"Creation Science" on astrophysics?

Ok, I have another set of questions. How does a YECism try to rationally explain the observable phenomena of light from stars so far distant that it takes million or billions of years to reach earth? Even the closest planets takes years. Light emenating from the center of our galaxy would take roughly 50,000 years to reach us! The light from other galaxies takes millions to billions of years to reach us. How does a creationism adress these issues, as well as star formations, life spans, planetary formations, ect? How did black holes form, considering that most are the remenants of enormous stars that collapsed as they died?
It seems to me that much of the creationist arguement seems to focus on evolution. Since a young earth conflicts with other scientific disciplines, I think we should bring up those topics as well. I would like to know the creationist viewpoint on this matter.

Darwin,Small correction, light takes about 8 minutes from the sun to earth, so light from the nearest planets will be in the same order. The most distant planets will take a few hours.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Darwin,

​

Small correction, light takes about 8 minutes from the sun to earth, so light from the nearest planets will be in the same order. The most distant planets will take a few hours.

​

Mark

​

---

I apologize. Sol, our sun, is the nearest star. The distance between earth and the sun is 8 lightminutes ( the distance light travels in eight minutes). It is also measued as 1 AU (1 astronimcal unite is the distance from the earth to the sun). The distance to our neastest neigbhor, Alpha Centauri, is 4.25 light years away! There are stars all around us and at varying distances. However, light from distance galaxies would take millions of years, billions in the case of the most distant light objects we see. ( In fact, the light we see of those galaxies is so old we have no clue what they look like today. It is a window into the universe's past.) So, my question stands, how does a YECist model account for these observations? What model does creationism put forth to explain astronomy that doesn't conflict with a young earth and universe, but doesn't conflict with the observable data we see in the sky around us?

My bad, I read my original post. Correction.
It should read stars not planets. That is my bad.

np, simple mistake. Wasn't sure if you ACTUALLY thought it took years (obviously not). Didn't mean to detract from your main post.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Its all about the stars. Bump.

"Its all about the stars. Bump."
--I myself would like to know the creationists theories on the various cosmological implications in question. My scientific background does not have a very large amount of cosmology and astrophysics in it.------------------

I am interested as well. A creationist model needs to address a wide range of observable data. However, the arguement seems centered exclusivly around evolution. This is a topic I would like to see expanded upon.

bump.

I apoligize for continually bumping this post, but I am most interested in a creationist rational explaining the observable universe. How do you explain starlight that has travled anywhere from years to billions of years to reach out eyes? If the universe were only ten thousand years old, we would only see light from stars within ten thousand light years. The vast majority of the universe would be dark, since the most distant starlight would have yet to reached us. Heck, the vast majority of light from our own galaxy would have yet to reach our little planet, let alone line from distant galaxies.
There are other questions I would like answered first, but lets start with the light of distant stars first.

I am persistant. Any creationists out there able to address this issue?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darwin Storm:
I am persistant. Any creationists out there able to address this issue?

---

JM: Darn it, will you hear from an educated evolutionist? There are many explanations, but one of the ones making the rounds again is the notion of change in the speed of c. Barry Setterfield claims to have new evidence for this change, but his article has been rejected by mainstream journals so far. Basically, the claim is that light from distant galaxies traveled faster in the past and therefore had time to make it here.CheersJoe Meert

"JM: Darn it, will you hear from an educated evolutionist? There are many explanations, but one of the ones making the rounds again is the notion of change in the speed of c. Barry Setterfield claims to have new evidence for this change, but his article has been rejected by mainstream journals so far. Basically, the claim is that light from distant galaxies traveled faster in the past and therefore had time to make it here."
--This argument seems to be widespread in many cases, it seems possible, though obviously don't taske my word for it. I know that you can decrease the speed of light, but I dont' know about its increase. I have also heard that they use a light speed mechenism to measure light, so it would be in measuring constant anyways.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"JM: Darn it, will you hear from an educated evolutionist? There are many explanations, but one of the ones making the rounds again is the notion of change in the speed of c. Barry Setterfield claims to have new evidence for this change, but his article has been rejected by mainstream journals so far. Basically, the claim is that light from distant galaxies traveled faster in the past and therefore had time to make it here."
--This argument seems to be widespread in many cases, it seems possible, though obviously don't taske my word for it. I know that you can decrease the speed of light, but I dont' know about its increase. I have also heard that they use a light speed mechenism to measure light, so it would be in measuring constant anyways.

​

---

JM: Actually Barry's argument stems from the historical measurements on the speed of light and a perceived decrease since measurements started. It really is an artifact of the increased precisions in the measurement. When errors (and all historical measurements are included) it has been constant. The slowing experiments you speak of are not conducted in a vacuum but in a sea of sodium.CheersJoe Meert

So, astrophysics seems to be a stumbling block for creationism. Are there any creationist who are able to adress the issue of light, space, and the eons it would take for much of the distant starlight to reach us?