How do creationists explain stars?

Rob writes:Just that one of us is wrong, because the truth is absolute!

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.

Rob writes:Polystratic fossils...

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."

Percy writes:But there's no scientific debate. Even before Darwin geologists had already established that the world was far older than the account in Genesis implies.