That argument seems to agree with betty boop's, that the Earth was created outside of time as we understand it, so the reference to "days" can't be held to be as we experience it.
You misunderstand.
My statement above was in response to this statement by you:
I find it redundant to say that a physical entity ("the earth") is without form or substance, when being without substance seems to necessarily imply an absence of form.
The point I was trying to make was, you can't speak of space, without an inference to time, (motion) and you can't speak of time, without an inference to space (distance)
Both are distinct, and necessary when speaking the language of the universe, yet neither is redundant.
The fact that things have these two qualities, form and substance, does not mean they are indistinguishable, or that one is redundant if they are. Neither quality is inferred by the other. Form does not infer substance, and substance does not infer form.
That's all I was trying to clear up.
As far as Betty Boop's argument, and those that are similar, believe me, I would welcome an interpretation of eons with regard to Genesis. It would certainly make science and theology much more compatible, but again, I have yet to hear one that has merit.
So you're saying the conclusion that something with no substance would also have no form is irrational?