OK, let me let you into the secret of the particular debating strategy I am employing in this thread. It's called "showing the internal inconsistencies of the opposition's position". As part of that, I am stipulating, for the purposes of the discussion, that all of the details of your position are as you have stated them. So far that reason, there's no point at all in continuing to hammer on the 'yom is a literal day' issue: I've stipulated it.

So, assuming that everything you have said about the 6 literal days of creation is the case, is Biblically supported and so on...

Where are the Biblical grounds, within that system, for believing the stars are much older. You need to leave aside scientific grounds, because your claim is that the Bible trumps science every time, or if science appears to contradict the literal Biblical account then so much the worse for science.

So, based purely on the text itself, and your very strong and repeated argument that a day is a day is a day, where is the evidence, without interpretation, that removes the stars from among the other things made on Day Four?

Your 'two great lights, not two zillion' argument does not hold water. For about the past 200 years or less we have known that the stars are in fact 'great lights', but for the vast majority of human history that was not known, and from a human perspective the sun and moon are great lights and the stars are not. The creation account says that on that day God made the sun and the moon, and 'he also made the stars'. In any normal conversation, when something is said in the same sentence, we don't go hunting and assume that the writer meant 'a billion years ago'.

If I say to my wife: 'Today I went shopping. I bought a book and a CD, and I also bought a motorbike', she is not going to say "Ah, I see, you bought a book and a CD today and a motorbike a year ago".

So, within the terms of your own system and your own claims, and without recourse to scientific knowledge about the age of the universe, how do you justify this very odd situation where the whole of Genesis 1 takes place 6000-odd years ago, except for one tiny clause?

Not true with Adventists. Most Adventists go there because Ellen White tells us life existed in the universe on other planets before the Earth was created.

The stars could have been created on the fourth day. The light from the stars could have reach Earth in a few thousand years if light traveled faster in the past or if time on Earth travels slower than other parts of the universe. However if the stars were created on the fourth day that would contradict what Ellen White has written. Thus Adventists tend to believe in an old universe due to the Spirit of Prophecy and not scientific concerns.

Hold on a minute, EGW was not a scientist, was not considered a scientist by anyone. To say one believes in such because of her, puts them at odds with putting the Bible first.

I believe in an old universe because of the evidence, not for any other reason. I do not believe SDA's use EGW as the authority for the age of the universe. To use the above statement as characterizing SDA beliefs about the universe is scary!!

Adventists generally and as a church believe that the Bible supports what Ellen White says about creation and the age of the world. They don't see a contradiction there.

Have you ever sat in on a meeting at an SDA university and heard the faculty discuss these issues? It is very obvious that they have to consider the statements by Ellen White and the beliefs of the church regarding the creation of the world and the length of its existence.

...and in a situation like this, where she seems to contradict the Bible?

I do not believe the study of Origins should be a scientific discipline. I believe it should be a philosophical discipline. Any attempt to study origins within the realm of science can only be considered pseudo-science. Science is observable, measurable and repeatable. Thus (now follow this close) Ellen White doesn't have to be a scientist to be part of a discussion about origins. Her writings have a profound impact on Adventist philosophy.

Many things she writes are not confirmed by the Bible but do not contradict the Bible either. If something she wrote contradicts the Bible and a person chooses to believe her rather than the Bible, then that person is indeed placing Ellen White before the Bible. That is not the case with the creation of the universe. The Bible does not confirm that the universe is old but does not tell us the universe was created at the same time as the Earth either.

As has already been discussed in this thread, the language in Genesis allows for an understanding of an ancient universe. One doesn't have to read the passage subjectively to get there.

Dancing, I'm sorry, Shane, absolute dancing. To claim that the whole chapter is at the time of the creation except that one tiny phrase is to do huge violence to language - ironic on the part of those who claim to take the Word literally.

Well, I am one of the few Adventists that enjoys dancing, especially with my wife in the kitchen

The position articulated here is the position taken by GSRI and has been for years. People that don't agree with it can call it what they want but it is pretty much accepted in Adventist circles.