This is an excellent example of how one can take parts from another person's post and by ignoring the rest of the post make the other out to be ignorant!

there are many different positions, including some who believe in a literal six-day creation of all living things in pretty much their current form, but some millions of years ago rather than thousands.

I think it's also important to recognize that your own 'recent creation of life on an ancient earth in an ancient universe' perspective would be considered heretical by 'recent creation of the entire universe' creationists!

2. What was created on the fourth day of creation week?

God said "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night...." Two great lights are described, one to rule the day and one to rule the night. These lights appeared on the fourth day of creation week. The details are not given. They may have been created on that day. If so, the light of the first three days might have been provided by God's presence.

If our solar system existed before the creation week, as some creationists think is probable, then apparently the sun itself was not visible until the fourth day. This might be explained as due to atmospheric cloud cover, permitting diffuse light to reach the surface, but not revealing the source of that light. On the fourth day, perhaps the atmosphere was cleared to permit the sun and moon to be seen for the first time.

Another possible interpretation is that the sun and moon existed prior to that time, but on the fourth day they were "appointed" to specific functions relative to the Earth.

The phrase, "he made the stars also" does not require that God created the stars ex nihilo on the fourth day of creation. Some creationists have held that the entire universe, or at least the visible portion, was created on the fourth day. The text permits this reading, but does not require it. "The stars also" is merely a parenthetical phrase in which God is identified as the creator of the stars without identifying when this was accomplished. The text appears to permit the interpretation that the stars were already in existence, perhaps with planets inhabited by other created intelligences.

Except melvin's favourite bit about snakes eating dirt, apparently. The basic truth is that it requires interpretation to decide that eating dirt is not really eating dirt, and that bruising heels and crushing heads are metaphors.

there are creation myths in almost all human cultures, and won't it be a surprise to all of us if the Aborigines were right?

An ancient creationist perspective fits more neatly with more of the empirical evidence, but of course also has other problems of Biblical interpretation.

Sorry, but I can't let you get away with it as baldly as that

Naturalists assume uniformatarianism so they will obviously come up with a different conclusion for the chalk's purity. Creationists assume God's Word is true.