[SeekAndFind]

RE: Did he in fact find soft tissue in bones that should have been completely fossilized? That is, tissue that hadn’t become fossilized?

From CBS News Local:

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/07/24/scientist-alleges-csun-fired-him-for-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/

EXCERPT:

While at the Hell Creek Formation excavation site in Montana, researcher Mark Armitage discovered what he believed to be the largest triceratops horn ever unearthed at the site, according to attorney Brad Dacus of Pacific Justice Institute.

Upon examination of the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Dacus says Armitage was “fascinated” to find soft tissue on the sample – a discovery Bacus said stunned members of the school’s biology department and even some students“because it indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago.”

[BroJoeK]

SeekAndFind quoting CBS report:

"Upon examination of the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Dacus says Armitage was “fascinated” to find soft tissue on the sample – a discovery Bacus said stunned members of the school’s biology department and even some students 'because it indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago.' "

The fact is that nobody expected to find soft tissues in dinosaur fossils, so never looked for them, so they weren't found.. until recently.

Now, it turns out, ancient soft tissues may be somewhat common:

"The researchers also analyzed other fossils for the presence of soft tissue, and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago, Schweitzer said."

How can this be?
The answer it seems is that, under ideal conditions, iron in dino-blood can act as a preservative, like formaldehyde, keeping soft tissues viable more-or-less indefinitely.

"Schweitzer and her colleagues found that dinosaur soft tissue is closely associated with iron nanoparticles in both the T. rex and another soft-tissue specimen from Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a type of duck-billed dinosaur.
They then tested the iron-as-preservative idea using modern ostrich blood vessels.
They soaked one group of blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water.
The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days.
The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years...

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."

So one scientific question, assuming the presence of multiple samples of dino soft-tissues, is whether they "prove" Young Earth claims the earth is only thousands of years old?
I'd say they only confirm that under ideal conditions, some organic material can be preserved indefinitely.