The purportedly surprising “soft” tissue in fossils has been addressed several times. First, it is an argument from incredulity. Early geologists in the 1500’s had to argue that well-preserved fossil shells really might be at least a few thousand years old. But what evidence is there against occasional long-term preservation of such material? The world is a big place with many things happening, including cases where “soft” material is preserved better than average. Conversely, neither soft nor hard tissue could survive the heat and radioactivity that would be produced by speeding up physical processes to fit a young-earth timescale or by making a global flood.
Secondly, contrary to both old-earth science headline writers and young-earth claims, various examples of “soft” tissue preservation have been known since the 1800’s. Finding such preservation in a new setting is noteworthy but not too surprising. The field of taphonomy studies “death, decay, and destruction”, or to give greater technical precision, the processes involved in going from a live organism to a fossil.
The “soft” tissues are not in fact all that soft. Again, there are three main categories. One is where the chemical processes associated with decay and burial create minerals associated with the soft parts. The actual soft tissue is gone, but the mineral replica remains. Another is the preservation of tough but flexible organic material. Wood, hair, fingernails, scales, insect skeletons - many familiar examples show that such material can last a long time. If it’s buried under anoxic conditions, this can last indefinitely. Late Ice Age natural mummies (like the freeze-dried animals occasionally present in tundra areas), stuff trapped in amber, and similar cases may preserve some altered softer tissues under special conditions.
But nothing about those pise any problem for an ancient earth. Conversely, a young-earth model does not handle the evidence listed with the original posts in this thread. It’s not a matter of bringing up random purported problems for the other side, but the fact that the geological record clearly records a vast history. Cramming all the events into a young-earth timescale does not work, unless you go with an observer traveling at close to the speed of light.