“Scientists, museums, textbooks, etc talk about how some stars are millions upon millions and maybe even billions of light years away. A light year is the distance that it takes light to travel in one year. This means that if we can observe light that is millions of light years away, that means that it has taken light millions of years to travel here. If that is the case, then creation can not have been here for around 6,000 years which is what I believe the CFA believes. Do you have an explanation for this problem? “
This is a very technical question that highlights one of the core scientific issues within Christian Theology. After all, if most current theories are correct, the Universe must be billions of years old, and the Young Earth theory must invariably be false. Now, while I agree with apologist Fritz Schaffer when he established the contention that the Earth's age is a non-factor in Creation, I will secede for the moment that the Young Earth theory must be proven, per the parameters set in the question.
First, let us examine the account of Creation as existing in Genesis. Genesis 1 states: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”(Genesis 1:1-2, New International Version). There is something I would like to focus on in this verse that seems to go over-looked: It clearly states that God created the heavens(I.E. space) and The Earth, which is the bit most people tend to zero in on. However, if you read the rest of verse 2, it goes on to say that before the Creation Story as we knew it began, God hovered above the waters of a formless Earth. Thus, it would not seem far-fetched to me to say that Space was created at some point before Earth as we know it was made.
Thus, we have a period of time, indeterminate in it's nature, where the Universe Exists, but Earth does not. When you look at the full scope of the Universe, this makes sense. I see no reason why we should assume the Earth went through a Seven Day creation process, but the rest of the Universe did not have it's own Creation process. Could God have just blinked it all into existence? Of course. But He chose not too, just like He chose not to just simply create the Earth. Scientists estimate that there could be as many as 1 trillion other galaxies out side of the Milky Way(Source: http://www.universetoday.com/24328/how-many-stars/), and we have already found at least one other habitable world (Source: http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4321/first-habitable-exoplanet-confirmed) , so I see no reason conflict in believing the Universe is older than the Earth.
I must admit a small personal bias when it comes to this theory, though it is not a theological or scientific bias. Rather, I enjoy the aesthetic it provides. Rather than God merely blinking and the Universe just being there, it shows Him as the Potter, the Creator of the Universe, carefully sculpting each world and star, making every bit of Creation with His own celestial hands. It's a beautiful sight to behold in my imagination, and it truly communicates the nature of God's attentions. God is not an impersonal Creator, but rather the He is the original artist, painting on a canvas that we call reality. The Universe, the Earth, and humanity; these are all living works of art, the things upon which all art is based. I am reminded of Psalms 27:13, in which David says “I am still confident of this: That I will see the goodness of the Lord in the Land of the living!” To me, there is no need for a greater reason than this to explain the age of the Universe and the Earth.
But, perhaps you remain unconvinced, dear readers. After all, listening to a highschooler wax poetic about the Universe is hardly scientific evidence. So, let's look at the hard science: Firstly, Light-year distance is NOT an good measure of time. As this article: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Dltt_is_Dumb.html, explains, the Universe is only 13.7 billion years old by scientific estimates, yet we have observed objects much farther away than that, up to 46 billion light years away (source http://www.uitti.net/stephen/astro/essays/farthest_naked_eye_object.shtml ). However, scientists don't say the Universe is 46 billion years old, due to Hubble's Law. This is an incredibly difficult law to explain, and I don't fully understand it myself, but the basic conclusion is that while discovering distances between galaxies can be done with light year, dating galaxies cannot be done this way due to the fact that we don't exist on a flat, unchanging spatial plane.
It is important to note that most of what we know about light is still very theoretical. It is one of the few duo-form substances in the universe, behaving both like a wave and a particle. Even now most of what we know is speculative, and will most likely be vastly reformed within the next century. Thus, we must be very careful when trying to date any celestial body. Unfortunately, planets are not like trees, we cannot simply cut them open and count the rings to determine their age. Rather, I would return to my opening statement as supported by Fritz Schaffer: The exact age of the Earth, and really the Universe in general, is irrelevant. Ultimately, this life is a finite thing who's ending is far more important than its beginning, and as Matthew 24:36 states, no man may know the day or the hour of that ending. If past experience shows anything, the beginning may prove just as elusive. However, we may take courage in the knowledge that both the beginning and the end are steered by God's ineffable will. The same hands that bled for us on the cross cradle our reality with care, and personally there is nowhere I'd rather be.
In Christ,
~Wesley Freeland