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

It depends upon how much a creationist is willing to accept pertaining to scientific evidence. For example, a star may be shown by the parallax (and other) method to be 1600k light years distant. Many creationists do not accept that these measurements are even close to being scientifically accurate, and will choose to ignore them in favor of a young earth/universe. Some will do this even in the absence of any contradictory evidence of their own. If it doesn't support or is not supported by the bible, then it isn't true...Others will argue that god is an omphalistic creator. In other words, god made everything we see in nature with an appearance of age. Fossils of animals which never existed were fashioned to look as if they died millions of years ago, and likewise - starlight was created already in transit. Thus many stellar events that we witness today (which actually happened millions of years in the past) never really happened; they were just made to look that they did.It all depends on how much suspension of disbelief a creationist will require to maintain the young earth/universe stance.Have a good one.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

Hi nlerd. Well, you're absolutely right about that. Trying to explain the bible using science is something many people would like to have happen, but at which no one has succeeded as yet.You can try as hard as you can, futilely, to make the Genesis account of creation (or any creation myth, for that matter) seem straightforward and rational ...... or ...you can take the bible's creation story as just that: a story. One meant for people of Jacob's time who needed a tale explaining the mysteries of creation, which could be told through the generations before the written word existed. Unfortunately for the religious, knowledge and science tend to relegate these types of stories to the myth bin.Have a good one.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

I may be completely off base in my thinking here, but Nuimshaan may have a point.Imagine that a star became visible to eyes on earth by *insert star formation method here * back in, say, 150,000 BCE, and that that visible star wasn't catalogued until say, 600 CE. In, say, 1975, this star was found by parallax, red shift, etc... to be 300000 light years away. I think he's saying that since we don't know exactly when that light became visible to us here on earth, the age of that star is impossible to know. If we'd have been on earth to make a measurement of 300000 light years away at the moment the star became visible, we'd know that it was born about 300000 years ago...However...That's not to say that star is still around. The star could have been blown apart by evil spacefarers 3000 years after it was formed (work with me here), and thus we'd be viewing it not as it is, which is a bunch of space debris and heat, but as it was, which is a nice, pretty star.But again, I may be talking way out of my arse. Anyone?

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

No doubt. Though convincing some folk of this is likened to herding cats. No arguments here, Huntard.Have a good one.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

Yes, exactly what I was getting at. Thanks.

Ah, quite right. I should have said "...3000 years ago...". But of course I didn't say that, so thanks for the correction, Huntard.Have a good one.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

Hey there driewerf and welcome... Aside from the fact that if you read up on it, you'll find you're overestimating the age of stars, you seem to miss the point of my (admittedly silly) allegory. The ages I used were entirely arbitrary and were chosen for understandability-related reasons. Relatively small numbers are easier to digest for some than bigger numbers... Although Huntard found a flaw in my reasoning, the correction I made should make the argument sound. Minus the evil spacefaring species hell bent on stellar destruction, are you suggesting a star couldn't have formed 300000 years prior to its resultant light first becoming visible on earth 150000 years ago?Have a good one.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

Hi Nuimshaan, Looks like I gave you way too much credit in my first reply to you. I was apparently confused by your rambling post and attributed meaning to it where there was none. Silly me.Evidently you're somehow of the notion that any star we see still exists. That's quite funny, as it is very possible many of those stars have in reality have gone nova or plain burned out at any time between their births and the present day. We just may not be close enough to witness these events yet...Have a good one.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

Hi ICDesign, I may be way off base on your point here, but you're not really planning to trot out a Hovind-esque "large sun" reverse extrapolation to explain why it's impossible that our solar system is as old as science says it is?Are you?

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964