The bottom actually is that science consists of many interrelated theories accounting for millions and millions of observations.
For one observation to switch from "protein can't last millions of years" to "protein can last millions of years" is not sufficient to overturn all of the theories and observations leading to the conclusion that the earth is billions of years old.
This is particularly true as there is currently no good evidence for a young earth (ca. 6,000-10,000 years). That age estimate is a religious belief, not something based on science.
“The bottom actually is that science consists of many interrelated theories accounting for millions and millions of observations.”
“For one observation to switch from “protein can’t last millions of years” to “protein can last millions of years” is not sufficient to overturn all of the theories and observations leading to the conclusion that the earth is billions of years old.”
My friend the actual “bottom line” is that “scientists” are people too, and subject to the same prejudices and biases as the rest of the human race. Of course, I wouldn’t expect the so called “millions and millions” of obeservations you mention to be tossed because of one conflicting piece of evidence. My point is that it wouldn’t ever be even remotely considered because it doesn’t fit the paradigm - not because of the “millions and millions” of observations you mention - which like most observations are interpreted in light of what the person wants to see. That is true of both sides of the evolution/creation debate.
I’m certainly not adverse to admitting my falibility and bias, why are not those holding to strictly naturalistic explainations of origens, etc. not so willing? That is a rhetorical question, and I really don’t expect an answer.
I’m not seeking an arguement or to insult. I just want there to be a little “intellectual honesty” to be shown - by ALL parties.