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

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@Burrawang

And there it is in your quote, the word assumption.

There’s something you need to understand about the word “assumption”, Jon.

It is not a get-out-of-jail-free card to let you reject anything and everything about science that you don’t like.

In order to challenge a scientific theory by challenging its assumptions, there are three things that you must do.

1. State exactly what the assumptions are, giving precise technical details.
2. Make sure that the theory really does make the assumptions that you are claiming that it makes, and that scientists haven’t come up with new methods that manage to test or work around those assumptions.
3. Provide a credible explanation for how those assumptions could have been violated in a way that is consistent with both your alternative explanation and the raw evidence, right down to the precise measurements and the correlations between them.

@Burrawang

In a similar vein, my understanding of uniformitarian philosophy, for what its worth, is that it originated from James Hutton who said, “The result therefore of our present inquiry is, that we find no vestige of a beginning - no prospect of an end.”

And the word you are using incorrectly here, Jon, is philosophy.

This is a point that I’ve made before on these forums. Before you can address the philosophy of science, you must first make sure you are getting your facts straight about the mechanics of science.

The mechanics of science are the basic rules and principles by which science operates, that do not depend on anybody’s worldviews, and that are the same for everyone, whether they are a Christian or an atheist or a tractor worshipper from Tauri-Hessia.

It is the mechanics of science, not the philosophy of science, that tells us that the world we live in is 4.5 billion years old and not six thousand.

@Burrawang

Thus, it is obvious to anyone who has eyes to see and a mind to reason that the utterly preserved cells of dinosaur soft tissue, that are most definitely NOT remnants, that they must be relatively recent in age or they simply would not exist.

OK Jon, let’s assume you have a point here and that the cells of dinosaur soft tissue isn’t entirely the ultimately stable final breakdown products. If we didn’t have radiometric dating and thousands of other different lines of evidence that tightly constrain the fossils’ ages to >65 million years, then you might be able to make a case for arguing them down as low as about one or two million years, but no younger.

Why? Because, as I said, at six thousand years, we would expect to find whole carcasses with sufficient intact DNA to sequence the entire T-Rex genome.

I’ve already pointed out to you what soft tissue looks like after a few thousand years. Twice. The stuff we find in dinosaur bones, fully decayed or not, doesn’t come anywhere close.