How do creationists explain stars?

So you take the fact that somebody appears to desagree with you as evidence that you may be right???

he thought the doctors were giving drugs to him to kill him, now of course they were not, he thought it was, what i am getting at is reality is not static or absulute it varies from person to person
but the universe does not

Even before Darwin geologists had already established that the world was far older than the account in Genesis implies.

So if you want to argue that your views on stars have scientific validity, you'll have to point to scientific, not religious, evidence.

”The worldview of a scientist, even the most atheistic scientist, is that essentially of Monotheism. It is a belief, which is accepted as an article of faith, that the universe is ordered in an intelligible way.Now, you couldn’t be a scientist if you didn’t believe these two things. If you didn’t think there was an underlying order in nature, you wouldn’t bother to do it, because there is nothing to be found. And if you didn’t believe it was intelligible, you’d give up because there is no point if human beings can’t come to understand it.But scientists do, as a matter of faith, accept that the universe is ordered and at least partially intelligible to human beings. And that is what underpins the entire scientific enterprise. And that is a theological position. It is absolutely ”theo’ when you look at history. It comes from a theological worldview.That doesn’t mean you have to buy into the religion, or buy into the theology, but it is very, very significant in historical terms; that that is where it comes from and that scientists today, unshakably retain that worldview, as an act of faith. You cannot prove it logically has to be the case, that the universe is rational and intelligible. It could easily have been otherwise. It could have been arbitrary, it could have been absurd, it could have been utterly beyond human comprehension. It’s not! And scientists just take this for granted for the most part, and I think it’s a really important point that needs to be made.’

Well, some conclusions are supported by evidence

They are subject to change as new evidence surfaces but they are not constructs we are free to arbitrarily build.

If the speed of light was close to infinity, immediately after the Big Bang, as Davies believes it may have been, our theories about the way energy cooled to form matter, giving rise to stars, planets and people, could be completely wrong.Still, correcting Einstein is no small feat and is likely to attract controversy, perhaps even animosity from scientific colleagues."When I first heard about these observations . . . I was, frankly, not only sceptical about it, I was appalled," Davies says. "I thought it was horrible. The last thing we wanted in theoretical physics was to have something like this."

Sort of interesting. Probably not correct

Sorry for being dense, but I'm not with you. Can you explain what you mean?

You don't have to be a proponent of evolution to recognize that the universe is old - far older than Young Earth Creationism allows.This doesn't alter the fact that the universe is old, and that Young Earth Creationism is badly wrong.

The problem with the "light slowing down" thing is that it contradicts known evidence.

"When I first heard about these observations . . . I was, frankly, not only sceptical about it, I was appalled," Davies says. "I thought it was horrible. The last thing we wanted in theoretical physics was to have something like this."

I notice that that article relies quite heavy on the Work of Barry Setterfield - the mainstream community thinks he is a crank. Now you might say "well of course they do! Because of their world view!"
Problem is - Answers in Genesis always rejects his work. Why do you think a major creation science organization rejects his work?Paul Davies is also mentioned that and this is what AIG had to say about his work -Dr Russell Humphreys writes:
Paul Davies’ Nature article itself falls far short of the hype, which is much ado about nearly nothing. General Relativity has had a variable speed of light ever since 1917. For the past six years, the physics journals have had a steady trickle of variable-c theories, including some by Davies. His latest article is only peripherally about a variable c. So why all the fuss?’So if this is all about secular bias - why aren't christian science organizations backing it?

I have tried to point out that the most favorable argument for God is the moral argument, and that is the Biblical view as well. Without God, there is no morality (irrespective of what God actually is) because there is no assumed purpose for guidance.All of this stuff is irrelevant if we are seeking a philosophy to suit us. If Christianity and creation are not true, then they are worthless for the purpose they are assumed to be true for. That purpose is to provide a way for God to reveal Himself as the prime reality that can only be found in the metaphysical