/QUOTE]
Oh great. Tell me then, are you saying its not possible?
I'm warning you against being smarmy about a sophisticated topic that is his professional area of expertise. As for the theory it is the wrong question. The real question is whether or not given the evidence this is a likely answer, and whether or not based on our understanding and evidence it is true. On both counts the answer is no. I can only presume that this argument is sourced from Gerald Schroeder the Orthodox Jewish physicist who has made a living off popularizing this perspective and written three books in which this figures prominently.
The argument is premised on injecting a supernatural element which complicates an already explainable natural event. It is intellectually equivalent to saying God (even though he vehemently denies this) created the Universe with the appearance of age but was actually created in the 6,000-8,000 year timeframe. Is this possible? Sure. But only if God exists, which in turn begs some other pointed questions. Is it something we can determine given the evidence at our disposal? Absolutely not. Is there a natural explanation that requires no supernatural injection? Yes.
More specifically the claim usually runs something like: One day corresponds to the creation of the galactic disk (of the Milky Way) some 15-16 billion years ago, day two corresponds to the appearance of water on Earth some 3-7 billion years ago, day three corresponds to atmospheric development some 1.5-3 billion years ago, day four is the appearance of multicellular organisms 750 mya-1.5 billion years ago, day five is that interlude to the first extinction 250mya-700mya, day six is that extinction to humans some 250mya-some biblically specific number like 6,000 when modern humans are supposed to have appeared (this is wrong), and of course day seven the day of rest. This of course is measured from the "wave frequency of the cosmic microwave background radiation"
What are the problems with this? Primarily that it is unfalsifiable and completely unnecessary injection meant to contort Genesis into scientific accuracy. More specific problems revolve around glaring inconsistencies with the source material (Genesis) and his theory which I'd have to dig up his book again to expound upon. Though there are quite a few rather detailed reviews and essays circling around that have done a better job of debunking those claims than I probably could.