First, I don't recall saying I don't believe in creation.  I just don't necessarily believe that it happened in seven days, as described in the two different ways in the beginning verses of Genesis. 

Don't take my word for it.  Here is an easy Google hit about this subject:

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-interpretation/creation-stories-in-genesis/

Once i get started on searches like this I can go for hours learning more and more, referring back to scripture, looking up maps, trying to really understand. 

You'll have to solve any cognitive dissonance to your own satisfaction.  As I stated above to another poster, my challenge to you is to research and learn for yourself and, I will add, find your own peace.  Plain text reading of some of these logically inconsistent positions early in the OT did not bring me peace, as it clearly does for others here and elsewhere.  So I had to do more work, and I found a lot of others who did the same work before me.  If you don't struggle with it, I think that great for you, albeit a bit simplistic, but it doesn't harm me, seems to work for you, and ultimately isn't worth dividing the church over, but hey, that's me.    

The Bible, especially the English-language Bible we read, was touched by many hands on its way to its current form.  I believe that the scholars who touched it did their best, carefully working with others, to make it as accurate as possible.  But without context, the full value of a historical document cannot be realized, and that takes work.  I am sure they grappled with partial documents, secondary sources, failing memories, multiple versions of events, and through all that, tried to be as accurate as possible when translating it through a couple different languages. 

Why do they refer to creation as 6 days multiple times?  I don't know.  How do you know it was intended as factual throughout the Bible?  Was it allegorical in nature, to match the understanding of the common culture and religious rites and education widely accepted and in practice throughout the Jewish community at that time?  Could be.  Makes more sense to me than a plain text reading, although I don't read ancient languages to know how it was really originally recorded.  The extent to which kids today don't have any idea about biblical references is notable to me - 'Doubting Thomas', etc.  Could it be that the extent to which practicing Christian adults now don't have the slightest idea about the context known by any 3-year old Jewish tribal child in 2000BC?  Seems quite likely to me.

You study science long enough, you realize that most of what you 'know' is a simplification.  Gravity is constant - true, generally on the earth's surface.  Described by Newton in the 1600's, I think it was.  Never disproved until we could get outside his frame of reference.  Turns out it is a simplification that breaks down when you study more complex parts of it - gravity actually changes noticeably in tall skyscrapers, and gets really wacky in space, thus Einstein and the Universal Law of Gravitation and special relativity and then general relativity.  It's not that Newtonian gravity on the Earth's surface is false, it just isn't the whole story - it's a special scenario of the larger truth (general relativity) given a bunch of framing parameters (context).

I started studying a few small pieces of the Bible, and figured out a bunch of things I 'knew' and had been told by well-meaning, devout people were simplifications formed through the 2-4,000 year long chain along which this knowledge had been passed down.  That's all.  If you can handle it, great.  If it bugs you, sorry, I really just meant to add some knowledge to the conversation.