I will stick to your biblical reasons:
I would also like to see you -- or one of the other detractors -- address the scientific reasons. God created the universe. Why did he create it with the appearance of great age if it is less than 10,000 years old. That's not just a science issue but a spiritual issue as well.
YOM, is not a biblical reason. Yom can mean something like "Days of yore" but it can also mean "1 day" so in context with numbers (first,second, third) and coupled with "mornings" and "evenings" would biblically suggest just that a Day..(it actually has very similar usage to Day of English)
You admit that yom can mean something like "days of yore." Isaiah 30:8 says, "Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time (yom) to come for ever and ever." This is just one example of the many times that yom is use to mean an indefinite period of time -- in this case, eternity.
The word yom has multiple meanings. Use the meaning of the word that most fits with what God has shown us from his creation, It's much easier than trying to force creation to fit to a single narrow meaning of a word.
Adam introduced sin...was Adam real?
Yes, Adam and Eve were real persons.
you still have the problem of death before sin
I believe that the physical death of plants and animals existed in the world before Adam and Eve. Lions and tigers were designed to be carnivorous. Bats were designed to catch and eat flying insects. Some bacteria eat other bacteria. The Venus fly trap and the pitcher plant are examples of plants that eat insects. And why would snakes be designed with fangs and poison if it were not to be used against other animals?
Why was there the physical death of plants and animals before Adam and Eve? I don't know. One thing to note is that "the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed." (Genesis 2:7). God expelled Adam and Eve from the garden after the fall -- to me, that says that the Garden of Eden was a special place on the earth unlike any other place. Some have theorized that Adam and Eve were created to redeem creation from the ravages of Satan. I don't know, but it's possible.
you still have the problem of death before sin...what did Jesus die for...sin...why was the world created with sin in it??? it wasn't, Adam introduced sin...was Adam real?
could a "very good" world have the stench of rotting corpses, cancer and dismemberment of man and animals in it?
_____________________________________
Perhaps it is time that a paleontologist chime in on the issue. Paleontology has become a very diverse science that cover numerous evidences with direct bearing on issues that cover the age of the earth. While there are numerous pontifications declaring unequivocally that the earth is 6,000 years old and that everything terrestrial and astrological were created in 6 days (Note: literally the sun moon, stars, and constellations, and all of their dynamic interrelationships were created in twelve hours, not 6 days), Efforts to prove this point paleontologially have centered on two primary issues:
1) Co-habitation of humans and all life forms found in the fossil record
2) Death (i.e. extinction)
These two are obviously interrelated and have to be proved with regard to a specific time frame. For the evolutionists, as much time as he thinks he needs he gets, but the young-earthers are constrained to six 24-hour days and a total age of all material in the universe to 6,000 years.
It needs to be stressed that the young earther time frame is self imposed and is based upon a particular interpretation of the Genesis account, buttressed with secondary sources throughout the Bible. Still, it is an interpretation and can only garner scientifc dogmatism through the discovery and interpretation of objective physical evidence.
On the other hand, evolutionists have issues to deal wiih as well. They too need the variable of time in order to posit their points. They have an advantage over the young earthers in the sense that their time constraints do not need beginning or end points. Five billion years is a relative term in the sense that all time has at the very least beginning points.
The beginning point may be certain only through human measurement, while the end point is continually changing. Five billion years from what? We may say the big bang, but what is your reference point for its beginning. It is only 5 billion years referenced from human time. Thus we become the end point, and that end point is constantly changing. If I believe tomorrow what I believe today, the age of the earth is now one day older. Interestingly, the creationists have solved this problem of time by quoting Genesis "In the beginning God created." So they do have a begin point that the naturalistic evolutionists will never find. In other words while the age of the earth has increased dramically from tens of thousands, to hundreds of thousands, to millions, and hundreds of millions, to billions, and so on and so forth, by the naturalistic evolutionist, the creationists time frame is still exactly what it was when Bishop Usshur (sic) "scientifically" through counting all the geneologies in the Bible came up with ----- 6,000 years.
Therefore, it must be that all animals and all plants that ever are and ever were lived together, and though scripturally (through the young earth perspective) they were not created contemporaneously, the first occurrance of life seperated from the creation of man by no less than 72 hours. Such a difference in time can never be measured in any significant way and so it is assumed by all that they were essentially created together.
Several points must be stressed: Firstly, The young-earth creationist perspective was firmly in place before two important discoveries took place in the 19th century: The discovery of dinosaurs, and the fact of extinction. In fact, the discovery of the one lead to the conclusion of the other. It was immediately obvious that the discovery of dinosaur bone, both articulated and scattered, stunned both camps.
The presence of gigantic reptilian beasts that lived on land, in the seas, and flew, represented a challenge to the status quo in a number of significant areas. Where did such monsters come from? Why did they get so big? Why were so many of them ferocious carnivores? Why are there no creatures like them on earth today? These and other questions required answers from both secular and religious academics. These questions are still difficult to answer, even today, for while we have advanced significantly in our ideas as to what dinosaurs looked like, and to a lesser degree, how they behaved, questions surrounding their biological origins and their untimely demise are much harder to answer.
From an evolutionary point of view, dinosaurs represent such a dramatic advance over anything previously thought ot have existed on earth, that explaning their remarkable structural and bio-mechanical characterristics strain logic. It's one thing to find evidence of the existence of a bigger bear, or a longer whale, or a larger shellfish, but to find a whole race of animals, of a size and composition that have no familiar representatives alive today, was a startling discovery, for it implied extinction on a global scale.
Secular and religious academics reacted to the discovery of dinosaurs very differently. Secular scientists, enamored with the freshly brewed ideas of classical evolution, as described and explained by Charles Darwin, sought to incorporate the dinosaurs into newly developing evolutionary beliefs. Religious academics, for the most part, used the hardened skeletal remains of dinosaurs as evidence of the horrrors and all-encompasing nature of the Biblical flood of Noah.
Early on, evolutionists were faced with the problem of explaining, in non-catastrophic terms (thereby distancing themselves from invoking the catastrophe of Noah's flood), their sudden and dramatic demise. For the dinosaurs, as big and as grand as they were, died, without leaving a living trace behind whereby one could have anticipated their prior existence. Sincee this was true, it appeared to be an evolutionary dead end. But more importantly, if evolution was energized by survival of the fittest, then the dinosaurs seemed to prove that the fittest died. For they were bigger, stronger, and more adaptable, even by modern standards, than anything else that emerged on earth, iincluding mammals and man. And even though their carcasses were found on every continent, and in every kind of environmental niche, they still inexplicably died.
But there was no celebration for the creationists,for extinction was not at all in their vocabulary. Before the dinosaur discoveries, extinction for a creationist meant the termination of larger representatives of contemporaneous species -- that is, biggerr birds, bears, camels, wolves, and the like. But now there was a whole race of creatures that had never before been known to exist, and they were all wiped out to a beast.
I have written this long polemic to get to this point: We must consider what impact the presence and composition of the fossils of dinosaurs and other extinct reptiles has had on the Biblical creationists theology -- specifically as they relate to ideas of paradise (Eden), the fall of man, the subsequent curse, and the Noachian deluge. Additionally, what does their discovery mean for the prevailing views about the age of the earth? Finally what did the discovery of the extinction of these animals mean to the idea of the creation and preservation of species?
Listen to Henry Morris and John Whitcomb in their 1961 edition of The Genesis Flood:
"Uniformitarian paleontology, of course, dates the formation of the major fossiliferous strata many scores and hundreds of millions of years before the appearance of human beings on the earth. It assumes that uncounted billions of animals had experienced natural of violent deaths before the fall of Adam; that many important kinds of animals had long since become extinct by the time God created Adam to have dominion over every living creature;and that long ages before the edenic curse giant flesh-eating monsters like Tyrannosaurus Rex roamed the earth,slashing their victims with ferocious dagger-like teeth and claws. But how can such an iinterpretation of the history of the animal kingdom be reconciled with the early chapters of Genesis? Does the book of Genesis, honestly studied in the light of the New Testament, allow for a reign of tooth and claw and death and destruction before the fall of Adam?" (Pg 454-455).
See what I mean?
I will write more later.