First posting, having read these forums from afar, so bear with me. Not my specialisation really, I teach Biology, but having to teach life cycles of stars I did a little research. If our sun is second, or third generation ; as they have found out by looking at the composition, does this not negate the whole "let there be light" narrative. The fact that our sun actually formed from a supernova of a previous sun means we have already had light. I await being torn apart with trepidation !
"Our own sun contains about 2 percent of these heavier elements [oxygen and carbon] because it is a second- or third- generation star, formed some five thousand million years ago out of a cloud of rotating gas containing the debris of earlier supernovas. Most of the gas in that cloud went to form the sun or got blown away, but a small amount of the heavier elements collected together to form the bodies that now orbit the sun as planets like the earth." Stephen Hawking - Brief History of Time
Sorry I didn't want to just produce a post with a load of links on it, as I find those a little wearing.
I realise that to accept this the timeframe would play havoc with YEC anyway.
You may be right about the Genesis narrative. I have read through it and despite reading through, I cannot find mention of light 2 days before the creation of the sun. I suppose, as with all religious texts, the interpretation can be warped to fit whatever evidence is displayed.
Again, for the third time, I apologise for not making my point clear. Dwise you are correct, I was wondering how creationists would deal with the facts. I would also like the opportunity for creationists to debate their positions. However, it seems doomed to failure so I will retreat and lick my wounds. And Buzz, thanks for the welcome : )
2) The EVIDENCE for the big bang suggests these elements didn't form in the big bang. http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm. There are links to other articles at the bottom, and quite a good finishing paragraph.
3) See 2
4) The EVIDENCE from 2, and the EVIDENCE from 1, along with what we know about supernova etc. would suggest that Sol is not a first generation star.
5) see 1
If you are looking for 100% proof, never going to happen, as I am sure has been pointed out on these forums there is no such thing as 100% proof. However the EVIDENCE leads us to... is not the same as assumptions.