Its Academic

There's an interesting story floating around about someone finding 65 million year old skin and feathers on a dinosaur fossil.  Fact is there is soft tissue, and the highly unusual fact is those observing this fact still cling to the idea that it is 65 million years old.

Odd.

In searching for some discussion, I find 2 consistent themes - 1) if anyone dares to point to this find being more consistent with the Biblical account of a 6000 year old earth, that person is trounced on as a crazy flat-earther who is personally responsible for the Crusades., and 2)  the insistence that it MUST be 65 million years old despite the clearly questionable find of actual flesh is the one card that is holding up the whole evolution house...

I suppose for those who won't let the discussion proceed (won't discuss what the answer could be if the dinosaur is NOT 65 million, rather it is thousands of years old) have a belief versus scientific observation, something that is often emotionally charged to those who believe int he Biblical account. ..non-academic and non-scientific.   One look at the condition of King Tut's mummy, which was deliberately preserved 3 or so thousand years ago makes me, for one, question any flesh remaining identifiable for 65 million years...even when hermetically sealed...

I'll cling to the facts.  God did it and He said He did just like He said.  And, everyone will see the truth in the end (with knee bowed).

Just saying.