That's my point. A literal interpretation of Genesis is irreconcilable with scientific observations. If you want to say that the Bible trumps the evidence from geology, paleontology, and physics, that's fine. I disagree, but at least it's a coherent position. It's when people start misrepresenting the evidence that I have a problem.
Actually, a literal interpretation might make things go a lot easier among reasonable persons.
Just as we can't say if the chicken or the egg came first, we can acknowledge that the Bible clearly states that Adam and Eve were created as a man and a woman. None of that puberty stuff for those two.
By rationalizing that, one might be able to stipulate that the entire planet was made as a mature entity and indeed never had to go through the Pleistocene, Precambrian ages, and all that other stuff evidentialized by strata.
Hey, if I were going to make an argument about the matter, thats probably the position that I'd prefer to hold in a debate.
It can't really be argued as I see it.
On the other hand, something coming from nothing seems pretty far fetched to me.