"Creation Science" on astrophysics?

John, this silly one keeps popping up. It is actually the only way I can imagine to reconcile creationism with science - trees were created complete with tree-rings, Adam was created complete with a navel - and with memories of his 'childhood', the earth was created complete with fossils, etc.
But then one could argue that it was all created at midnight last night - we were created complete with 'memories' of our past lives, etc.
Of course, there is no way to prove it - or disprove it. That is the beauty of it. But then God, not Satan, is the great deceiver.

To returnn to the original discussion for a moment, about how we can see starlight (and galaxy-light). The sun may be only 8 light-minutes away, but the light rays crewated in the interior of the sun do not burst out in seconds - the sun is not transparent. A photon created in the centre of the sun is emitted, absorbed, re-emitted, etc, and slowly makes its way out in a random walk, averaging about 30,000 years (I quote from memory, but it is of this order) to escape the sun's surface. So if the sun were 600-10000 years old, it would still be dark, unless photons were created already in transit.But this is all just theory (based on physics which has been tried and tested for the past century and more), so there is no reason why creationists should believe it.Mike Holland.

Great. You accept the evidence for age in the one case, but reject it in the other. How do you choose?
You do not provide any arguments for your views, but simply believe what you choose, what you think fits with your interpretation of genesis.
So there is nothing to discuss.
Mike

Well, I guess your questiion to me has been answered by now. But just to put it in my own words, you are trying to accept the evidence for an old universe (based on evidence such as redshifts and measurements of the distances of stars and galaxies, the time light would take to reach us, the physics of stars) and reject evidence for humanity and life having been around for hundreds of thousand years or millions of years respectively (based on evidence such as geological strata, radiometric dating, genetics, morphology).
What is your reason for accepting one set of evidence and rejecting the other? They are all based on the same rules of observation, experimentation, inference, theory-building.
Mike