For the sake of argument if it really is soft tissue science could at least ask if maybe this specimen is not millions of years old and perhaps young enough to fit their concept of just how long soft tissue can remain "intact".
Sure. They can date the stratum in which it was found by the usual dating methods. If the usual methods, whose reliability has consistently been shown, show it is more that 65 million years old, then why should we consider any longer that the specimen is younger?
-
...I have heard scientists insist it [evolution] is a fact but it was built on uniformity.
Actually, the theory of evolution is based on evidence, not a requirement to be consistent with uniformitarianism.
-
Now even global catastrophes are perfectly acceptable as long as they don't involve a global flood.
No, global catastrophes are perfectly acceptable as long as they are supported by evidence.
-
Read what happened to Emanuel Velikovsky.
He was roundly criticized for a theory whose parts violated the very laws of physics, and whose "evidence" could be more simply explained by the already established theories of science.
Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
--
M. Alan Kazlev
™ Version 4.2