The days in Genesis are 24-hour days

I am glad to debate kohai once again. It will certainly be a thrilling debate this time around. I will start with my own arguments and then move on to rebuttals. When looking at the creation account, we must understand that it is a very unique piece of Hebrew poetry. It is not the typical historical narrative we often find in the Bible. We find patterns in 3s, 7s, and 10s. The first three days correlate with the next three days in that the first deals with space, the second with water and sky, and third with land. We need to search this poem and try to understand what it means. We also must notice that the creation occurred with no human witnesses (obviously) and we know the writer is purely God-inspired. Other sections of the Bible are still God-inspired, yet they are also based on human observances. With human observed instances, it would be logical to assume they are speaking of literal days, yet when reading something no human experienced, we must be using God's definition of time rather then human's. 2 Peter 3:8 says, But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. I understand this is not speaking of creation, yet we must ask ourselves, is this a true statement? Given what we know about God, this is a true statement. Peter mentions it is a "fact" implicating that it goes farther then simply the topic it was used for in the verse.I will have two main arguments contending that the first three days were not literal days. The reason I argue the first three days is because I will define a day in relation to the sun. The Hebrews would have used this definition since they did not use mechanical clocks at the time Genesis was written. Defining yom as a period of 24 hours would be inaccurate for this issue.I. The age of the earth/universeWhen dating the earth, scientists have come up with a number that may be unsettling to some Christians, definitely to those adhering to a strict literal interpretation. 4.6 billion years is a far older earth then the approximate age that can be inferred from the tradition interpretation of the Bible (anywhere from 6,000 - 1 million years). The estimated age of the universe, 13.7 billion years, is even more unsettling. Groups like Answers in Genesis have tried to explain this by either claiming that the dates were off, very off, or by looking into far-fetched theories regarding time and the universe. Interestingly, many things on and around the earth (called “clocks”) seem to be much younger than 4.6 billion years. For example, the distance of the moon relative to earth brings into question the radiometric dating of the earth’s rocks. Simple math indicates the moon existed no more than 750 million years ago. [1] If the Bible is really true, then we should expect it to correlate with science. If the first three days of creation were extended periods of time, then these dates would make perfect sense with scientific knowledge. Obviously the earth itself would have existed long before the moon, which was created on day four. However, if the days were 24-hours long, then serious scientific issues arise.II. The trees and other plantsThen God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:11-12Observe that trees or any plant take longer than a mere 24 hours to grow. My opponent might object and say that God just put the vegetation directly on the earth, but notice that the verses directly say that the “earth sprouted vegetation.” This does not indicate that the plants appeared but literally grew from the earth. Look at Genesis 2 where the author goes into detail about the creation of the plants.Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. Genesis 2:5At this point, the beginning of day three, the ground is seeded, yet nothing can grow since there is no water. However, in the next verse God sends a mist from the earth causing the plants to grow. If God had simply made plants appear or supernaturally grow, then this water wouldn’t have been necessary. Instead, these verses indicate that the plants grew by natural means, yet we know it takes more than a day for any plant to naturally grow. We must then conclude that the third day at least was not a 24-hour day. I will now address my opponent's arguments. RebuttalsContention 1: LanguageMy opponent argues that the said day is 24 hours because of the phrase at the end of each day, "There was evening, and there was morning, the ___ day" However, this would be irrelevant for the first three days since there was no sun. The only two accurate definitions for yom are (1) a time from sunset to sunset (2) a time from sunrise to sunset (clearly not the case) or (3) an extended period of time. For the first three days, definition 1 would be invalid, and only definition 3 remains.My opponent argues that the use of the word yom in the rest of the Bible indicates that the word is describing a 24-hour period. However this is a fallacy of accident. Simply because yom indicates a 24-hour day 2301 times outside of Genesis 1 does nothing to prove that Genesis 1 is a 24-hour period. There is actually good reason to believe the contrary. Every time yom is used to describe a 24-hour day, it is within events that have been witnessed by humans. In addition, since the Israelites judged days by the sun and there was no sun in the first three days of Genesis 1, then logically follows that we might have an exception on our hands. Contention 2: Statement by GodMy opponent argues that God gives the meaning of yom to us in Exodus 20:11, "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day..." Yet this argument does not address the issue. We are not arguing whether or not God created the universe in 6 days. Instead, we are arguing what it is meant by day in Genesis and could it be longer that our 24-hour days. The actual time periods between God's work and rest and our work and rest do not need to be the exact same amount of time as God's days are different then ours. After all, God is not restrained by time, living outside of it.Contention 3: A day-age confuses the rest of the OTThis is a straw man since I asserted that I will argue that only the first three days are extended periods of time. I do not personally adhere to the typical day-age theory of creation.Thank you, I await the response of my opponent with much anticipation.[1] http://www.earthage.org...: