The problem with some scientists is they think the world and faith have to be viewed through their elitist lens. A "day" does not need the sun it needs light. God created light on day one.
In Genesis two this "scientist" is using semantics in an attempt to prove his thesis. Earth as used in Scripture or everyday language does not always refer to our planet. I am going to till the earth in my front yard and plant a rose garden. In this sentence "earth" does not prefer to our planet but refers to a specific piece of land. Now, put Genesis 2 in the perspective of one section of land that contained the Garden of Eden and Mike Rucker's thesis melts like a snowman during spring thaw.
Genesis 2 does not contradict Genesis 1.