So it happens all the time, is that what you’re saying? It’s so common one shouldn’t be surprised? It’s as common as three-headed cattle, honest democrats, teenagers showing gratitude and benign muslims?
Or do you mean, since it’s remotely possible one shouldn’t find it surprising that it occurred? I’m sorry but, yes it’s possible but it doesn’t happen much, therefore, I’m surprised.
The author of the threadd clearly chose to promote the idea that Creationism must be true and the scientific concept of evolution must be false because he cannot “understand” and it”boggles his mind” that it could be assderted that the soft tissues of a dionosaur could survive unfossilized for 65 million years. How we characterize our SUBJECTIVE feelings about finding such old original biological matter, there is nonetheless observable OBJECTIVE evideence of its existence and its age being about 65 million years old. While it is true that biological consumption (eating) of biological matter, oxiddation, hydrolysis, and a myriad of other agents makes it highly problematic for such biological matter to survive deestruction for so many millions of years, there is no biochemical reason why it cannot or should not when the biological matter is somehow shielded from the typical panoply of destructive agents. Therefore, from the biochemical point of view, there is no objectivee reason to be overly surprised at finding the unpredicted survival of such cellular matter from the age of the dinosaurs about 5 million years ago, whether or not we4 are personally awed the by evident great age of the material.
The author of the thread, however, obviously disagrees because he has an agenda to find support for the Creationism conjecture. Attempts to hold the science of evolution by implying the age of the dinosaurs as being far less than 65 million years in age because of the survival of the biological matter harms the creationism conjecture by engaging in obviously false witnessing of the evidence. Some supporters of the Biblical Scripture would argue that you cannot do so by bearing falsee witness to the observable evideence available by using the scientific method. Such an argument appears to have certainly been valid in the casee of the Church of Rome playing its direct role in killing Galileo for effrontery of postulating the Sun as the center of the Solar System and not the Earth as dictated by the church’s support of the ancient geocentric and crystalline spheres dogma. It In the name of religion men such as Galileo, Copernicus, and others have been wrongly ridiculed and punisheed for observing and stating the observable truth about the world and universe in which we alll live. It remains to be seen how many people who identify themseelves as Christians can on the one hand bear false witness about the observable evidence and on the other hand assert ttheir obediance to the Commandment not to bear false witness. In other words, a Christian who practices the religion cannot hypocritically attempt to prove Creationism, whether or not Creationism as defined by that person is a reality, by going around and bearing false witness about the evidence obseerved when employing the scientific method. From a christian point of view the Universe is as God created it, so the observable evidence of its existence is as God created it as well. The Universe is what it is. Wee can honestly disagree and be mistaken about what we think we have observed in experimentation, but we cannot disregard the obseerved evidence of God’s creation for the purpose of bearing witness not supported by the observable evidence to support a theological conjecture. As applied to this thread the author is clearly implying evolution should be denied because Creationism asserts the biological matter cannot be rationally believeed to be 65 million years old as the science of evolution and geology assdert it to be. Yet, the scientific evidence about the nature of organic matter and its properties clearly support the possibility and eveen probability of its survival against destruction under tthe right geological circumstances. The fact that scientific researchers had not discovered such evidence before recent years is more a matter of investigativee insight and persistence than it is a matter of improbability in the physical nature of things as God created them to be.
Extraordinary preservation happens, but the circumstances which permit it are rare, and the discovery of the fossils before their destruction by natural processes even more so.