[[And that is only one, albeit a particularly glaring example, of a huge number of scientific problems with “young earth”.]]
Number one it’s not really a problem IF you study the issue- there are answers to it- secondly, you discount the actual im;possibilities associated with macroevolution (ie: chemical impossibilities, biological, thermodynamic, mathematical- any one of which puts a nail in the coffin for hte idea of macroevolution possibility- but taken all together- ensure that it’s not even remotely possible- yet you claim that the light year issue undoes young earth when there are answers to it? Study it some- you’ll find what you are looking for IF you look objectively-
But there are no impossibilities -- zero, zip, nada impossibilities -- "associated with" macro-evolution, because among other things, there's no such a thing as "macro-evolution".
There is only, ever, micro-evolution -- day in, day out, generation by generation, over millions & millions of generations, each one slightly adapts, gets selected & evolves.
That's micro-evolution.
So called macro-evolution is simply looking first at an early example, then one from much later and noting the accumulated micro-adaptions seem pretty remarkable, when taken as a whole.
So called macro-evolution is simply short-hand for accumulated micro-adaptions, nothing else.