Maccie,
So how do you account for the fact that many galaxies are billions of light years away? Even the Milky Way is 16 million light years across.
Dr Humphreys' relatvistic cosmology appears to answer most of the evidence. That said, like all man made theories, this is fallible and subject to change as new research and evidence come to light. Even if proven incorrect, Dr Humphreys has given creationists a path to answer such questions.
For a very quick and brief run down see the following information from
Seven Years of Starlight and Time <
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-338.htm>.
Dr Humphreys considers, 'What would if there were a centre of the universe?'
In contrast to the big bang story, the Scriptural record appears to imply that the universe is in fact, an island universe. Appendix B of
Starlight and Time shows Biblical evidence that (a) the cosmos has a unique center and a boundary for its matter, beyond which there is at least some empty space; and (b) on a cosmic scale of distances, the earth is near the center.
A finite cosmos with a center of gravity is quite different from the nonbounded universe the big bang depicts. In the big bang theory, if you could travel from our galaxy to a neighboring one, you would go gravitationally "up" for the first half of the journey and then gravitationally "down" for the next half. Going further outward would continue the ups and downs, but they would average out to about zero. On a large scale, such a universe would have no part which would be significantly higher (gravitationally) than any other part.
But in a creationist cosmos having a center of gravity, if you were to travel outward from the center you would, on the average, go steadily "upward" in a gravitational sense. On a large scale, the heavens would be at a higher gravitational "altitude" than the earth. As Isaiah 55:9 says:
"For as the heavens are higher than the earth . . ."
A center of gravity is important because an effect in general relativity called
gravitational time dilation comes into play. Experiment and Einstein's theory agree that time and all physical processes run more slowly in areas which are lower in a gravitational field than in areas which are higher.
The effect is very small normally, but it turns out that when the expanding universe was at a critical size (about fifty times smaller than it is now), gravitational time dilation would have been very important. My theory proposes that the cosmos was at that critical size during the fourth day of Creation Week. While one ordinary day was elapsing on earth, billions of years worth of physical processes were taking place in distant parts of the universe. This allows starlight from even the most distant star to arrive during or soon after the fourth day, the same day God created all the stars. During that day, most of the expansion of the cosmos would have taken place.
The bottom line is that relativity forces us to say
by whose clocks we specify the age of the cosmos or the timing of events within that cosmos. My book points out that the Bible gives us time in terms of the "earth's frame of reference, not some other frame." Scripture says, and my theory agrees, that the universe is young
as measured by clocks on earth.
Also, light-travel time isn't only a problem
just for creationists, but big bang also has a light-travel time problem as described in
Light-Travel Time: A Problem for the Big Bang <
http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp#f8> which is where the information below came from just to save you the time and effort of going to the site.
The temperature of the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background radiation) is essentially the same everywherein all directions (to a precision of 1 part in 100,000). However (according to big bang theorists), in the early universe, the temperature of the CMB
would have been very different at different places in space due to the random nature of the initial conditions. These different regions could come to the same temperature if they were in close contact. More distant regions would come to equilibrium by exchanging radiation (i.e. light). The radiation would carry energy from warmer regions to cooler ones until they had the same temperature.
The problem is this: even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions of the current CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other?
This is a light-traveltime problem.
The big bang model assumes that the universe is many billions of years old. While this timescale is sufficient for light to travel from distant galaxies to earth, it does not provide enough time for light to travel from one side of the visible universe to the other. At the time the light was emitted, supposedly 300,000 years after the big bang, space already had a uniform temperature over a range at least ten times larger than the distance that light could have travelled (called the horizon). So, how can these regions look the same, i.e. have the same temperature? How can one side of the visible universe know about the other side if there has not been enough time for the information to be exchanged? This is called the horizon problem. Secular astronomers have proposed many possible solutions to it, but no satisfactory one has emerged to date (inflation hasn't answered many important questions as to how it could start and a method of 'turning it off' once started. There also isn't any consensus of which one, if any, is correct; many inflation models are known to be wrong - as they make predictions that are not consistent with observations).
In conclusion, the big bang requires that opposite regions of the visible universe must have exchanged energy by radiation, since these regions of space look the same in CMB maps. But there has not been enough time for light to travel this distance. Both biblical creationists and big bang supporters have proposed a variety of possible solutions to light-traveltime difficulties in their respective models. So big-bangers should not criticize creationists for hypothesizing potential solutions, since they do the same thing with their own model. The horizon problem remains a serious difficulty for big bang supporters, as evidenced by their many competing conjectures that attempt to solve it. Therefore, it is inconsistent for supporters of the big bang model to use light-travel time as an argument against biblical creation, since their own notion has an equivalent problem.
Have you ever read any Mad comic books? Well, this is starting to look awefully like the Spy Vs Spy comic that they have in every edition. lol it's funny.
how the universe came into existence. Same old, same old 
boring stuff. 
