This is my first time learning of THIS theory...

[Maytan]

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c005.html

What possible validity lies in this? I'm not very happy with the obvious hostility towards the Day-age crowd (and other beliefs that reject that the Earth was created in six 24-hour days), but it seems like an interesting concept.

I've been especially interested in the various 'arguments' (so to speak) between YEC and OEC. This is largely because I've been working on educating myself in the area of apologetics. All my life I had been part of the YEC crowd; when I stumbled upon this website about a year ago and read some of Mr. Deem's work (a long with various other pages; I think a few items from Hugh Ross as well), I had pretty much accepted that OEC (or Day-age) makes more sense in many regards. Of course, I'm still not entirely convinced, but I feel I'm leaning rather towards the side of Day-age.

However, with uncertainty comes many questions. Especially in an area that my entire take on apologetics is likely going to be based upon. If the base for my arguments is fallible and containing glaring flaws, I'm obviously not off to a good start.

[Kurieuo]

I personally came to a day-age interpretation based on Scripture. I was then naively drawn away from this position towards YEC due to hearing Ken Ham forcefully preach that accepting anything other than a 24 hour position as anti-Scriptural. I then came across apologetic sites like G&S where my original personal interpretation was supported way beyond I ever had thought.

At the end of the day, there is a wrong presupposition motivating articles like the one you referred to, and accepting such quasi-science. This presupposition is that Scripture does not lend itself to any creation position other than everything being created in 6 literal days. This is just wrong.

[Maytan]

I appreciate the reply, and I think you're rather correct. Not much else for me to say here; thanks.