http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n4/dna-bacteria

"Some scientists have dismissed the finding and believe the Lazarus bacteria are contamination from modern bacteria. But the scientists who discovered the bacteria defend the rigorous procedures used to avoid contamination. They claim the old age is valid if the bacteria had longer generation times, different mutation rates, and/or similar selection pressures compared to modern bacteria. Of course these “rescuing devices” are only conjectures to make the data fit their worldview."

Whilst this is not a "Rescuing Device"? "However, the discovery of Lazarus bacteria is not shocking or surprising when we base our expectations on the Bible accounts. For instance, Noah’s Flood likely deposited the salt beds that were home to the bacteria. If the Lazarus bacteria are only about 4,500 years old (the approximate number of years that have passed since the worldwide flood), their DNA is more likely to be intact and similar to modern bacteria."

"If the modern bacteria were the result of 250 million years of evolution, its DNA should be very different from the Lazarus bacteria (based on known mutation rates)."

Isn't this another version of the old 'if man is descended from gorillas, why are there still gorillas' question? It's just an attempt to deliberately misrepresent evolution. It's pathetic and childish.

The main question is, if Dr Georgia Purdom no longer believes in the scientific method, shouldn't she be  handing back her PhD?