saying that he wasn't a creationist but posing his entire schooling in microscopy as an exercise in theology is somewhat explanatory.
Why is this "Soft tissue" (which first had to be chemically EXTRACTED from its hard rock matrix, a sign that it isn't of Cretaceous age.
The Creationist logic is awfully thin in presenting any supportive evidence. It appears to me that, should you wish to "prove" that a Triceratops or a T rex "soft tissue" is really young, its up to
your "scientists" to do so.
It seems that the entire Creationist argument is'Well, its not real hard rock so the tissue MUST be young"
kinda dim logic there gunga