Plants do not need the sun to survive
So why did you stop reading after Genesis 1:3?
v17 says "God set them [greater and lesser light] in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth Now ask yourself, are the "greater and lesser" lights serving merely as backups, or is it possible that when the Scriptures talk of light in vv1-3 the Light there is specifically made before hand to reinforce the six literal day Creation paradigm?
This is an easily testable situation. During a total eclipse of the sun, does the light on earth significantly diminish under the umbra? If all the light that was necessary for plant growth came from the vv1-3 Light, then we shouldn't expect to see any reduction in light during an eclipse. I submit that you are gratuitously adding to Scripture things that don't make sense.
A problem that the cocky Evolutionist throws at the YECist is the idea of "it is always daytime somewhere on Earth". The unsuspecting YECist has to then conjecture some fixed point of reference on Earth - this is based on the assumption that the Genesis 1:1-3 Light is a perfect analog of the Sun which wasn't around until the end of Day Four. IOW, both the first Light and the reference point assume locality and a rotating Earth. That is an assumption that is refuted by the events of the Fourth Day and easily reproducable empirical evidence.
Furthermore, this leaves a particularly disturbing doctrinal problem, since an eclipse proves that the Sun is our primary light source, what happened to the original first Light? Did it somehow extinguish itself at Day Four of the Creation process? Does this render useless the metaphor of those estranged from the Creator being cast into "outer darkness" (Mt 8:12; 22:13; 25:30)?
I submit that the first Light and the reference point to delineate Night & Day do not share the same properties as the assumption demands. Where that first Light was, and where that reference point was I don't know, but I do know it was not anything like the current Sun and Earth - that is, if we want to be logically, rationally and theologically consistent.
(BTW, I do enjoy our little exchange.)
Because that sufficed to show that there was enough light to sustain plants before plants were created.
A problem that the cocky Evolutionist throws at the YECist is the idea of "it is always daytime somewhere on Earth". The unsuspecting YECist has to then conjecture some fixed point of reference on Earth - this is based on the assumption that the Genesis 1:1-3 Light is a perfect analog of the Sun which wasn't around until the end of Day Four. IOW, both the first Light and the reference point assume locality and a rotating Earth. That is an assumption that is refuted by the events of the Fourth Day and easily reproducable empirical evidence.
I suppose. Another possible scenario is that like most start the Sun lit off in a dense cloud of dust. Imagine you are in a dense fog, and somewhere near you is an arc light. You are going to see scattered light no matter where you look.
Bonus question: what would happen if someone set up a fan (solar wind/light pressure) blowing from the arc light towards you? A lot of that water would blow onto you as dew. On a planetary scale it would be an extended rainstorm...
Furthermore, this leaves a particularly disturbing doctrinal problem, since an eclipse proves that the Sun is our primary light source, what happened to the original first Light? Did it somehow extinguish itself at Day Four of the Creation process?
It become visible as a distinct source, as opposed to a generalized bright fog.
Does this render useless the metaphor of those estranged from the Creator being cast into "outer darkness" (Mt 8:12; 22:13; 25:30)?
Not in the slightest, before the fog blows away it is still dark far enough away from the sun (think of very very thick clouds here on earth, dark and gloomy days) after it blows away far enough from the Sun is still "outer darkness".
(BTW, I do enjoy our little exchange.)
(Me too. Immensely.)