Explain how a "huge division of time" can have an "evening and a morning." Explain how that works with Ex. 20, which clearly bases its argument on Genesis 1.
The same way that there can be an "evening and a morning" and light before there was a sun, moon, and planets. The text is poetic.
What makes you think the light of verse 3 refers to the sun, moon, or planets?
It doesn't.
A day is measured by one rotation of the earth on its axis. But, I read a survey that found that "Twenty-six percent in a survey of 2200 people conducted in 2012 answered that the Sun revolves around the Earth." Perhaps you're in that category.
Light needs an energy source. Darkness does not. Sun(s?) and moon were not created until v. 14 on day 4. How would anyone know that the earth was rotating on its axis if they had no reference point like the sun and moon? BTW, on what "day" was the earth created? And another thing, does יוֹם in 1:14, 16, 18 have the same definition it does in the other verses of chapter 1? How long would a "day" have been if it wasn't separated from the night?
It is interesting that you seem unaware of, for instance, the cosmic microwave background which, according to the Big Bang cosmology, predates stars. Microwaves, of course, are on the same electromagnetic spectrum as visible light.
There are four fundamental interactions or events in the universe: Strong atomic, weak atomic, gravity and electromagnetic. These used to be called forces but now they are called interactions because we know what they do but we don't know what they actually ARE or how they do what they do. So the terminology of event or interaction more clearly conveys our understanding of them. (by the way, we also do not know what space and time ARE, only how we perceive them).
In short, the existence of the universe implies the existence of electromagnetic interaction with or without the sun or stars.
Also, let's clarify something else. I know very few serious old earth creationists who claim that the word "day" in Genesis 1 implies millions of years or a long period of time. The point of being an old earth, or, more accurately, an old universe creationist, is to reconcile the indications of age in the universe with the Genesis account without violating either. Extending the word "day" does not do that. First, the addition of "morning and evening" indicate the author was indeed thinking of a 24 hour day or something close to that. Secondly, placing light before the sun is no problem but placing plants before the sun for a period of millions of years is a problem. Since the point of old earth creationism is to avoid altering the intended meaning of the text, extending the world day is inadequate and does not solve the problem.
That being said, there are some old earth creationists who really are not concerned with the text and are not that really into the whole origin question. (actually most old earth creationists probably fall into this category). If one is going to be an old earth creationist of that stripe, then extending the word "day" is fine. but they don't really tend to get into debates about the subject anyway.
I say this by the way, as an old universe/young earth creationist.
