings with fossilized octopus ink in 1865. Squid ink was allegedly 165 million years old and also used for artwork.

Believers in an ancient earth were forced to notice soft tissues when Mary Schweitzer announced soft, pliable dinosaur blood vessels in 2004. This could not be ignored. Claiming contamination did not work, so to give Darwin the millions of years he needs his wonders to perform, weird excuses ensued.

Soft tissues in fossils have been around a long time. When dinosaur soft tissues were found, excuses ensued. Recent efforts defy logic and science. They have no love for dinosaur soft tissues.
Dinosaur, RGBStock / Kevin Tuck, modified at Photo Funny
In their worldview, secular scientists presuppose that Earth is ancient and that life evolved from minerals. They are continually thwarted by the facts, and have to force what is observed into their presuppositions. It would be in their best interests to question deep time and question evolution, since the evidence supports recent creation and the global Genesis Flood.

Dinosaurs use dinosaurs to evangelize people into deep time and naturalism, so they fight to keep their propaganda intact. Secular rescuing devices may be acceptable to those who have a bent to believe them, but a basic student of logic can spot the circular reasoning. Also, when supposedly answering questions, they raise more.
The big controversy started here at NC State when Mary Schweitzer posted photos and videos of stretchy tissue inside a T. rex bone in 2004. Have evolutionists and believers in Deep Time been able to get a grip?
Ever since Mary Schweitzer found soft, stretchy tissue in a T. rex fossil in 2004, scientists have been trying to come to grips with how some biological tissues and cells could preserve within ancient critters.
Notice that the press release admits that these biological tissues and cells exist. They are not denying it, as if misrepresentations or misidentifications have been made. They are not calling them biofilms or instances of contamination. The soft tissues found by Schweitzer and others are not mineral replacements of soft tissue; they are the original soft tissue.

Read the whole thing at "Darwinians Struggle with Dinosaur Soft Tissue." I usually insert a video here, but that will be found at the link. Look for Dr. Brian Thomas.