Well, some say that stars are visible because at the time of creation, God didn't only create the stars, he also created the light in-between the stars and the earth.

Some people who like that explanation aren't so comfortable with it when they realize that within this "in-between" light, God included some video of events that never happened. Evidently, you are not among those bothered by that.

<I do understand the the circular reasoning charge, and won't hesitate to use it myself. The hard part is that most arguments are at base, circular.>

If that were the case, then most arguments are at base, fallacious. But if I believed that, I wouldn't be here trying to hold up my end of the argument. :-)

Here is another thing that puzzles me about the young universe hypothesis:

I'd kick a rock and be done with it. To clarify the circular nature I meant, we assume we can make rigid arguments because of our appeal to reason. Of course that presumes reason exists. We might prove reason exists by appealing to logical arguments, but then......

<Young-universe creationists will argue that the universe is young, but that God created it so it would appear to be old. But they will also insist that they've found evidence that the universe is young. From this one could infer that God attempted to make the universe appear old, but did an incompetent job of it.>

<<<<<whatthefat>>>> Actually, we have observed the latter - in simple organisms of course, since they reproduce much more rapidly and so the course of evolution can be observed on the laboratory timescale. We have also observed the evolution of adaptations in much higher life forms on the timescale of years. To me, the theory of evolution is one of those ideas that's so blindingly obvious that it seems surprising it took a genius like Darwin to come up with it (and yet that's what sets such geniuses apart). And if you look carefully, you can see it in action all around you. Not only in biology (e.g., the adaptive immune system relies entirely on selection processes to function, and bacteria build resistance to antibiotics through selection), but also in the running of businesses, governments, manufacturing, fashion, etc.>

That's not really true although it is sometimes used as an example of evolution. Bacteria that become resistant do not become new species, and the mutations that help them also hurt them. An example on a human scale would be sickle cell disease. The disease gives us resistance to malaria, but it also harms us, and it does not turn us into a different species. Furthermore, the mutations responsible for antibiotic resistance in bacteria do not arise as a result of the “need” of the organisms, or exposure to the antibiotics. The resistance comes about purely by chance. In fact, there are bacteria that became resistant to antibiotics before the antibiotics where even invented.

<whatthefat: Where have I done this?>

Heh, doesn't make much sense. The evidence showing that the universe is billions of years old does seem to be convincing.

<<<<<OhioChessFan>>>> Most appeals for a young earth reference processes, not appearances.>

That reason exists is considered axiomatic -- that is, accepted as self-evident without proof. All systems of logic must have some axioms as a starting point. Thus all logical arguments are not circular.

<Most appeals for a young earth reference processes, not appearances.>

Well, perhaps that settles it. Scientists cannot develop a process (i.e. theory) without first having facts (i.e. observations of 'appearances'). Thus, appeals for a young universe are not scientific.

I believe the earth is a maximum of about 10,000 years old. It's plausible to suggest our ability to see starlight that must have originated much longer ago is indicative of an older universe. But it's also plausible to suggest that what at first glance appears to be much older light is in fact light created not that long ago. The same evidence can lead to widely varying conclusions.

I have not done that anywhere. I have pointed out examples of adaptation. The nice thing is, I need not even speculate on whether repeated adaptations lead to speciation. Nor do I even need to refer to the compelling story of ancestry told by our DNA. The reason is that speciation has been observed numerous times. Here's one (very old) list of examples (see Sec. 5.0):

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq...

<TCE: That's not really true although it is sometimes used as an example of evolution. Bacteria that become resistant do not become new species, and the mutations that help them also hurt them.>

This is the same point I'm talking to <OCF> about. An evolutionary event need not cause speciation. More subtle adaptations within a population will not render the subpopulations genetically incompatible.

<Furthermore, the mutations responsible for antibiotic resistance in bacteria do not arise as a result of the “need” of the organisms, or exposure to the antibiotics. The resistance comes about purely by chance. In fact, there are bacteria that became resistant to antibiotics before the antibiotics where even invented>

Well, if by evolution you mean humans becoming resistant to malaria and living shorter life spans than I would have to agree although I would say that the mutation was caused by chance and not the presence of malaria. What I referred to and what you commented on was speciation or one species becoming another. Obviously this is relevant in terms of monkeys turning into humans and fish into frogs etc. That's what I'm saying has never been demonstrated.

<<<<<whatthefat>>>> That's true, mutations happen no matter what. But the chances of a population of bacteria developing that is strongly resistant to a particular antibiotic is greatly increased by exposing the population to that antibiotic. Why? You said it yourself: most adaptations come at some cost. They only proliferate when that cost is paid off, else those not paying that cost win the race to reproduce.>

But examples of speciation *have* been shown.

<Do you agree?>

Yes. And I would argue ultimately, your only reason for this belief comes from your faith in the literal interpretation of Genesis. If not for that, I don't think you would believe it any more that you would believe in "YouRangism" from my earlier example. It is after all, the same line of reasoning.

And I don't really have a problem with you and others believing in the young universe if you want to.

My only complaint is that these Christians typically characterize scientists as liars for rejecting this faith-based young universe belief. And that, even though they admit that by appearances, the universe doesn't look young!

It is the same mistake Christianity has made multiple times in the past: Christians oppose scientists because their legitimate theories are perceived to contradict a particular interpretation of the Bible. As has happened before, it will be the Christian interpretation that falls. In the meantime, these Christians are guilty of making false accusations, in violation of the 9th commandment.