I wonder where in my post you got that idea from
I don’t like believing, so I usually avoid terms like credibility when I can. The purpose of theories is to predict the results of experiments.
The idea of “the world being created in six days” is, by itself, very vague, so it can be fleshed out in countless different ways. Some of these won’t even be theories in the scientific sense, because they won’t make empirically testable predictions. Others will be equivalent to existing mainstream theories; i.e., they’ll predict the same result for every experiment. The only reason they’re not normally used is that they’ll be more complex—they’re discarded, on practical grounds, by Ockham’s razor. For example, you can toy with the concepts of creation and day, and postulate that known laws of physics were different at that time, in whatever way turns out to be necessary to predict the empirical results we already know, thus gaining no predictive power, but saving your pet theory from refutation. Another theory constructed in this way is Last-Thursdayism.
Naïve interpretations of the idea that the world was created in six days, however, are most likely to result in already refuted theories, by making predictions incompatible with available empirical data.
The theory of evolution, on the other hand, belongs firmly to the category of theories with a decent amount of empirical support, which means a decent amount and variety of experiments have been performed which could, in principle, have refuted it, but didn’t.
_________________
The red lake has been forgotten. A dust devil stuns you long enough to shroud forever those last shards of wisdom. The breeze rocking this forlorn wasteland whispers in your ears, “Não resta mais que uma sombra”.