If you have not read Stories Versus Truth, you may want to read that before reading this. Also, be sure to study this Indepth Study of Distant Starlight.

The deception that says, "DISTANT STAR LIGHT WOULD TAKE BILLIONS OF YEARS TO REACH EARTH AND THIS IS A PROBLEM FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD WITHOUT ERROR!" is that last standing lie of those who attack the Bible using Old Earth Stories. Every other story about an old Earth, every single story, had been fully debunked. This DISTANT STAR LIGHT lie has also been debunked, but it is more difficult to understand, so this lie is very important to those who are anti-God and anti-Christ.

Some stars are billions of light years away from the earth. Evolutionists and Old-Earthers claim that means that it would take billions of years for the light from those stars to get to the earth. This is not true, of course. Many Christians have lost their faith because of speculations regarding the age of the earth. These speculations usually put death before sin, eliminate the world-wide flood and replace it with millions of years, and eliminate the creation and replace it with billions of years. Satan is very clever: if death is before sin, then sin does not cause death; if sin does not cause death, that destroys the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Speculation is forbidden by God. Even though a plain reading of Scripture seems to indicate a young Earth, we can't even deny the possibility that God could have done something that Scripture doesn't hint at and that has left no scientific evidence. It is possible. It just is not worth the time to think about it.

There are exactly zero arguments against a young Earth that have held up under the investigation of real science. The distant starlight argument is also bogus. Seeing this question as a problem for the Bible, or for Christianity, is presupposing that God could not have gotten the light from the stars to the Earth by any natural or supernatural means, even if that means that there are some things that we do not yet know about how things work. We might consider that God might know something that we don’t. It is also special pleading. We all have things that we don't know. Evolutionists, when confronted with the problems with the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Biogenesis, the Law of cause and effect, and the Laws of Universal Information, when they have run out of excuses, resort to prophecy about how science will eventually solve this problem. (See also: Information Theory Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4. Here is another interesting article.) More is constantly being learned about information and about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Evolutionists tend to hide in the weeds of the unknown with an argument from ignorance: "If you can't prove, by empirical science, that evolution is impossible, then it happened." By empirical science alone, we can only prove probabilities. The probabilities show the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story to be a bazaar hypothesis, a story that is so improbable that it should not be considered. However, empirical science is not a tool that can prove anything to be true or false absolutely. For absolute proof, we have revelation. (See Basic and Concise Guide to Practical, Useful Logic and Reasoning). God says that He created everything. He is the One Who enforces the laws of nature. He is the One Who will judge all of us in the end. We know that because we know Him presonally through the indwelling Presence of Jesus Christ and the moment-by-moment instruction of the Holy Spirit.

Here are two excellent articles that you ought to read if you are interested in this subject.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/astronomical-distance-light-travel-problem ~ Dr. Danny Faulkner

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/light-travel-time-problem ~ Dr. Danny Faulkner

Time is relative. This is a testable scientific fact. The creation story, and the rest of the Bible, is told using the frame of reference of the time that is passing on the Earth. Dr. Humphreys points out how God could have easily allowed billions of years to pass for the distant stars while virtually no time at all passed in our solar system in that part of day four when God created the stars. Read the articles These scientific articles give you a very interesting look at the actual scientific facts. They illustrate our need to keep our minds open, especially when we don't have complete information. We only know in part. The Scripture is accurate, and the human mind sometimes thinks that it has understood a concept when it has not. Keep in mind that just because we know that God could have done it this way, that does not prove that He actually did it this way. In the same way, if evolutionists were ever to be able to prove that molecules to man evolution could have happened (which they are far from doing though they claim this is proven), that would not mean that molecules to man evolution ever took place. So, it is interesting that the laws of physics which God created would allow time to stop in one part of the Universe while billions of years passed in another part of the Universe. At the same time, God could have brought the distant starlight to Earth some other way that He has not yet revealed to us. As finite human beings who know so little about anything either natural or spiritual, we ought to have enough humility to admit that God knows more than we do and that even what we do know we don't know as we ought to know it. God gives unfolding revelation to all who seek Him.

Actually, distant starlight is a problem for Evolutionists--not for creationists. While we cannot tell what happened or how the universe was created using operational science, we can look at the present and what we know about physics and astronomy and realize that Evolutionists have a huge problem. An Earth and universe filled with distant stars, as we can observe using operational science, presents no hurdle at all to the concept of a young universe created by God out of nothing at all. There are several workable hypothesis that would make it possible for distant star light to reach the Earth very quickly without anything other than natural processes we already know about (see the following paragraphs); however, God is not restricted to natural processes, and we know that the creation of all things from nothing is not a natural process to begin with. And what we know about natural processes is only a very small fraction of the information about natural process that actually exists. Because there is so much that we don't know, the most likely answer is that a mechanism exists (natural or supernatural) that we have not yet discovered that is the actual way that God accomplished this. All science that looks back in time is using operational science to perform historical science. The most reliable way to do historical science is by reading any historical accounts that exist (like the Bible). We do have a record of what happened and a lot about how it happened. That account in Scripture does not conflict with anything that we have discovered using operational science.

It is very common for scientists, especially scientists who don't want to believe a certain thing, to look at their data and observations through the filter of their hidden presuppositions, forgotten axioms, and the assumption that their current methods of observation and testing are the only ones available. The introduction of instruments such as the telescope and microscope have shown such thinking to be foolish, yet it prevails among scientists who have lost their sense of wonder and holy awe toward God. Extreme egotism and desire to be independent from God drives them to ignore the fact that none of their theories, the ones that they say support the concepts of Evolutionism, can stand up to scrutiny. Evolution and the concept of an ancient universe, in the final analysis, have a foundation of unsupported axioms and circular reasoning. In fact, so strong is this tendency toward error that many Evolutionists use the false logic that says that if they could possibly create a story of Evolution that would not conflict with operational science and logic that that would prove Evolutionism. In fact, it is poor logic to make such a claim. If they were able to do that, it would not even make Evolutionism likely. As it stands now, Evolutionism is not even a good hypothesis.

There are many things that we have learned about the way that time and light work in the natural that could account for this. In other words, God might have used natural means. He didn't have to, though. And the problem of distant starlight is, at present, an insurmountable problem for those who believe in billions of years, but theistic evolutionists rarely bring that up. Perhaps they are ignorant of the fact. The Secular universities usually filter this fact out of their courses. Resources on Answers in Genesis do allude to this problem that the evolutionistic scientists have with distant starlight.

"Black holes provide an observable confirmation of Einstein's theory of general relativity. Such physics is the basis for several young-universe cosmologies, which allow light from the most distant galaxies to reach earth in thousands of years or less." Dr. Jason Lisle, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/black-holes-evidence

• Quasars Quash Big Bang Assumption

There are several ways that the distant starlight could have reached the earth during a six-twenty-four-hour-day creation week. And these ways are consistent with what we know about physics and astronomy and realize that Evolutionists have a huge problem. There are no such explanations for the big bang theory.

• A New Creationist Cosmology: In No Time at All Part 1: (Article)
• A New Creationist Cosmology: In No Time at All Part 2: (Article)
• A New Creationist Cosmology: In No Time at All Part 3: (Article)

Creationist cosmologies explain the anomalous acceleration of pioneer spacecraft:

• Our galaxy is the center of the universe, 'quantized' redshifts show:(Article)
• Dark matter and a cosmological constant in a creationist cosmology: (Article)
• The heavens declare a different story: (Article)
• New time dilation helps creation cosmology: (Article)

There is plenty of evidence for a young Earth and a recent creation:

• Ten Scientific Facts that Show a Young Earth
• Semi-technical Article
• Several Articles on Various Aspects
• What Evidence is Used to Show that the Earth is Young?
• The Universe was Created Recently.
• Fourteen Easy-To-Understand Reasons for a Young Earth
• Questions and Answers About the Age of the Earth
• Old Galaxies Don't Line Up with Facts