The author is terrible at citation, not giving full credit to most sources, though you can tell he is using other people's words, and trying to give them credit. I can't find the actual source of most of the quotes though, and paraphrases have been put in quotation marks, which is misleading. Again, the point made is fair, though the author is not a scientist and should not be thought of as such. Neither should I.
There are many possible solutions to the evidence this article gives, and some of them support either side of this debate, so it's not conclusive enough to offer significant pull to evolution or creationism. I will however offer my thoughts which could support either side of the debate.
- When the scientists say iron and the author ridicules it, the author is wrong. When scientists who are paid and educated for this field bring up a suggestion, it should be taken with more weight. Not only was it poorly paraphrased in quotation marks, but iron is a proven thing that exists in blood. Metals preserve the things around them because they are metal. It is literally the process of fossilization, and can potentially explain some soft tissue surviving longer than first thought.
- Other anomalies (pockets of gases from decaying life that we lose upon unearthing the fossil: ie we can't keep and analyze it) are preserving the life in the same principle suggested of iron, and we simply are unable to record it. This is weakened by the idea trace amounts would be within the sample itself. Basically, we still have human error even at the top levels. Because we can't follow the fossil all the way to the point where it was alive and muddy, we can't tell you exactly why its preserved as is.
- Dinosaurs are not alive today, and so it's quite possible they had living cells much tougher than anything we can imagine feasible today. This could put dinosaurs in the evolutionist's timetable, while allowing the evidence we see today. They just had tougher stuff and we haven't proved it yet.
- The dinosaurs are younger than we originally thought. There may exist a space old enough to defy Judeo-Christian creationism and young enough to allow soft tissue survival. This is the most neutral conclusion I could think of, all of the others visibly supporting evolution or creationism.
- In a very loose interpretation of the Genesis story, the seven days would not be literal. This could say God created everything, or even that he simply defied the laws of probability in inducing life, but at a slower pace than what we think of as seven days now. The time table of evolution is condensed due to a Creator speeding things up, solving the issue given here. This is more of a Deist thought though.
- Literal seven day creation story, but opposing number 2, with anomalies in gases and such aging some things, which would show credibility to evolution, which we simply haven't proven incorrect.
- Either directly for or against the author, all evidence is supportive of creationism or evolution. There are gaps in evidence and when not firmly connected it can be misconstrued as evidence for the opposition. The author assume evidence is going to creationism and due to gaps in what we know and unbelieving people there is an argument for evolution.
Also, several combination of these 7 exist, and while writing this response I've thought of about 20 different combinations of events or phenomena or places where humanity is ignorant of fact that could show a range of theories true or not. The largest thing I've thought of today is the true periodic table of elements, which does not look like this:
These are the pure elements we know of. The full list of possibilities is actually found here:
This full table is not needed for most sciences courses, but shows the vanilla elements on a regular periodic table, and all possible isotopes. My favorite element Gallium exists in 32 different ways, only 2 of them stable.
I guess all of this is just to show that objectivity doesn't exist? Humanity is willed and stubborn, we have preconceived notions we have and we bend the evidence to support what we want. The idea of not knowing scares us as a species and it is why we have sciences at all. We want to know everything we can, out of natural curiosity.
I'm not objective. You're not objective. We're all not objective. And even scarier than the idea humanity might not be able to see truth because of this subjective filter is the mixing of possibilities. Not only could I be wrong, but you could be wrong too, and we'd have to agree on our points somewhere in the middle? Agree? With them? It's tough, but until a definite answer is found, most things remain viable.