What is the creation science theory of the origin of light?

Greetings everybody, I am new to the forum, but look forward to conversing with you all. As you can tell from my user name, I have a strong affinity for God's word, but I respect everyone's right to hold their beliefs.The origin of light is the same whether you are an evolutionist, an atheist, a YEC or an OEC. Light today is generated from an energy source, like when electrons change quantum energy states.The question really comes down to "what/who is the 'first mover'?"Where did the electron come from, what/who instilled its initial energy, what/who created the physical laws that govern the physical relationships, is it possible to have energy before matter, etc.These questions are all really about the first mover. How would an evolutionist answer these questions?The creationist's answer is the universe originated from "God."
The atheist's answer is the universe originated from "nothing."There is nothing particularly scientific about the "nothing" answer, and there is nothing particularly unscientific about the "God" answer.Edited by SecondPeterThreeFive, : No reason given.

Once you get past the quantum states change origin for light, I think both sides have a challenge in explaining the origin of light.As to the appearance of the age of light being deceiving, we must recognize that we are assuming several things when we conclude that light is "old." Over time, we have stopped qualifying our conclusions with the requisite assumptions.This is like asking the question, "Making the Earth appear to be the center of the universe was deceptive, no?"Is God really deceiving us, or has man deceived himself with his own false assumptions and speculations?For example, can we really know or prove that the speed of light is constant? or that the redshift is entirely due to recessional speed and not due to gravity or some other source of energy decay?A God who could create the universe could create it in any state he wished. Some of you will say, "Well, that's not science," and I agree, but neither is any other speculation on the origins of the universe that are not observed, observable or testable.Something doesn't "become science" merely because a scientist adopts it as his faith.

I haven't figured out how to quote posts on this forum, so forgive my awkwardness in this reply. I will figure it out soon. {Quoting code tips sent via personal message - Adminnemooseus}You claim we can know the speed of light is constant. Really? How?IF the universe is 20-30 billions of years old and IF our ability to measure it is only 300 years old, I submit that there is insufficient data to know with assurance that it has been constant for 20-30 billion years. What was the speed of light 2 billion years ago? (On the other hand, there CAN exist sufficient data to show that it is changing. This is a point about sufficiency of data to prove a long-term or a short-term change. I am not arguing for or against CDK.)You claim that we know that redshift comes entirely from recessional speed. I claim that No, it is not possible to know that redshift is entirely from recessional speed. That is an assumption that we know is not entirely true. We know TODAY that gravity CAN cause redshift, so right off the bat your statement is overblown.Assuming redshift is entirely due to recessional speed also leads to some fairly incongruous conclusions, like the idea that the expansion of the universe (if it is expanding) is accelerating. Really? How? By what process?I said nothing about atheism. I simply said that "something (atheism, creationism, naturalism, Hinduism) does not become science merely because a scientist adopts it as his faith."The point I am making is that there is a lot more faith masquerading as science than many will admit.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Quote tips note.