This is called "Day-age creationism". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-age_creationism , which also includes the history behind that specific interpretation.

Quoting from a creationist site (http://www.icr.org/article/theistic-evolution-day-age-theory... ), "Most Bible-believing creationists maintain the day-age theory is an unbiblical option for the following reasons:", followed by 15 reasons. That essay is from Richard Niessen. 1980. Theistic Evolution and the Day-Age Theory. Acts & Facts. 9 (3).

This is because Niessen is a Young Earth creationist, who believes in the literal word of the Bible, as compared to redefining the words to try to make the Bible fit the scientific narrative. Quoting another creationist,"If God cannot be taken literally when He writes of the rising of the sun, then how can one insist that He be taken literally when writing of the rising of the Son?" (Note that ICR is also a Young Earth creationist institution.)

Since some creationists reject day-age creationism, using the same source material, where then is the additional evidence that might resolve this ambiguity? Otherwise this link is only repeating old arguments, which of course are completely at odds with everything non-Biblical-based research has concluded for at least the last century.