The Days of Creation in Genesis 1 were not Literal 24-hr days like we have today.

1 - The sun is not what makes our day's a day. The Earth spins on it's axis. The sun simply marks the difference between day and night. The Earth would have still been spinning and still have taken the same relative time as it does today. Also, God created light on day 1. We don't know exactly what this means, but it is reasonable to sugguest that he was himself the source of light as he will be in heaven. (Revelation 21:23)2 - One thing to note is that is says that Adam named every animal at the time. (1) This does not mean he named every animal we have today. God made animal kinds. (2) The diversity we have today can be explained by microevolution within these created kinds. We see animals mutate and form 'microevolutions' today, so we know this is possible. Now I want recall that the world was perfect at this time, because man didn't sin until Genesis 3. Therefore his mind was exactly as God created it to be. The evolutionist proposes that man has been evolving to be smarter, but the creationist believes that man has been devolving by means of mutation. We are a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of ... of the original. We're simply not as smart or fast as Adam was. Let's also remember God was with him and may have been helping him along the way if he needed. Adam, having the perfect body, was proabably able to manage that full 24-hour day of work if he needed. There was plenty of time for Adam to name the kinds, if we imagine the pre-sin world.3 - The Hebrew word for day used here is 'yom.' (3) Yom has many uses, but most of the time it either means a 24-hour day, a 12-hour sunrise day, or a long span of time. We know that Genesis 2 uses it in a different sense, as do many other passages in the Bible.4 - Pangea is a theory. We do not know that this to be true, we can only speculate. The Global Flood of Noah provides a mechanism to separate the continents at a faster pace. It is also important to note that the continents may not be such perfect fits as we believe. They fit much better with the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, which probably came from the Flood according to Creationist Theory. (5; 6)5 - If these layers are varves, and thinly came about year by year, why do we find such well preserved fossils in them? Fossilization is rare, and requires fast burial and specific conditions. (7; 8) It is also important to note, that if you research these varves there is a great level of regularity within them, which is strange if they each came about year by year for millions of years. Creationists have no issue explaining this as a Global Flood and result of a catastrophe. (9; 10)(My opponent then made a mistake in his number datings, but I will adjust them to what they should be in order.)3 6 - Radiometric dating is built upon assumptions. We assume that what we observe today, and for about the last 150 years, is exactly as the world has been for billions of years. This is unscientific. A Global Catastrophe would throw a wrench in this entire idea, because of the sheer devastation. It should be noted that Radiometric Dating is not perfect, and it does have errors. Radiocarbon is especially interesting. A mammoth was carbon dated, at one part about 46,000 years and in another 30,000. (11) Plenty of living creatures have been dated and concluded as thousands of years old. (12) Even more interestingly, we find Carbon14 in diamonds and coal, which shouldn't be there after 60,000 years give or take. (13; 14) The notion that these datings all agree and are never wrong is quite simply false. (15)4 7 - Distant Starlight isn't really a problem for the Creationist. We don't just need starlight to be here in 6,000 years, we need it to have been here in a couple days. The stars were created as signs, so they had to be here by the time Adam was made. There are many different theories as to how to explain it, such as a time-dialation. Light-year is a measure of distance, not time. While it generally is used to measure time, we do not know that the speed of light has been consistent. We also don't know how close the universe used to be. About eleven times in the Bible God says he's stretching out the heavens, and that is what we find today. The problem may be solveable by a physical property, but God also could have done it miraculously. God created Adam and the Garden mature, so he could've made the universe mature. I am quite happy to admit I do not know though. While we look for a physical mechanism for distant starlight, we may as well also look for a physical mechanism for the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection. I don't think it necessarily needs a physical explanation based on what we find in Genesis.5 8 - We have found World War 2 planes under 250 feet of ice. Considering the time since the war, this means they accumulated about 5 feet of snow per year. If this rate was constant, we would see that the ice we find could've been produced in about 1,000 years. If you account for all the processing to turn it into the ice layers, this could be explained in about 4,000-5,000 years. Exactly as Genesis predicts. There is no reason to assume that only one layer of ice forms a year. We see multiple ice layers form in a single winter. Ice layers are not evidence of an Old Earth, as presuppositions and assumptions are repeatedly used to arrive at these 'dates.' (16; 17)6 9 - Each day of Genesis ending with 'and the evening and morning' should give you a strong indication of what was being talked about here. It is true that the seventh day is not over. We do not read that the day was over at the end of Genesis 1. This is no reason to assume the other days were not meant as literal.Biblical Support of a literal 24 hour dayThe Bible clearly indicates that the world was created in 24 hour days.Exodus 20:11 (18) states that in six days God created the world. That is the reason that we even have our week. We can explain our year based on the sun, our month on the moon, and our day on the earth's rotation, but we have no calendar reason for a week except for the fact that God modeled this for us in Genesis.Early church fathers, Jews, Pharasies, and believers of Jesus' day accepted the Genesis account as 24 hour days. (19) This is significant for many of reasons, but one of the most important things to note is that Jesus never corrected this. If this were wrong, you thing Jesus would at least elude to this false doctrine going around right? On the contrary, Jesus affirmed the Bible. Jesus believed in the literal Genesis account: Matthew 19:4, (Creation) Luke 17:26-27, (Noah) among many others.To say that the Genesis account is not a literal 24-hour day creation is to reject the inerrency of Scripture. To reject the inerrency of Scripture is either to say God is a liar or the Bible is not of God, both of which the Bible says is not true. (Numbers 23:19, Titus 1:2) If God or the Bible lie about what we can see, then we cannot believe them on the matters we can't see. Therefore, to reject Genesis 1-11 required rejecting the entire Bible and subsequently Christianity as a whole.(1) - Genesis 2:19-21 https://www.biblegateway.com...(2) - Genesis 1:25 https://www.biblegateway.com...(3) - http://biblehub.com...(4) - http://biblehub.com...(5) - http://creationscience.com...(6) - http://creationscience.com...(7) - http://ic.galegroup.com...?(8) - https://answersingenesis.org...(9) - https://answersingenesis.org...(10) - http://www.creationliberty.com...(11) - https://pubs.usgs.gov...(12) - https://books.google.com...(13) - https://creation.com...(14) - (15) - https://answersingenesis.org...(16) - http://www.icr.org...(17) - https://answersingenesis.org...(18) - http://biblehub.com...(19) - https://answersingenesis.org...