My statements of opinion are no stronger than yours. However, they are more progressive and after careful study for many years I think they are more likely to be the actual case.
For example, we can all see that the world is very old and has a long history of life, if we look with an open mind. I don’t know where you live, since you are afraid to tell us, but in the western United States, all you really have to do is go outside and look at nature and it’s quite obvious what you see cannot have happened in thousands or tens of thousands or even millions of years. It took much longer. When a rock formation that is unique in the world exists only in New York City and the western coast of England, we find that this fact fits right into many other facts in the study of tectonic plate movements. Plates move very slowly and it took something like billions of years for the Atlantic ocean to appear between the eastern shores of the Americas and the western shores of Africa and Europe. Scientifically there is no way around this fact. You can call on magic as the solution, as some do, but that’s not a compelling argument for most of us.
Your consistent defense of old ideas seems to be simply because they are old ideas and some human bible writer or EGW (re)stated them. For example, we know masturbation does not cause blindness and crippling illness (another ongoing and rather exhausting topic here) but there are those who state it must be so because EGW said so. Well, she was wrong. She was wrong just like Jesus and Paul were wrong when they stated the Son of Man would return soon, in the lifetimes of their audiences. The bible can be inspired and still wrong about some things, and it is in fact wrong about some things, at least in the literal sense.
This is why your apparent insistence on a literal reading of the origin stories is dangerous. Making them literal makes them unacceptable to many people, probably most people, because of the preponderance of evidence that disagrees with them. It requires throwing out entire bodies of universally accepted scientific understanding, much of which we know to be factual.
On the other hand, if we understand them as allegory, as parable, everyone can accept them and they become beautiful, meaningful, and true.
When the stories of creation are allegory, one no longer has to ask how there could be days before there was a sun, or point out that we now know (by looking at the universe) that a sun forms first and then the planets form around that new sun. And it is no longer important to try to rationalize how it could be that humans could both be created together on the last day of creation as God’s last act before resting, and at the same time Adam could be created before the animals which he then named as God showed them to him, and then He last created Eve.
We know that there are two different creation stories in Genesis, written by different men from different traditions about 500 years apart, who use two different names for God and two different styles of language, about like the difference between 17th century English and modern English. If we understand them to be allegory, that’s not an issue at all. If we insist they are both historically factual then that creates all sorts of questions, many of which have no good answers.
I try to keep an open mind and not adhere to details that are not really that important in the big picture.
This topic remind me of two of my favorite quotes from St Augustine.
“In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that [the truest meaning] of Sacred Scripture.” - St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book 1:37, AD 401-415.
"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics [creation and natural history]; and we should all take means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books [the bible], how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
“Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon the Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.” - St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book 1:39, AD 401-415.