My wife subscribes to Smithsonian Magazine, and there is an article in this month's edition about a T-Rex found in the U.S. with soft tissue and blood cells still intact.
Dinosaur ArticleNow, who really thinks that soft tissue can survive (and remain soft) after 60 to 70 million years? Honestly, that defies basic reason. What amazes me is not that a dinosaur was found with soft tissue intact. I'm floored by this statement from the article: "Schweitzer’s work is “showing us we really don’t understand decay,” Holtz says. “There’s a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.”" Really! Decay is an assumption?!?
Regardless of whether a person believes that evolution is true or false, or that the earth is x million or thousand years old, or anything else about such things, this shows some of the most astounding blinded bias I've encountered in a while. Holtz, and I'm sure plenty of other people, are so solidly convinced of such subjective things as the history of millions to billions of years, they are would rather doubt that tissue decays than that a T-Rex could potentially be found out of a possible, theoretical, historical context that can never be demonstrated or reproduced in reality. It just goes to show how powerful a world view really is. Basic common-sense issues are nothing in the wake of a charging world view.
Now those of you who share this world view, I know this will make you angry. That's fine, my goal isn't to make you angry, but to scoff about how powerful a world-view is. So, even though you can't help yourselves, you can spare the hate-comments about how holy and sacred the "scientific" history of the last x billion years is. I just want to make a philosophical point.