Ok , so I'm asking now. convince me that the watery earth of Genesis 1:1-2 was created within the six days and not before the six days.
Uh .. no.
You convince us that the Earth must have been created outside the six days recorded.
I already dealt with Exodus 20 repeatedly, it uses the Hebrew word "erets" which is normally used to refer to land and therefore is pointing towards the creation of land in genesis 1:10 and not the creation of the watery planet as per Genesis 1:1-2.
The same word is used to describe the creation of the watery Earth in Gen 1:1 and the proliferation of animals and men upon it later on. That the same word is used in two different ways in no way justifies your insistence that six days does not encapsulate everything.
My point I'm trying to make is that YEC is not the only correct literal interpretation of the bible
There is only one correct account of history. And calling Genesis "literal" has no meaning. It isn't a literal text. There's plenty in it that requires context and understanding of other concepts. And the interpretations have all already been done from Hebrew into English. The text says what it says. Arguing for a multitude of different meanings cannot deny the fact that the text refers to one actual history.
YEC's pride themselves on taking the bible literally instead of symbolising creation
Genesis is historical narrative. The "literal" tag is an atheist tag so they can ridicule the historical interpretation. there's nothing about a historical account that says it cannot contain metaphor and figures of speech.
yet I take the bible literally and just do not see a young earth in those six days. The six days STARTED when the spirit of God was already hovering over an already existing watery earth, therefore Exodus 20 is more correctly referring to the creation of "earth" (erets) meaning land, on day 3 (Genesis 1:9-10)
What you see seems in no way necessary.