There comes a time when you just have to throw up your hands and walk away. I think we've reached that point.
Your point is quite well taken, xzins. We all seem to be in agreement about what the scripture says. It says that the creation was a six day event. Normally you take the plain meaning of a text to determine what it means. In this case the scriptures clearly say that the creation was a six day event and the flood was a worldwide event. If, for some reason, you decide that you don't want to believe that, then you can start looking for some hidden meanings within the text.
Augustine felt that the literal six day period was not consistent with the Glory of a God who could clearly create the whole universe by simply speaking it into existence. Thus he thought that it took away from the Glory of God to suggest that God actually had to work at creation. So he took an allegorical approach to the plain meaning of the scriptures in order to fit the scriptures to his pre-concieved (or deduced, if you will) concepts about God.
But any honest scholar will agree with Barr, that the plain meaning of Genesis Chapter 1 conveys the idea that the whole creation gook place over a period of 144 hours.
As I stated on another thread, Jesus turned water into wine in the span of about a nanosecond. The wine that he created was wine which by all appearances was 10 years in the making (from seed to vine to grapes to wine). So if the earth has the "appearance" of being 4.5 billion years old, is it too much to wonder that God, in his infinite power, created the earth in eternity in a period of time equal to six days? No. In fact Augustine thought it ridiculous to think that it should take God that long to do it.
If we believe that Jesus could turn water into wine in a nanosecond, is it too much to believe that by the same process of miracle (outside the laws of nature and outside the constraints of the time dimension) could do all the work of creation over a period of 144 hours?
If God is making things "appear" old then he is deceitful, which is why even most young-earthers have abandoned the appearance of age argument. And where does the Bible state the wine was 10 years old? Not all good wine is aged nor is all aged wine considered good.
"But any honest scholar will agree with Barr"
Here's a combination logical fallacy, redefining which scholars are honest with ad hominem implications. I guess this Barr is infallible? That's a third fallacy, pointing to one authority while ignoring the others.
"Normally you take the plain meaning of a text to determine what it means."
By definition, a "plain" meaning would not have contradictions and it would consider context, point of view, etc. Young-earthism doesn't meet this test.
"So he took an allegorical approach to the plain meaning of the scriptures in order to fit the scriptures to his pre-conceived (or deduced, if you will) concepts about God."
I think everyone here will agree that statement is absurd. You are inventing why Augustine wrote what he did because he doesn't agree with you and Barr!