T its pretty clear in Genesis that God creates everything at the same time on specific days, that people then attempt to claim a day is millions of years is just bs,
Nope, that is where you demonstrate your profound ignorance.
The Hebrew word
ywm that is interpreted "day" is actually capable of being interpreted in multiple ways: both as a literal 24 hour day, and as a poetic, metaphorical day, more properly rendered as "age" or "era". (Interestingly, the English word "day" is similarly capable of both literal and poetical interpretations.)
Since the story of creation is in a poetical mode, the "age" interpretation is actually the more accurate.
This has long been a controversy in the Church, known as the "Day/Age Controversy"; and a point of contention between the radical fundamentalist literalists, few of whom have a strong grounding in the idiomatic langauge; and the more scholarly and less dogmatic types.
The main point of argument is not whether the word
can be interpreted either way, but what indicators exist that it
should be interpreted in a particular way. The main contention of the literalists is that the interpretation should match the existing use of the word in the rest of scripture; and that usage outside the scripture should not affect interpretation. Since the word is used literally everywhere else in the canon, it should be used literally here. The scholarly counterpoint is that it should be interpreted according to its usage in the language in general, how the average reader of the time would have understood it, using contemporary usage to determine interpretation.
The literalist argument fails on three points: 1) The literary mode of the story requires a metaphoric rather than literal interpretation. 2) Despite their assertions, the word is
not used literally everywhere else in canon. There are two clear places where it is used metaphorically (the literalists have argued against this, but the passages are rendered nonsensical with a literary interpretation). 3) Asserting that a text can only be interpreted within itself is circular reasoning. A text must be understood by those who are its intended audience; therefore an examination of the language as understood by the mass of the people requires the inclusion of contemporary texts in order to fully understand the common usage.
Interpreters of a less agenda-driven and more objective nature universally interpret
ywm metaphorically instead of literally. Therefore, even if one ascribes a to a literal genealogy (which, as was pointed out earlier, is not necessarily correct); there are still 5 "days" preceding the creation of Man which can easily account for the vast amounts of geologic and astronomical time measures; and even the creation of Man during the 6th "day" occurs in the context of a long period of time, not a single day.
Interestingly, the Roman Catholic church, the largest Christian denomination, does not take an official stance; but overwhelmingly accepts a version of theistic evolution as the most likely mechanism for the creation; with only the existence of the human soul or higher consciousness requiring a direct, divine intervention in the process. Most of the other major denominations, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant, take a similar view. Scripture is there to teach of Man's relationship to God, not science.
. Less of the ad hominem attacks if you please.