And I also think Geocentrism is a viable response to Distant Starlight

Video

Distant Starlight Doesn't Disprove Young Earth Creationism (Justin Derby)
TTOR | added last day last year
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTBoylLGwcg

HGL @ TTOR/JD

beginning : heard it c. 24 hours before becoming Geocentric - or less

[in the following I don't say to where in video]

and I think Geocentrism is a lot better of a coherent answer than Relativity

Especially, as Einstein was arguing against the concept of "simultaneity".

So, while in pure logic the equality between light speed at different locations or stretches cannot be actually proven, it can be much more safely assumed than Heliocentrism.

Astro Caleb

Your whole argument rests on the assumption that the one-way speed of light cannot be measured and can only be arbitrarily assumed. Yet sure enough, there actually are ways to measure the one-way speed of light.

In the 1670s an astronomer by the name of Ole Römer used Jupiter and its moon Io to measure the speed of light. He discovered that the intervals between eclipses of Io increased as earth moved father from Jupiter and decreased as earth moved closer to Jupiter. This, he realized, was due to the fact that light took longer to reach earth from Jupiter as earth moved away. He used some simple calculations to make an approximation of the speed of light. His conclusion was 140,000 miles per second, the modern value being 186,282 miles per second. In other words, Römer measured the one-way speed of light from Jupiter to earth.

Here is a video of Brian Cox explaining what I just did above:
https://youtu.be/DMKE5YGLnmc

There are also many other resources to look into his method of calculating the one-way speed of light.

HGL @ Astro Caleb

Fine, Astro Caleb.

I agree it is rather probable we know the speed of light.

How would YOU argue that we know distances like 13.8 light years?

Also - much as I disagree with Einstein, I agree with TTOR that acccording to Einstein we cannot prove light travels different distances at same speed, i e you would have to prove that light travels in "interstellar space" precisely as slow as in a solar system between Jupiter and Earth.

Also, Rømer's experiment might indicate it is not even constant - since if his measure of its speed was accurate, either ours is wrong, or the speed has changed or the speed is different between Jupiter and Earth than where our generation's scientists typically measure it.

That said, it is even more economical to simply ask how you can without proving Heliocentrism prove such stellar distances or how you can disprove Geocentrism, before we go to Einstein.

... a Harsher and a Gentler Correction of John Lennox

Here is the one which sounded harsh to me:

Debunking John Lennox's YEC Arguments (Justin Derby)
TTOR
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQADf4JJvsQ

Here, in my comments on this video, I have tried to make it gentler:

I

4:38 a Jew might of course say that the Earth was dark and void for millions of years, a Christian must abide by Mark 10:6.

4:52 Actually he is, so far, not directly arguing Gap Theory. You see, he is just saying the time when the Earth was empty and void comes before day 1. Interesting to consider how an Earth would look after millions of years of darkness, and of emptiness and only the last less than ten thousand years there was light and life.

5:59 One could ask whether "heavens" of Exodus 20 = "heaven" of Genesis 1:1 or the work of Day IV. Otherwise, of course, what preceded creation of light on earth would count as part of day I. I had been wondering whether the day in heaven (heaven with all angels can't have been dark just because Earth was) was a Saturday counting as before this day I Sunday, or whether it was a same day which spread down to Earth some later when God said "let there be light".

II

8:10 Beg to differ. A Catholic takes the Bible:

Literally
Allegorically
Morally
AND Anagogically.

But metaphors in sentence are part of literal sense of passages, of the story. Taking the metaphors literally is not.

8:41 We Catholics let the Magisterium do the Interpretation for us, but Magisterium has ruled we must take the Bible according to unanimous sense of Fathers, who are all taking Creation week literally. Possibly Saint Jerome might have argued there was a very long spiritual day in the spiritual heaven among the angels before Creation of Earth and its original darkness and day 1 of visible light. But that could not be why there are material traces from what we take as traces of the Flood, can it?

III

9:45 It is indeed possible that day 1 was not 24 hours, but fewer. Like if light was created with light angle of noon rather than of morning? Would not really matter, would it?

I did some thinking since last. John Lennox has a real point that we do not know how long Earth was empty and void and covered in darkness. One could say Universe was created Saturday evening 18:00 and light was created Sunday morning 6:00. One could also say Universe was created Sunday morning 6:00 and light was created Sunday morning 9:00. But as per Exodus 20, you cannot go many hours further back than Saturday evening 18:00, six*24 hours before God rests from creating new things on Friday evening 18:00.

IV

10:46 Actually, St Augustine argued both diverse numeration of days and "evening-morning" can be explained as angels apprehending creation - which they do very quickly. According to him, God created the universe in one instant, the angels saw this divided into six instants according to aspects, and their "evening" sight means them seeing it by their own powers of apprehension, all of them, their "morning" sight being them seeing it again when looking up to God to give thanks - as Michael did and Satan didn't. Obviously, this view is a bit problematic on details of day 6, and it also is no use to Old Earth : it just makes any Young Earth chronology six or five days shorter. Also, like St Jerome's opinion, it is that of a single Church Father, not that of All Church Fathers - therefore a guess, not a dogma.

V

12:58 I was waiting whether you were going to deal with the argument of Distant Starlight, which he faced (with some trembling) ... and you gave no answer. A Young Earth Creationist should give an answer. Mine is, since Earth isn't spinning around the Sun, "parallax" is a misnomer for the 1838 Bessel phenomenon, and that not being parallactic involves no triangle useful for triangulation of stellar distances. Hence "Distant" starlight is as little distant as "Millions of Years" are millions of years.