Doesn't the distance of stars disprove the young earth theory?

Welcome to the board:The speed of light does present a problem to a young universe and certainly presents a mega problem to a literal 6 day creation.I've read a couple of things from some creation scientist that I know won't hold water on this board but some explanation is as follows: the decay of light theory. This subject has been debated since the 1980s.The argument is that the speed of light has been slowing down (and thus travelled much more rapidly in the past), and if correct, would indicate a very young universe in terms of thousands rather then millions or billions.An Australian scientist named Barry Setterfield has studied this extensively and authored a book titled, "The Velocity of Light and the Age of the Universe". According to Setterfield the first careful measurement of the speed of light was made by a Danish scientist, Roemer, in 1675 and then by an English astronomer, Bradley, in 1728. It has been measure over and over since at which we've reached an equilibrium of 299,792.458 by 1960 (now atomic clocks are used).The data indicates that that the speed of light was around 2.6% faster in 1675 then it is today. Setterfield postulates that the speed of light was 5 X 10 to the 11th power faster at the time of creation. I'm not going to go into his formulas unless someone wants me too as it confuses me but this is one theory.....is it a stretch? Yes, and there are many creationists who don't believe this theory. There have been other studies done by scientists that have also found decreases in the speed of light but we can never know for sure what the speed of light was at the time of creation. I feel that the theory does deserve some attention but much more research needs to be done to verify any of this.There's another theory, which I won't go into detail on, but it's called the Distortion of Time in White Holes. Nevermind, lol, Taq just described it. To me, that's even more of a stretch the the decay of light speed theory.Edited by Flyer75, : comment on Taq's post.

Taq, what you are saying is true no doubt....but it doesn't mean he was wrong necessarily. Doesn't mean he was right either. This is a theory that we may never, or least for a long long time, know any answers too.Quite frankly, we have no clue what the speed of light is in another galaxy. It might be the same as here on earth...it may be a ton less or a ton more...who knows?Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.

Sorry, I did mean universe...I understand we know about our Milky Way.

Misha,Good points. I think most Creationists (certainly the 6 day literal ones) believe that God created an "aged" universe, but still not one that is millions of years old. For example, if you believe the Genesis account, it's fairly obvious that God didn't create Adam as a newborn infant, but more likely someone in their 20's or so. Same with the vegetation.The more I read on this board and have done some very new studying on my own, the more I realize that the issue isn't whether science can prove or disprove something, but whether man is choosing science or God. That's why theistic evolutionists really baffle me. I can understand the atheist more then I can the Christian who feels the need to have science prove "God" and creation. If you believe in a God that raised his Son from the dead after being buried for three days (something science cannot do or explain), then why is it so hard to grasp the creation event? The atheist at least says, "there is no God". That makes more sense.

I suppose I meant Universe. Trust me, as I said in my very first post a couple of weeks ago, I'm brand spanking new to all this. I have zero, and I mean zero, background in science. I just started reading on my own in the last month...admittedly from a YEC perspective.