Living Dinosaur?

I came across this article and found it very interesting. The article tells of the discovery of a Wollemi tree in 1994 near Sydney Australia, which was previously believed to have been extinct since the "time of the dinosaurs". Speaking of the person that discovered the tree, a hiker named David Nobles:

He discovered a small grove of bizarre looking trees. Their leaves were shaped like a stegosaur’s tail and the bark looked like it was covered with bubbling chocolate. His discovery caused quite a stir when he brought it to the Royal Botanic Gardens in Sydney. Professor Carrick Chambers declared “This is the equivalent of finding a small dinosaur alive on Earth.” This conifer was thought to be extinct for millions of years. How did it survive the climate changes that have occurred through history? How did this small grove of conifers survive the bush fires?

Those are all good questions. Remember; the botanist said that this was thought to have been extinct for millions of years because, although it's not mentioned in the article, this tree had been previously identified through fossils. Science determines the age of fossils by a process of measuring where they are found within rock layers. These layer are thought to have been laid down over very long periods of time. The further down in the rock layer, the older it is. Thus, based on the fossils of this tree previously found in rock layers it was believed to have been millions of years old and extinct.

How could this living "fossil" be explained? The only way it becomes a mystery is when you apply preconceived ideas to the problem. What preconceived ideas? One is the idea that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and life spontaneously self generated 3.5 billion years ago. If you assume that to be true then how this tree survived that long is hard to explain and quite remarkable. Another issue is the assumption of evolution. IF you assume that evolution is true and this species of tree reproduced and was alive over millions of years, why didn't it change? All very challenging to answer IF the preconceived ideas of very old earth and evolution are true.

What if the earth isn't millions of years old, rather only several thousand years old? Isn't it more feasible that a tree species, although rare, could survive over that periods of time? I say yes. But what about the fossils of this very same species of tree in rock layers dated to millions of years old? Could it be that the science is wrong? Yes they could be wrong. It's not a mystery if those layers are not millions of years old, but rather only thousands of years old and in fact fossilization doesn't take as long as main stream science says. I am just asking which is more logical? Which solves the problem with less effort?

If you dig your heels in and say whatever the evidence is, my answer has to support my preconceived truth about an earth that is billions of years old and evolution, then that is how you work yourself into a corner. Most scientists that do this then have to fall back on the old soft pillow of science to explain the data; chance. It occurred by chance.

That is poor science!

One last thing to think about. Do you know that scientists have discovered Tyrannosaurus fossils with soft tissue still in place. I just gave you a link to one of many articles you can find on this discovery. How could soft tissue survive 70 million of years? Scientists agree that if an animal dies, soft tissue is either eaten by scavengers or rots away rather quickly. Unless the body is covered by sediment quickly so to avoid the previous two situations from happening. But if covered by succeeding layers of sediment over 70 million years that is more than enough time for all soft tissue to be fossilized. Fossilization is the process of replacing organic material with mineral substances in the remains of an organism. Scientists all agree that they are stymied by this discovery. Of course they are! Because they are trying to force the data to fit their preconceived truths about the age of the earth, life and the dating techniques.

Again, which is more logical? I say a young earth, fossilization that occurs faster than scientists say, rock layers laid down quickly rather than millions and billions of years.