Replies

You wrote in part:
“Well the author said he found it mind boggling and I agreed it was surprising. If the author includes such a response within the article then my agreement with the author is indeed in line with the article.”

What you wrote did not unambiguously differentiate whetheer you agrreed only about being mind boggling or mind boggling and the conclusions promoting Creationism by implying evolution was too improbable to ttake seriously. Now you have clearly stated the difference.

I can easily see how another person would be surprised or even startled by the discovery, but not if they took the trouble to become acquainted with the science of how biological matter is destroyed. My own comment about scientific ignorance was based upon the reasonable expectation that the author of the topic was responsible for making himself acquainted with how dinosaur tissue can be expected to become destroyed and preserved before comenting against it while proclaiming ignorance and due to a lack of understanding so profound as to amount to being mind boggling. The mind boggling is significant only to the extent the author used it as the measure for the author’s evidently deliberate and negligent ignorance. Anyone else can of course be mind boggled or otherwise based upon their own knowledge or ignorance of the subject, but not the author who professes to have reason to use this ignorance as a basis for promoting an agenda in the Creationism versus evolution debate.