So I tend to believe that a 7-24hr day creation might someday also be validated.
Well, I tend to be a young Earther myself, but I do not take the bible to say things beyond which it actually says. For example, while it is true that the vast majority of the uses of the word "day" in the bible, indicate short periods of time, 24 hours is never expressly stated in the creation account. Genesis defines a day as one cycle of lightness and darkness, before the Sun is ever placed in the heavens. So, strictly speaking, a solar day is not specified. Later, the Sun (apparently - referred to as a great light, is associated with the day:
14Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
So, it looks reasonable there to assume that from the fourth day onward, a 24 hour day is indicated, assuming the length of a day and light cycle has not varied since then. Of course, if one assume they have never varied, then before the fourth day would seem to be 24 hour days also.
To Alpha's question, I think it just depends on people's personal prejudices. If one's prejudice leads one to trust scientists to be in the best position to determine truths like this, then one will tend to accepts a tremendously old universe. If scientists were always correct, never having to amend their theories or offer new ones, then it would be easy to give them a lot of credibility. In fact, I personally give them great credibility on most things that science legitimately addresses.
I find their pronouncements on how electricity behaves, to be very credible. Of course we can directly test and observe how electricity behaves. It is much harder for the average person to observe the past, thousands or millions or billions of years ago, so we are somewhat more skeptical on that topic, knowing that even scientists cannot directly observe the creation/formation of the earth. As it was expressed in the book of Job:
1Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said,
2“Who is this that darkens counsel
By words without knowledge?
3“Now gird up your loins like a man,
And I will ask you, and you instruct Me!
4“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding,
5Who set its measurements? Since you know.
Or who stretched the line on it?
6“On what were its bases sunk?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7When the morning stars sang together
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8“Or who enclosed the sea with doors
When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb;
9When I made a cloud its garment
And thick darkness its swaddling band,
10And I placed boundaries on it
And set a bolt and doors,
11And I said, ‘Thus far you shall come, but no farther;
And here shall your proud waves stop’?
Etc., etc. God's point; "Since you think you are so smart, and know how it all happened, let me ask you plainly, "Were you there?"
God was there, God was the eye witness, God knows how it happened. So, the questions are really: "Did God inspire the Bible to be written? Did the writers express God's thoughts accurately? Is Genesis intended to be taken literally?
For myself, I answer those questions in the affirmative, but it is just an opinion, which I cannot prove. Still, it is what guides me, it is where my faith is placed.
Not everyone has that sort of faith, I consider it a gift. If I happen to be incorrect, then perhaps it is more of a curse and I am doomed to erroneous conclusions. I have a concern, that if people believe that Genesis should be taken symbolically, poetically etc, then I see no reason why that option is not available to any area of the Bible to which one chooses to apply it. For example, we might imagine that the New Testament narratives are not literally accurate, and Jesus did not really, literally die and rise again from the dead. If we can do that, then of course we should note what the apostle Paul said (1 Cor 15):
14 . . .and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.15Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied."
Now, I do not at all, envy people like Alpha, who seem to be stuck in a position of a mix of faith and doubt, or a blend of faith is contradictory things, or at least things that are not easily complimentary. I enjoy a certain type of freedom in the sort of faith given me . . . a freedom from concern over what people know about what I believe. In the lines of work which I have engaged in, I can express my belief in a young earth, or a literal rising from the dead of Jesus, and that He is God, the Creator Himself, in human flesh.
If I say such things, people can ponder: "How can someone this seemingly intelligent, believe in such superstitious nonsense?" What they cannot rationally conclude is: "That Omegaman believes such incredulous things, that he cannot possibly be a competent machinist. I am not sure that Alpha, in his field, can expect his peers to assume that his thinking has the clarity to really allow him to be as good a scientist as he could be.
So, I probably drifted way off topic, my mind tends to wander a lot. However, I will circle back to where I began, that of conforming one's own beliefs to conform to ones prejudices, aligning them to the ideas and people in whom one has the most faith. Am I more rational to believe that scientists are the class of people who are the most qualified to answer complex questions about the origins of the universe, or is it possible, that I can be just as rational, thinking that theologians, who have spent lifetimes of study in their field also, might have those answers?
More to the point, is rationality itself, the source of truth, or is that also something in which we must have faith? In the final analysis, for me, I neither place faith in scientists nor theologians, neither has enough credibility for me, to instruct me how I must think, what I must believe. Both groups make grievous errors.
Whether by choice, or something outside of my willing control, I believe in a personal and intelligent God, who has inspired certain individuals of His choosing, to create a collection of writings now collected in what we call the Bible. I then must use what gifts, talents, skills, intelligence, and other resources at my disposal to arrive at the best conclusions I know how to make, and then to the best of my abilities (God given of of self will) try to live my life in compliance with my beliefs.