Are you claiming the stars are only a few light years away, or that the speed of light can be assumed to dynamically change to support the different sections of Genesis??? Which one of the alternative assumptions is made up by Darwinists (speed of light, or distance to stars) ?
BTW: How did Kangaroos get from Noah's Ark to Australia after the flood? Swim???
[[BTW: How did Kangaroos get from Noah’s Ark to Australia after the flood? Swim???]]
BTW- how did the animals 2x2 get to the ark in the first place? Is God not big enough to disperse supernaturally as well as bring in supernaturally? The Same God who CREATED man out of hte dust of hte earth and created the universe and all that’s in it isn’t big enough that He couldn’t superceed nature after the creation?- God ‘could have’ done htings in a 1000 different ways had He CHOSEN to, but He chose to work htrough Noah for certain issues, but that did NOT mean that God simply ‘let nature’ ‘take it’s own course’ without His intervention at all times- but of course the naturalist, ignoring hte omniscience and omnipotent nature of God will insist everythign had to be purely natural after the creation, and will build their ‘arguments’ based o nthis premise- and iwll come up with all manner of quesitons that attempt to bind the hands of our Omnipotent God- thinking htey have somehow cornered their opposition- they have not- there is much we don’t know, but this in no way refutes anything biblical- but we CAN learn much htrough the study of scinece concenring how God worked when He worked with nature, and how He worked when He worked above nature
you’ll find answers to your ‘questions’ on several good sites- however- here’s a start, and remember- God is NOT bound by naturalism, BUT it very well could be that He infact DID allow nature to run it’s course, and that there may very well be a possible natural answer to oyur ‘quesitons after all- but if not,, this still wouldn;’t refute the bible, it would simply mean we haven’t foudn an answer yet- BUT there ARE MANY MANY answers that ARE indeed answered by science which agree with hte bible- so many infact, that discounting htem all and glomming onto scant few annomylies in an attempt ot ‘refute’ the bible, when we don’t get a difinitive answer, is just plain silly- there’s enough actual evidence to support hte bible and to make thta leap of faith and put your trust in God for those areas that can’t be immediately explained- but htere are few indeed- God’s fingerprints are ALL OVER nature- glomming onto partial fingerprints hwen so many complete fingerprints are available, is nothign short of ‘looking for an excuse to reject God’- but whatever:
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/kangaroo.html
John Woomorappe also covers these issues as well, and does a very good job- but htose determiend NOT to believe will do so regardless of whether htere are reasoanble explainations or not- so whatever-
[[Are you claiming the stars are only a few light years away, or that the speed of light can be assumed to dynamically change]]
I am sayign htere ARE hteories about htis, as well as about curved universe, and the fact that light is slowing down, and other theories as well - some of which DO have sicnetific supoport- I also do NOT rule out the possibility that yes- God ‘could have’ created things to ‘look old’ IF He so wished, but I personally beleive there is enough scientific evidence to support some of hte theories which explain starlight being young but ‘appearing’ old due ot various variables such as curved universe, light slowing down- light not being constant as ASSUMED by old earth advocates e5tc etc etc