“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.
“The idea that the soft tissue traces were locked inside the rest of the fossil,”
Wasn’t a fossil.
“During microscopic examination of the fossilized remains, it was noted that some portions of the long bones had not mineralized, but were in fact original bone.” [’had not mineralized’ means ‘hadn’t fossilized’]
http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html
As for calling the age of the T-rex into question, you don’t need to worry about that. For you, nothing will ever call it into question.