I don't see any mention in the article about the tissue being mineralized.
From the collagen scanning notes:
"Bright-field STEM micrograph depicting fibre fragments showing a banded pattern consistent with banding typically observed in collagen fibrils...Diagram representing the structure of a generic collagen molecule that produces 67nm banding; I banded collagen fibrils surrounded by bone mineral matrix; II individual fibrils are composed of numerous collagen molecules arranged to produce 67nm banding; III the canonical collagen triple helix."
What exactly do you believe they found when they are describing fibrous material that is virtually indistinguishable from the original protein?
It is this that makes me think they're referring to mineralized structures:
"we observed, in four different samples, structures resembling calcified collagen fibres"
That seems pretty straightforward to me. I don't see why preservation of diagnostic structures means they have to be soft tissue.
It is ad-hoc speculation in every sense of the word. You should at least be able to admit it. You would eviscerate YEC's for speculating in the same manner to try and resolve how a seemingly old structure may have formed rapidly, or a seemingly eolian deposit be formed aqueously, etc.
I disagree. What is wrong with investigating a mechanism that potentially explains a new phenomenon? You say you don't necessarily think one should conclude that geochronology is hopelessly flawed, but at the same time you seem to suggest that it is bad science to posit a mechanism for a newly observed phenomenon. And this is not in the same category as creationists claiming that fossilization occurs rapidly by pointing out objects coated in precipitated minerals. Objects coated in mineral deposits is not the same thing as fossilizaton. Such claims are rightly criticized because they do not reflect the process they claim to. In contrast, Schweitzer has demonstrated that iron is capable of preserving tissue around 24000% longer than tissue not similarly exposed. And it's worth noting that the treated tissue did simply take much longer to disintegrate, it was not significantly degraded at all after two years:
"HB-treated vessels have remained intact for more than 2 years at room temperature with virtually no change"
So again, Schweitzer is extrapolating a process that unequivocally preserves tissue whereas fast fossilization proponents make their claims based on a process that is not actually doing the same thing at all.
Also, unless otherwise noted, I take from your silence on the matter that you concede the weakness of Angstrom's critique of Schweitzer's work.
And I maintain if you were truly approaching the issue scientifically, you would at least consider that conventional dating techniques may be in question and dinosaur remains may not be 65+ million years old. You don't have to conclude that of course, but you should be allowed to discuss such ideas. But you and I both know such blasphemous talk would mean immediate excommunication. The faith of 65+ million year old dinosaurs will not be questioned under any circumstances.
It could certainly be considered as an option, but it is so unlikely that it definitely is not anywhere near the top of the list of explanations to investigate. See below.
Because you were comparing an entire history of old-earth geology with a dispute over the territoriality of cougars.
Yes. Now what if the party promoting the presence of cougars already concluded that they were correct before investigation, and decided any contradictory data would be discarded as something nature did to confuse their preformed conclusion.
So you do agree that it makes more sense to discard an old understanding in the face of numerous lines of evidence that the understanding is flawed. Please explain why this doesn't apply to the discussion at hand. Why should the scale of the issue (geochronology vs biogeohraphy) make a difference to this logic? Please explain the distinction more explicitly than simply stating that same logic doesn't hold for both situations. In the cougar situation there are multiple consilient lines of evidence indicating that cougar are here. the old understanding of distribution is wrong. In the preserved tissue case there are multiple consilient lines of evidence indicating an old earth. In the former case you agree it makes sense to conclude the ideas about distribution were flawed. The same logic says that it makes more sense in the latter case to assume the ideas about preservation were flawed.
Heavily discordant dates are not useful for building a geologic time model where the goal is to calibrate radiometric data with fossil content. Why is it unreasonable to assume that such discordant dates are discarded?
That's not unreasonable. What's unreasonable is your as yet unevidenced contention, despite testimony to the contrary by a person versed in the field, that discordant dates are simply discarded without any attempt to identify a source of error.
Yes it overcame a young-earth view with admittedly flawed uniformitarian assumptions. When it was realized their assumptions were wrong, nobody wanted to go back and question whether or not they were wrong about deep-time. The old-earth belief was entrenched as an unquestionable philosophical dogma from its inception. From that point onward, the job of "science" was to find evidence for what they believed.
That doesn't actually address the point that old earth proponents actually had to overcome the young earth mainstream in the first place. The data were strong enough that thisnwathis was possible. This undercuts your point that the only reason it is now mainstream is because no one is allowed to question it.