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

5 - The famous Green River Formation (including shale and limestone) covers tens of thousands of square miles. In at least one place, it contains about twenty million varves, each varve consisting of a thin layer of fine light sediment and an even thinner layer of finer dark sediment. According to the conventional geologic interpretation, the layers are sediments laid down in a complex of ancient freshwater lakes. The coarser light sediments were laid down during the summer, when streams poured run-off water into the lake. The fine dark sediments were laid down in the winter when there was less run-off. (This process can be observed in modern freshwater lakes.) If this interpretation is correct, the varves of the Green River Formation must have formed over a period of about twenty million years. YE Creationists insist that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old and that the geologic strata were laid down by the Flood. Whitcomb and Morris therefore attempt to attribute the Green River varves to "a complex of shallow turbidity currents ..." (p. 427). Turbidity currents"flows of mud-laden water"generally occur in the ocean, resulting from underwater landslides. If the Green River shales were laid down during the Flood, there must have been forty million turbidity currents, alternately light and dark, over about three hundred days. A simple calculation (which creationists have avoided for twenty years) shows that the layers must have formed at the rate of about three layers every two seconds. A sequence of forty million turbidity currents covering tens of thousands of square miles every two-thirds of a second seems very unlikely. 3 6 " Con continues to argue against radiometric dating based on C-14 in diamonds, etc, which evidence he got from the RATE Group of the Creation Science Institute. Although the RATE group has undertaken a massive fund-raising effort amongst ye-creationists, none of its members has experience or training in experimental geochronology. Two members, Austin and Snelling have written a number of articles in creationist magazines, but neither has published articles using radiometric dating in the mainstream literaturea. Their " 'technical articles' " attempt to discredit radiometric dating based on 'anomalous' results. The problem is that the anomalies were all generated via experimental flaws on the part of the investigators or simply misinterpreting technical articles from peer-reviewed scientific literature." http://gondwanaresearch.com... Who carried out the peer-review? Are the RATE YECs interacting with their peers in the scientific world, free of the constraints placed upon them by their YEC employers? Are they out and about in the mainstream of science exchanging knowledge with their colleagues? Scientific knowledge doubles about every eight years and unless scientists are actively undertaking research and having their research dissected by their mainstream colleagues before publication, and publishing that research in mainstream peer-reviewed journals, then they have no way of keeping up with this explosion of knowledge. In the final analysis, The RATE researchers concede that there is evidence for "more than 500 million years worth (at today"s rates) of nuclear and radioisotope decay" (p. 284). This is a key departure from previous ye-creationist claims that radioactive decay is much less than reported.It is rare for a study involving radiometric dating to contain a single determination of age. Usually determinations of age are repeated to avoid laboratory errors, are obtained on more than one rock unit or more than one mineral from a rock unit in order to provide a cross-check, or are evaluated using other geologic information that can be used to test and corroborate the radiometric ages. Scientists who use radiometric dating typically use every means at their disposal to check, recheck, and verify their results, and the more important the results the more they are apt to be checked and rechecked by others. As a result, it is nearly impossible to be completely fooled by a good set of radiometric age data collected as part of a well-designed experiment. 4 7 " As for the speed of light changing? "Supernova SN1987A is about 170,000 light-years from us (i.e. 997,800,000,000,000,000 miles) whether or not the speed of light has slowed down. Still, the creationist has one ace of a sort remaining. Had the speed of light slowed down, as often imagined by creationists who have not advanced beyond Newtonian physics, the distance of SN1987A would still be 170,000 light-years as indicated above. However, the time that it would take for the light to reach us need not be anywhere near 170,000 years. We might counter by arguing that if the speed of light had changed then so would the decay rates of cobalt-56 and cobalt-57, and since their decay rates have been observed in SN1987A (and appear normal) that should settle it. After all, in observing SN1987A we are seeing it as it was in the past. The decay rates of cobalt-56 and cobalt-57 haven't changed, so light hasn't slowed down. (The speed of light is related to energy by E = mc^2. Thus, if the speed of light could somehow change, then energy would be affected. The end result would also be a change in the radiometric decay rates.)" http://chem.tufts.edu... 5 8 - We have found World War 2 planes under 250 feet of ice? Ice layers are counted by different methods (mainly, visible layers of hoar frost, visible dust layers, and layers of differing electrical conductivity) which have nothing to do with thickness. These methods corroborate each other and match with other independently determined dates. The airplanes landed near the shore of Greenland, where snow accumulation is rapid, at about 2 m per year. Allowing for some compaction due to the weight of the snow, that accounts for the depth of snow under which they are buried. The planes are also on an active glacier and have moved about 2 km since landing. Ice core dating takes place on stable ice fields, not active glaciers. The interior of Greenland, where ice cores were taken, receives much less snow. In Antarctica, where ice cores dating back more than 100,000 years have been collected, the rate of snow accumulation is much less still. A report of "many hundreds" of layers in the ice above the Lost Squadron may also be explained by the airplanes' location on Greenland. That location is relatively warm because it is low and more southerly; its surface gets repeatedly melted during the summer, creating multiple melt layers per year. At the site of the GISP2 ice core, melting occurs only about once every couple centuries. Melt layers are easily distinguished in ice cores. The more than 100,000 layers in ice cores are definitely not melt layers 6 9 " He admits the 7th day isn"t a literal day. This implies the others aren"t either. 10- By no means does Exodus 20:9-11 demonstrate that 24-hour intervals were involved in the first six "days," any more than the eight-day celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles proves that the wilderness wanderings under Moses occupied only eight days. In Leviticus 25:4 the pattern of one out of seven is duplicated with six years of planting the land and one year of "Sabbath rest for the land." This further demonstrates the analogy of our Sabbath to God"s Sabbath does not demand that the creation "week" consisted of seven 24-hour days. The young-earth rejection of the big bang model parallels the Galileo controversy in the 1500s. Galileo observed the earth revolved around the sun, which conflicted with the Catholic Church"s interpretation of Psalm 93:1 (the earth being unmovable) and Ecclesiastes 1:4-5 (the sun appearing to revolve around the earth). Through scientific observation the meaning of Scripture was eventually brought into clearer focus. As respected Christian philosopher William Lane Craig states, "The Big Bang model "dramatically and unexpectedly [supports] the biblical doctrine of creation ex nihilo." Yes, the Bible is infallible, but not man's interpretation of it. Definitely not yours. The Jews and Pharisee rejected Jesus as the Messiah, and didn't understand their own Scriptures, so it matters not if they thought the days were literal. Jesus didn't correct the Pharisees on their belief in reincarnation either, so does that prove it was right? Jesus not talking about the creation days doesn't show he took Con's side. It is well-acknowledged that the church fathers were by no means unified on how to understand the creation days. Even Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine rejected a calendar-day view, believing instead that everything was created instantly. For completeness, I should include Hilary of Poitiers and the Jewish scholar Philo who believed likewise. These are not inspired of God sources and no help in proving Con's case. It's not denying the Bible to deny that the creation days were 24 hours long because the Bible doesn't say how long they were, does it? How far does the Big Science conspiracy go? Currently millions of scientists that understand biology and geology agree with an old earth. According to YEC's they are just keeping their mouth shut because overturning an entire branch of science and winning a Nobel Prize would be too stressful. Add to that the fact that most government scientific agencies (and the entire Judicial branch of the US government) are helping prop up the theory. And don't forget the oil and mineral companies that use non-Flood geology as discovery veins of the good stuff. Well, then you are talking about the biggest conspiracy in the history of mankind. It would include hundreds of millions of people over the last 150 years without one single person blowing the whistle. It just seems unlikely to me that every single discipline of science from oceanography, to paleontology, to geography conspired or accidentally agreed on billions of year.