I'm sorry, reasonable to assume that the Cosmos is 6,000 years old? I study Cosmology on a daily basis and the universe is really really huge. There is no good model to explain how light can get to Earth in such a little amount of time. In addition to objects being far away, they also are created with a history. I.e. we see galaxies colliding, relativistic jets that are hundreds of thousands of light years long, exploding stars, star nurseries, stellar streams, metal poor stars, etc. In other words, we see a universe that looks like it’s followed the laws and models of Cosmology for billions of years but God just made it to look like it’s old. We can actually put initial conditions into super computers and the known laws of Physics and actually recreate our universe and its structure: http://www.nature.com/nature/videoarchive/universe-simulation/index.html
So when you say it's more reasonable... I will have to disagree.
The authority of Scripture is at stake in the same way it was during the Galileo trial. The battle was mistakenly framed as the authority of Scripture itself vs. science and not an interpretation of Scripture vs. science. A fun quote by Bernard Ramm is related to the Gap Theory (which you clearly do not affirm). Anyways, believe it or not, in 1954, 7 years before Whitcomb and Morris refined the arguments of 7th day adventist George McCready Price, this is what Ramm said:
"The gap theory has become the standard interpretation throughout hyper-orthodoxy, appearing in an endless stream of books, booklets, Bible studies, and periodical articles. In fact, it has become so sacrosanct with some that to question it is equivalent to tampering with Sacred Scripture or to manifest modernistic leanings".
Crazy that in 1954, questioning gap theory was equivalent to questioning and tampering with the Scriptures themselves. None of this will likely change your mind, but you are doing the same thing that Day Agers did in the 1950s, just with Young Earth Creationism. #NothingNewUnderTheSun
Another cool quote was Augustine vs. Lactantius debating whether the Earth was spherical vs. flat. Augstine reasoned that:
Since Scriptures 'confirm the truth,' if it is proven that the earth is round, and there are, in fact, antipodes (or people on the other side of the earth), then Augustine was more than willing to accept the scientific position against his own sensible and biblically based position.
Thanks for posting though!