I'll take that in the spirit in which it was intended -- passive aggressive I think
Well, I'll say that I like to think that I responded in a fashion that kept the conversation going.
I should have said "... both sides look really silly if one takes a step back from the fray."
Obviously there were historians before the 19th century. I'm not a scholar, but it's hard to imagine that they were expected to adhere to the standards that historians are expected to adhere to today.
This brings to mind a quote from
Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczyinski:
Understanding is a thee edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/139949-understanding-is-a-three-edged-sword-your-side-their-side
IMO, what it sounds like you are saying is that we expect modern historians to give us the truth - in other words - to render a factual and complete account of events.
While I would like to believe that historians will always give a factual and complete account of historical events, there is another quote that I think holds true:
History is written by the victors.
Some say Winston Churchill said this, but it is attributed to others, too.
As an example, those in the US of European descent celebrate Columbus Day. However, for at least some Native Americans, it has become a day of mourning.
http://americanindiansource.com/columbusday.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_Day
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Peoples'_Day
There are other, more recent events, that come to my mind, but I will refrain from stirring more controversy ATM.
This does, IMO, lend some insight to the topic. People will believe things despite the underlying truth. Around 240 BC, Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth thus proving the Earth is round. IMO, the math and the principle behind this proof are not all that complicated. Yet people still, for whatever reason, think the Earth is flat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes
Was it just one of our days?
Where science and the bible disagree on this is that the stars existed in advance of the Earth from the perspective of science. In fact, some scientific theories of the origin of the solar system put forth the idea that a supernova occurred in the solar neighborhood and may have been the initiator of the collapse of a protoplanetary cloud of material (much like the Orion Nebula is now
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_Nebula) into our solar system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System
Because a supernova is considered at least a partial catalyst for the formation of the solar system and the Earth, stars must have existed before the Earth as without stars, there could be no supernovae.
As to your question, various people have interpreted the length of a biblical day in various ways. This site -
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/326-is-the-bible-creation-account-a-myth
has this to say about the matter:
The conclusion, therefore, must be this:Genesis 1 is not myth; it is not symbolic or poetic; it is straight-forward, literal history. That is the fact of the situation.
Which to me implies that their view is that the seven days are to be interpreted as literally seven of our current calendar days.
From the wikipedia link to the scientific viewpoint, one can gather that it is believed to have taken vastly longer.
IMO, that link gives some excellent scientific detail.