Replies

I will! :)

But I also have other grounds.

1. This is hardly a scientific article, their first reference simply states, “These remains must have been deposited catastrophically, either as a result of Noah’s Flood or from smaller, local post-Flood catastrophes...” That’s just an assertion, references are supposed to site additional sources of evidence. They also cite a CBS 60 Minutes interview; you just don’t do that, they should have sited the interviewees paper on the subject.

2. With the exception of the first reference that’s just an assertion and the last which they claim is their research, no other cited source backs up their claims. They’re picking and choosing what information they like from those sources. One of the scientists who found the bacteria says straight up that they’re 300 million years old. The lead author on the study finding the soft tissue says it’s 18 million years old. Their own references contradict their report.

3. Their “research” obviously didn’t proceed beyond the cited article which is essentially little more then a university press release (any creditable research institute would have a jstor account so could read the entire paper). They criticized one of the cited articles because they didn’t mention how the preservation was achieved. That’s a loaded question for a new discovery and unlike the IRC, that team is still doing the research (and of course ICR didn’t mention that McNamara is a leading researcher looking to answer that question...in fact that’s what she’s doing right now).

It's not intended as a formal scientific article. There's been a lot of creationist research and books on how things that we observe can be explained by a catastrophic flood. You can find articles about that at the website. That's the creationist explanation for the so called Cambrian explosion found in fossil excavations. He uses the Bible as his authority. He's writing from that point of view.

They also cite a CBS 60 Minutes interview; you just don’t do that, they should have sited the interviewees paper on the subject.

That was covered in several other articles on the website. Maybe not including it here was an oversight. Here's one of them.

Dinosaur Soft Tissue Issue Is Here to Stay

One of the scientists who found the bacteria says straight up that they’re 300 million years old. The lead author on the study finding the soft tissue says it’s 18 million years old.

That's based on various assumptions, including evolution. Did they explain how the tissue survived? If not, then so what?

The bottom line is, as of now these discoveries are not explained. This article just mentions a few of them. They first started finding these things over 15 years ago.