I assume you are referencing some of the writings on the six days of creation.
I have 2 major problems with macro evolution.
1. It violates the laws of thermodynamics.
2. It starts down the slope where God gets removed from the creation of man.
As for how long creation took, don't know. That is one of the questions I want to ask when I get to heaven (I have quite a list actually!). The language used in Genesis points to a series of 6 "conventional" days, but not necessarily.
>>I assume you are referencing some of the writings on the six days of creation. <<
Actually, I was not. That's been on this thread by others, actually; his searching for alternate meanings of what a "day" means certainly suggests he is arguing against 144-hour creationism. But he elsewhere demonstrates a notion of an extremely vast period of geological time.
>>I have 2 major problems with macro evolution.
1. It violates the laws of thermodynamics. <<
I've had this discussion with physics majors. The generation of a photon is the result of an electron dropping from a high-energy state into a low-energy state. This leaves the atom in question with a lot less entropy. Since a photon can then excite another electron, a photon is essentially a bearer of entropy as well as energy. Now, life first formed in the chemical soup of early earth, where you had many intermediate stores of entropy and energy, so for simplicity's sake, I'll simply talk about modern life forms:
When a plant absorbs the photon, it absorbs its entropy. Hence, it can assimilate other matter without violating entropy. (the decreasing of entropy is, I presume, the law you're referring to?)
The problem I have is this: if space travel causes life to jump from one planet to the next, the colonized planet would appear to have a fantastic, sudden jump in order. I have been told this is a "biocentric" view, that I value biological order greater than other forms of order which can be rapidly diminished by the sudden emergence of life on a colonized planet. So I suppose the issue is that of the *significance* of life, which shifts us back out of physics and back into philosophy and theology. But I'm still not entirely satisfied.
>>2. It starts down the slope where God gets removed from the creation of man. <<
Yes, but that can be said of all science. Religionists, including Christians, used to think of weather as purely "acts of God." Does our understanding of meteorology remove God? The key thing is that somewhere, somehow, Man received the Divine Spark of reason. Someday, perhaps soon, biology may explain how man acquired reason, but the material explanations of consciousness will never even describe the phenomenon of it.