1) Light takes a long time to get from quasars to us, but we see them.
2) Early geological estimates for the age of the geologic column based entirely upon rates of sedimentation were still far, far over 6,000 years. Well over 100,000, IIRC.
3) Lines of evidence from molecular biology tend to produce age estimates for things like the emergence of reptiles from amphibians, etc., in line with (but usually even older than) evidence from paleontology.
The Earth is obviously old, period.
Scripture says 16 or 17 times that God "stretched the heavens". What exactly that means I don't know, but I know when scripture tends to repeat something, it's usually very important. My understanding is that only the distance to the nearest stars have actually been calculated using trigonometry. The rest of the distances are inferred from the red shift. But might there be other reasons for red shifts???
And it is also possible that God created the stars complete with light in transit. While the standard evo claim is that such an act is inherently deceptive, that is not so. Scripture records that God created the stars to provide light for the earth. If creating light in transit is within God's power, why should He wait billions of years before enjoying that benefit? Why should He wait just because some men will assume that He couldn't have created it thus and thus come to a false conclusion about the age of the universe? Should God anticipate every act of arrogance of man and proactive take steps to keep him from reaching false conclusions?
New Theory on Red Shift
Continuing Saga of Speed of Light and Quantized Red Shifts
More on Red Shifts
Red Shift assumptions proven wrong
"2) Early geological estimates for the age of the geologic column based entirely upon rates of sedimentation were still far, far over 6,000 years. Well over 100,000, IIRC."
Using a "uniformitarian" approach and completely discounting the global flood. That's a long earth age approach assuming a long earth age.
"3) Lines of evidence from molecular biology tend to produce age estimates for things like the emergence of reptiles from amphibians, etc., in line with (but usually even older than) evidence from paleontology."
Again, a "uniformitarian" and "evolutionistic" approach assuming evolution.
The conclusions of 2 and 3 are based on the world view you've already adopted.
The light explanation is a little harder, but there are many possibilities. 2) Early geological estimates for the age of the geologic column based entirely upon rates of sedimentation were still far, far over 6,000 years. Well over 100,000, IIRC. 3) Lines of evidence from molecular biology tend to produce age estimates for things like the emergence of reptiles from amphibians, etc., in line with (but usually even older than) evidence from paleontology.
"The Earth is obviously old, period"
The Earth is obviously young, period"