Asserting that they are facts doesn't make them facts.
Fine. Soft tissue also doesn't falsify evolution. The scientist who found the tissue (or rather, the remains of tissue) -- and who is a Christian, by the way -- also uncovered the mechanism by which it can be preserved. Who do you think knows more about the soft tissue, you or her?
Which doesn't mean that junk DNA was a prediction of evolution -- wasn't. What's true is that the observed mutation rate is inconsistent with all of the genome being functional. Since no one has presented even a shred of evidence that mutations in most of the genome harm humans, there's nothing troubling about that fact. The best estimate we have of the fraction of the genome that would give rise to harmful mutations is around 10%; it comes from the ENCODE project.
No, some of us actually read the ENCODE papers and understood what they said.