Do believe that God created everything in six literal days and rested on the seventh day?
I privately believe Genesis 1 is a surprisingly accurate allegory of the process of creation, in that it basically describes the Big Bang, the organization of matter and energy resulting in stars, the formation of the planet, the evolution of plants and animals (ending with mammals and humans), and so on; I also believe this is rather irrelevant to the thread.
Now if you propose, by the way, to accuse me of hypocrisy by demanding a literal interpretation of say, John 1:1, while privately believing that Genesis is allegoricalical or metaphorical, I would salute you for a very nice try indeed, but then proceed to refute it on these grounds:
Firstly, I consider that nothing in Genesis is fundamentally inaccurate; rather, Genesis 1 is best understood as a hymn or poetical descripion which happens to more precisely align with our understanding of creation than any other "creation myth" from any other religion.
Secondly, a case could be made that every aspect of John 1:1 iss both accurate accordiing to context in the manner of Genesis 1, and also reflective of a broader reality. So for ancient Israel, it was enougfh to know that "In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth." For us, it is enough to know that "In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
This does not preclude John 1:1 from being interpreted as both correct and as an allusion to a higher reality tha is as yet beyond the realms of human comprehension, and might well remain as such past the Eschaton. This indeed aligns in a very general way with Orthodox theology, along the lines of St. Basil describing God as "the fullness of all qualities and perfections in their highest and infinite form."
Lastly, one might well observe that the point of this thread was to show that non--Trinitarianism is contrary to a literal interpretation of scripture. I could hypothetically have made this point as a non-Trinitarian seeking oerrhaos tomdiscredit the canonical New Testament in favour of a Gnostic alternative. As it happens, this was not my point. I am inclined to regard the New Testament as more specifically literal than much of the Old Testament, however, such a view is not inherent to Trinitarianism, and I suspect that other Trinitarian participants in this thread hold to a more literal interpretation of the entire Bible. And I will not criticize them for doing so, provided theyu do not seek to engage in an abuse of scientific discourse.
Now, what @Hogshead1 has done, which I find greatly objectionable, is to make posts elsewhere in the forum criticizing young Earth creationists on, and those who reject evolution, among other things, the basis of science, while in this thread, he objects to proven science that directly relates to the scientific rationale used elsewhere. My belief is that if one is going to invoke science in a theological debate, one must be willing too accept science insofar as it directly disproves falsifiable claims in your theology. He seems willing to use science to falsify the views of others, but unwilling to accept science where it is contrary to his position.
I myself do not enter into threads of Young Earth Creationists because I don't care what they believe subjectively. One can also, in my view, not unreasonably, hold to various non-falsifiable rationalizations of a YEC perspective; for example, one might take the view that the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record is a God-sent delusion of the sort mentioned several places in Scripture. I am not prepared to argue with that; it seeks to me a reasonable perspective.
Now, you might accuse me of Orwellian doublethink on this point, but I consider that one could entirely properly accept young Earth creationism on strictly religious grounds, while at the same time engaging in scientific work, for example,virology or generic engineering, where evolution is directly relevant. I see no reason why a an evolutionary biologist could not also be a young Earth creationist, provided they did not conflate the theological and scientific realms in which they worked. So one can say "science says X, I believe on religious grounds Y, I will not let X inform my religion or Y inform my science."
I myself don't do that; I don't think I need to do that, but I can understand it, and have no qualms about doing it. My own view is that all truths are of God, who is Truth, and I have nothing to fear from science; so I see the Big Bang theory and evolution as confirming rather than contraditing Genesis, I consider the blackness of space to be an example of the "dazzling darkness" proper to the Divine Nature; I find it quite compelling, the degree to which astronauts and cosmonauts (including Yuri Gagarin, who was privately, secretly Russian Orthodox, and Buzz Aldrin) have found a certain sense of spiriitual meaning in the course of space exploration.