"i could do the same with some highly qualified scientists also."

Qualifications vary....

Sorry Pete, but they DO know how 'some' DNA can survive for a very long time.....not much, but in some teeth and bones which have been protected from the elements.

When you put forward 'specifics' from only selected sources, you would require me to do the same to refute them, then you would simply disagree.

"circular reasoning-therefore the theological understanding must be wrong."

That is not what I said... nor have I ever said. I have said that circular reasoning is a poor argument, even IF the conclusion turns out to be true. The goal is to defend data and its application in a non-circular way.
A circular argument is a warning to not trust the conclusion... to be wary.

...and... Stephen J. Gould understood the entire realm of discussion far better than you..OR I. You simply cannot dismiss him as 'cut & dried', because none of his analysis WAS cut & dried. He studied and grew & learned and explored as long as he lived.

People told Columbus he'd fall off the edge of the Earth if he sailed too far West. He said "let's find out." Then HE was wrong about what he actually found (not about the concept,...but the details) , and others had to explore further. So it is with history and evolution and the stars and the Meaning of Life. We may never know the ultimate answer(s), but shrugging and saying "I read this old manuscript, and don't need any more answers." is not how most of us wish to avoid exploring.