[aruanan]

This is frankly nonsense. If the universe is 6000 years old, how can the light from a galaxy a million light-years away reach Earth?

Because you're starting out with the wrong concept of what a star or a galaxy is and what is involved in their creation.

You have started out with these assumptions:

A star is a object that produces light
If created there was a time before it started producing light
After being created, it began producing light and the light takes time to traverse distance

Then you conclude:

If we see the light and the distance away from the star in light years is any greater than the number of years supposed to have elapsed since the moment of creation, then creation did not occur that many years ago.

The problem, though, is that you have too narrowly defined star (same is true for galaxy, since it is a conglomeration of stars). A star not only produces light, the light it produces is ontologically or intrinsically as much a part of that star as anything could be. If it were not, then the composition of the star could not be determined spectrographically. There is a being that is called "a star" that consists of elements, the processes in which those elements are involved, and the products of those processes. Thus, a star is not a thing way over there that produces something we detect way over here. What we are detecting is as much the star as the processes and materials that produce one of the consequences or conditions of its existence. An account that says God created the stars and other celestial bodies to be sources of light and for the markings of seasons on Earth is not at all saying God started something way out there that eventually, after a number of years consistent with the speed of light and the distance from Earth, would appear in the night sky. They appeared there at the time he created them and have continued to be visible because they were created as fully functioning entities that extend throughout space in all directions.

[stormhill]

You've given me food for thought.
Thank you.

[albionin]

That is a very interesting way of looking at stars. I never thought of it that way. The fact remains though that you are coming up with an arbitrary explanation to back up an arbitrary claim. There is no reason to believe this happened other than an unfalsifiable claim in a book. There is no reason to claim that the evidence we have so far is invalid and the bible account of the creation is true.