Is there a standpoint from which the creation days in Genesis 1 are described as 24 hours per day?

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@Burrawang

I am disappointed that the Theistic evolution devotees emphatically refuse to accept that everyday, ordinary basic rules of physical chemistry and physics, refute that the dinosaur bones and soft tissue that are being found all over the world are old as they continue to make them out to be.

Thanks for acknowledging that physical chemistry and physics have rules. Now let’s discuss what the ordinary basic rules of physical chemistry and physics actually are.

First of all, before you make any claims about what the evidence does or does not refute, you need to make sure you’re getting your facts straight about what the evidence in question actually consists of.

Second: if you’re going to claim that something can’t last X amount of time, you need to back up that assertion with meaningful, accurate and honest measurements. Not with hand-waving about scientists being “surprised.” Surprise is not a substitute for measurement.

Your claim that people found haemoglobin and DNA fragments of multiple base pairs still connected are untrue for starters. All that has been found in that respect was haemoglobin breakdown products and DNA breakdown products. If DNA fragments had been found, they would have been sequenced. This is a common trope in every young earthist claim that I see over and over again: they tell us that scientists have found unstable biomolecules, but then when you go back to the original sources, all you find being discovered is the ultimately stable breakdown products of those unstable molecules. As for what has actually been found, where are the measurements that substantiate your claims that they couldn’t have lasted for 65 million years?

Look, I addressed this on the other thread (the one in which you ignored me completely). I said this:

@jammycakes

@Burrawang

Incorrect, we DO find, blood vessels, DNA fragments, containing a few base pairs, various components of proteins and break down products from them that still exist in real unpermineralised dinosaur bone in harsh environments.

Have you actually read Mary Schweitzer’s original 2005 paper? She had to soak the samples in demineralising solution for a week to get at the stuff.

This must be some new meaning of the word “unpermineralised” of which I was not previously aware.

Look, we know what soft tissue looks like after a few thousand years. It looks like this:

Or like this:

That is the state of preservation that you would expect to find from dinosaur carcasses if they really were only a few thousand years old. We would have sequenced the entire T-Rex genome by now. Why haven’t we?

@Burrawang

Now it is you that brought this up and it is you that is always using mocking analogies about Star Wars, The Flinstones, and cartoon caricatures

Well I’m sorry if you found my analogies “mocking,” Jon, but I do need to express somehow just how far short your claims about science fall below the standards that I would expect from someone who has the level of professional scientific experience that you have said that you have on more than one occasion. Auntie Flossie who hasn’t set foot in a laboratory since finishing compulsory science education at the first possible opportunity at age sixteen would be entitled to a kind and gracious response when she makes clueless and easily falsified arguments because she can be excused on the grounds of ignorance. You do not have the luxury of that excuse.