Starlight in a Young Earth Model

A lot of this does assume that light has traveled at a constant speed of 300,00 km/s. Now, this is a good assumption, but the ramifications could be somewhat devastating. Depending on which view you take of time, space-time, and metaphysical time, light may not have always traveled at a constant speed.

The reason this becomes relevant is because it pertains to stars and light. I happen to believe in a young earth, young universe. However, the evidence of stars and light are pitted against this belief. Why? Because whether or not the light I see is present light, it still originated from some source *in space* and at some point *in time.* If light travels at 300,000 km/s, then working backwards using the distance of stars, we can determine the exact point *in time* that the source *in space* emitted its light. If a star were to say be born at some point *in space and time,* then the light (traveling at the assumed finite speed of light, 300,000 km/s) would take however long it takes for light to travel to get here. If this star were 11 million light-years away (one light-year being however far it takes for light to travel in a year), then it would take light 11 million years to travel to earth (assuming that light travels at a finite speed of 300,000 km/s). This is the problem that anyone who holds to a young earth-young universe must deal with.

How do we usually deal with it? Well, we say that the light was created on its way to earth. Okay. Plausible and no doubt a solution. But is it the best answer? Well, consider how it looks: it would be like God creating fossils in the ground that do not actually represent animals that actually existed. God would've created light from objects that do not exist (because, let's just say that the earth is 10,000 years old; this would mean that anything beyond 10,000 light-years away is non-existent; instead, it's just light carrying information which God created as light and which represents nothing other than light). People often appeal to this argument because they say that God created Adam as a full grown man. I would say however, that God creating Adam as a full grown man and creating light that does not actually represent anything are two very different things.

So what can we offer as a solution? Well, so far, all of this has been based off of principles of time, speed, and distance. I won't offer a full explanation of how the equation works (I probably wouldn't be able to offer it in an understandable sort of way). But I will leave you with one comment on what appears to be a faulty assumption, and I will leave you with a link that provides more information. One bit of advice: everything that you think is sure (i.e. science, astronomy, euclidian mathematics) has been proven wrong at some point. This goes for the explanation that evolutionists have used (above) and this goes for the explanation that the link provides (below). The only sure thing that we can cling to is Scripture. And if we cannot fully understand things now, we will when we see Him (1 John 3:2).

Distance equals speed multiplied by time. For the time, we will assume that the distances stars and other objects in the sky both near and far that we have measured are accurate (and there is good reason to believe that they are). If the distances are correct, then there can only be a discrepancy in either the speed or the time. If we believe that the speed (of light, i.e. 300,000 km/s) is accurate, then the time is what is incorrect (young-earth, young-universe). But if the speed of light is not constant, that is, finite, then perhaps there is no discrepancy in the time.

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c005.html