The evidence she's putting out there *is* challenging prevailing views on preservation of soft tissue, etc., and because she's doing it scientifically she's getting scientists who are extremely skeptical to take her seriously.
As for the admission you think she should make, research into whether the soft tissues are original or contaminants of more recent origin is still on-going, so right there is a third option you seem to have missed. You seem to think that when a research paper states something then it's a settled fact and you can quote a little snippet from it and act as if that should settle all controversy. That's not how science works.
Not that this stops you from saying she's disingenuous, or that other guy from calling her an idiot.
These religious attacks wound her far more than the scientific ones. “It rips my guts out,” she says. “These people are claiming to represent the Christ that I love. They’re not doing a very good job. It’s no wonder that a lot of my colleagues are atheists.” She told one zealot, “You know, if the only picture of Christ I had was your attitude towards me, I’d run.”
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: