I posted the following as a comment on this video:
This is the clearest presentation of the distant starlight (non)problem that I have heard to date. We cannot use distant starlight to tell us how old the universe is given relativity physics. So, we will have to find other evidence to estimate the age of the universe. Radioactive decay might be one, but those rates aren’t reliable based on conflicting erosion rates, the discovery of soft tissue in fossils and the rates of dispersion of decay particles from zircon crystals. What we are left with is historical evidence, but that takes us back only about 5000 years which is surprisingly close to the time of the flood in the Septuagint chronology.
The video is almost two hours long, but John Hartnett does a good job of describing three rejected solutions to the distant starlight problem to arrive at the anisotropic synchrony convention proposed by Jason Lisle.
Poetry, Short Prose and Walking 
Thanks for the great resource. I look forward to watching it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Blessings, Michael!
LikeLiked by 1 person
No matter how they slice and dice, science doesn’t always quite add up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One of the mistakes some people made in the 19th century when the speed of light was found to be finite and stars were measured to be far away was to doubt what the Bible had to say rather than to doubt Newtonian physics.
It turned out that Newtonian physics was not quite right. With relativity theory there is now no longer an excuse to doubt what was said in Genesis 1.
Blessings, Mimi!
LikeLike