I've heard this argument before, and this recreation centers around the second line of Genesis 1:
And the earth was without form, and void The argument goes, as it always does, that this is a mistranslation. What it should read, is that ....the earth became without form and void, thus indicating non contradiction of a very old earth, that we ere otherwise unaware of, and which we are just discovering now.
Here's the problem
Philosophers have known for some time now that all things have two fundamental qualities: Its shape or form, and it's substance, and the two are distinguishable. Distinct.
The second line of Genesis tells us that the earth was without both of these. It had neither form nor substance. Now, even if one interprets Genesis, and thus the earth, as having a pre history of sorts....it is entirely meaningless from our point of view or inquiry since between the two instantiations, God would have obliterated any evidence of it since it became without form or substance.
That means that all the evidence science has collected, must necessarily be from this second instantiation of the earth....and you're right back to where you started, without accomplishing anything....
That seems to present another dilemma. If the Earth had neither form nor substance, what exactly was it they were calling "the earth"?