Those who insist on yom meaning a literal 24-hour day have to deal with the fact that every scientific observation contradicts their theology.
Those who interpret yom to mean an indeterminate period of time -- which is completely compatible with other uses of yom in the Bible -- find that there is no contradiction between science and the Bible.
Those are actually not all the uses of Yom in the OT, just the first on the list. It also is translated in various areas to Chronicles, Continually, Ever, and Evermore. Even in Genesis 1 & 2, there are at least four different translations of Yom. Even Moses, who is the attributed author of Genesis (among other books) used the word Yom to represent 12-hours, 24 hours, the creative week, forty days, several months, a lifetime, and eternity.
And speaking of “evolution”, since this thread was started to “show” evolution “false” simply because of the odd presence of proteins where none were expected: When fossils were first discovered, their presence was a mystery in of itself. After all, bones themselves are made of proteins (as well as minerals), so, it was strange to find bones that were apparently (at the time at least) thousands of years old.
Let's think about this point for a second. Even if the earth is only 6,000 years old, then that would mean the fossils (the bones) are at least 4,000 years old, if not older.
So if we're going to scoff and say, “It's IMPOSSIBLE that proteins could survive for millions of years”, isn't equally ludicrous to suggest that “bones” could survive for 4,000 years? After all, the central argument here is that, by our natural experience today, we never see a corpse from any animal survive past, at most, 100 years.
Unless something “special” happened to it. Like with mummies for example. Here, we see man replicating the natural preservative power of dry dessert conditions to preserve his remains.
So, now that we have established that we can't use our own, natural experience to judge whether it's possible that bones could survive for thousands of years, it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that it's possible that proteins in the bones could last that long.
Or maybe even longer. After all, once the first 100 or so years are surpassed, what significant microbial activity could possibly occur that would decompose the proteins? There are no known microbes that metabolize so slowly as to only divide once every 1,000 years or so. So, once the initial hurdle is surpassed, there appears no significant reason to believe such internal proteins *couldn't* survive for thousands, tens of thousands, or even millions of years.
Speaking of microbes, one must remember that in many parts of the body (the bones included), there exists a sterile environment. So it's not like the bones started out with a load of bacteria already munching away at them right after the animal died. Decomposition occurs when insects and other scavengers break the sterile borders, such as the skin and later the bones, open, thus allowing microbial growth.
And one final point in this, admittedly, rambling post: The very process that encourages fossilization (quick sedimentation, along with a relatively anaerobic environment and later, relatively arid condition) are quite hostile to many microbes.
All of these points lead me, at least, to conclude, while surprising, it's not at all “devastating” or “contrary” to the theory of an old earth to find the presence of certain proteins in intact, relatively sterile (at the moment of death) bones.
But let's not let that stop us as we continue to claim we aren't "Christian enough" if we don't take the Bible literally, all the time. After all, there are some eyes to pluck out and hands to chop off next (c.f. Matt 5:29, 18:9, Mark 9:47)
Morning and evening of a “yom” without a Sun. Poetic language? Possible. Literal? Not likely.
Raining for “40 days and 40 nights” is also not usually said to be taken literally. “40 days and 40 nights” was the Levant equivalent of saying “a month of Sundays”. Good thing they didn't use that expression in the Bible, or we would be treated to a discourse among Creationists on how God manipulated time to make a literal “month of Sundays”.