You jumped on a comment I made to someone else. That's certainly fair, but it's curious that you're complaining about us discussing it now.
If you read Gen 2:4, you'd quickly realize that there is no number associated with "day." I believe that was the rule. Did you read it? Or are you being deliberately obtuse?
Griggs' rule is altogether too convenient. It enables you to insist on one meaning for yom in Genesis 1 and another for Genesis 2. Once you've painted yourself into that corner, you're forced to insist that things like radiometric clocks are some sort of trickery, and insisting that there are no transitional fossils in the face of thousands of them.
All for what? Ironically, so that you can agree with the atheistic materialists about the stakes of the debate over evolutionary theory.
Evolution informs us not at all about Salvation, as much as literal Creationists and atheists wish it would.
Creationists do a great service to the Devil by insisting that disbelief in evolution is necessary for Salvation, or that belief in evolution is incompatible with Christianity.
I understand your point. I'm not an evolutionist or a creationist. I'm stuck trying to make up my mind and I've ridden the pendulum several times. Too many times, I guess. I've argued against every option so many times that I don't know what to believe anymore. None of the options seem to really make sense up close.
How do you rectify the sequence of events proposed by evolution with those presented in the bible? Do you really believe that God chose to mention grasses before the sun as some sort of figurative literary device? What is that supposed to teach us?
Is every biblical event that contradicts scientific evidence to be regarded as figurative? Even the resurrection? Where does that leave us?
Convenient? You don't know much about hermeneutics, do you? All you have to do to prove him wrong is find an exception to his rule. Go ahead-- find one.