This was the claim:
“The mummified material was soaked for seven days to bring it back, so to speak, to life.”
The claim is not true. The bone was treated the same way a fresh bone wd be treated, if the purpose was to study the soft tissue.
The following quote summarizes the bottom line:
“This find calls into question not only the nature of the fossilization process, but also the age of these fossils. How such soft tissue preservation and detail could be realized after 68 million years is more than miraculous - - It is unbelievable! Schweitzer herself comments that, “We may not really know as much about how fossils are preserved as we think.” 54 Now, if that is not an understatement I’m not sure what is.”
http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html
The point of it all being, no evolutionist alive will question the validity of their theory. They treat their theory as objective truth. Therefore nothing ever calls the theory itself into question, & nothing ever will. In that sense, it’s not a scientific system at all, but rather a belief/faith system. That is how its true believers treat it.
Again I cite Thomas Kuhn’s signal thesis: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn describes evolutionists & their religious commitment to their theory to a T. Read the book if you haven’t; it’s priceless.
“The mummified material was soaked for seven days to bring it back, so to speak, to life.”
I took this to be somewhat figurative. The idea that the soft tissue traces were locked inside the rest of the fossil, and were “brought to life” once the minerals had be dissolved away. Maybe not though, I didn’t write it.
I agree with you about the treatment. It was essentially what gets done to fresh bones. Which was a brilliant stroke on the part of Dr. Schweitzer. And has opened the door to a whole treasure trove of potential discoveries.
I don’t agree with most of that quote. I agree the presence of soft tissue in these fossils certainly calls into question our understanding of the fossilization process. Now we have to figure out the process (or processes) in which microscopic traces of proteins and cells can remain in fossils for millions of years. Exciting times!
But why does it call into question the age of the fossils?
Also, when you say evolutionists, I’m assuming you mean people who adhere to the idea that the diversity of life on this planet is the result of continual change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations, these generations spanning about 3.7 billions years?
I actually did read ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ back in university. But I remember liking ‘Human Understanding’ more.