I have often wondered about starlight as it relates to the age estimate, but I reserve for myself a tentative view on the age of the universe. I have only assigned it a pro tempore value because there are so many variables to consider, that claiming a definitive would be a disservice to myself.
Starlight only presents a problem for Young-earth creationists. I ask for the distinction to show that not all creationists are alike, just as all evolutionists are not alike. The astronomer Hugh Ross is a creationist, but he believes that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that the universe is roughly 11 billion years old. Having made that distinction, this argument made against the YEC probably is the single argument that presents the most difficulty for them to reconcile. But the dichotomy may only appear insoluble. The first premise of a refutation would be to ask how such a deduction ever came to be in the first place. These are worthy questions.
But I, in particular, want to know how we can truly ascertain distance from objects so far away without having been to two or more points. In other words, I'll offer a for-instance:
If you are looking at a photo of a bird in the sky, and there is nothing to distinguish its size by comparing it relatively to another object, could you tell if the bird in the photo was a large bird, and the snapshot was taken far away, or could you tell that it was a small bird, and the snapshot was taken close up?
Or if you were sailing and suddenly on the horizon you see a land mass in the distance, could you tell if it was a large island far away, or might you surmise that it was a small island closer up? This is the question that I asked myself years ago, and it prompted me to find out what measurement they used to deduce the distance of stars. Even in spite of the inquiry, I'm still unclear on the veracity of any of the claims.
Could you use triangulation on stars to ascertain their distance? Some astronomers say that you can depending on the parallax angle. The criteria is that you must have an imaginary line going to a remote, inaccessible point, such as a star would be. Measuring from two other points, both that we would be able to access in order to measure the distance across. If we measure the angles between the baseline formed by the accessible points, and the lines from the two ends of the baseline to the inaccessible point, then a measurement might be accurate. And then again, it might not.
I it all dependent on where the earth is in its rotation and orbit. As well, its been noted that when looking at stars, you might not even be looking at where the star is actually situated. This makes me think of two mirrors facing each other from opposite ends. If the alignment is off-kilter, the image can distort, and it will appear as though the hallway in the background of the image is curving to the left or to the right in an incremental sloping effect. So, perhaps its a bit deceiving. Or I should say, triangulation can be deceiving, insomuch as us being unable to access certain distances physically.
How are we able to know for sure if that's the case unless we are able to access all three points of the triangle? I think its safe to say that stars are indeed very far away. But perhaps they are not millions of light-years away, but rather, that they are millions or billions of miles away. It is said that it takes the sun's light, in realtime, appoximately 12 minutes to reach us. That brings me to the other theory held by creationists, that perhaps God sent the starlight immediately so that Adam could see the stars because Moses said that God gave us the starry host for reasons of distinguishing time and seasons. But this theory lacks any scientific backbone. Particularly because there is no way of proving it or disproving it.
The theory that is most sensible to me is that the speed of light was not always constant (c). The reason I see this as the most plausible scenario is because Einstein’s general theory of relativity demonstrates that gravity can distort time. When matter becomes so dense the gravitational distortion can be so strong a force that not even light can escape. This is apart of what Hawking calls,
"Event Horizon." Among such proponents, is Joo Magueijo, who has expanded the
Variable Speed of Light theory.
As well, it has already been demonstrated, by two separate teams, that the cessation and aggregate speed of light can be manipulated. So, if we know that it is at least possible to slow or speed up light more or less than its constant, then this serves to give it more credence than just a presupposition.
Any thoughts from the audience?
Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers
™ Version 4.2