So, how would you define "young earth creationist"? There are proponents of "creationism" / intelligent design who do not believe this earth is 6000 years old. For example:
I too believe the current cosmos is somewhere between 10 and 15 thousand years old. Matter of fact; if one were to line up the genealogies in the Scripture; we get a little more than 13,000 earth years.
The one thing Scripture is consistent of though; is the recording of time to humans is linked to earth days. (morning evening = day) Of which this planet's orbit around the sun appears to be evident in a stable counting of "time" as we record it.
Granted there is data in the historical record that speaks of orbits of planets getting out of alignment and that many ancient civilizations believe Venus was a commit and that Jupiter and Saturn had come closer to the sun and moved away again. Thus it's possible "comet Venus" destroyed what ever planet was between Mars and Jupiter; creating the asteroid belt. Which certainly would have "messed up" the orbits of planets, at least for some time.
Now personally I think that was part of Noah's flood event as there is archeological evidence of a global meteorite layer in the fossil record which appears to be one of the catalysts for the flood; as all the fossils are on top of this layer. The current paleontological theory is that the Gulf of Mexico basin was formed by this meteor. Which also could have initiated the circumstances that commenced the continental divide.
There is a statement a creationist makes in the movie "Is Genesis history" that the flood was a judgement not only on the sin of man; but on the corruption that had spread across creation. Including what the dinosaurs had become in time.
For if wickedness being made manifest in the violence of man; the same had also become true for the animals. And we know vast changes to a "species" is possible based on what we see just in the past 150 years of dog breeding. If one can start with wolves and get tea cup poodles and St. Barnards out of the same "kind"; there's a lot of room for physical / temperament trait variance in the genome of a "kind".
So what dinosaurs became from Adam to Noah has a lot of possibilities that we don't see in the fossil record. Particularly seeing how vast majority of the fossil record only represents what was present on earth at the time of Noah's flood. We are only seeing in that record what dinosaurs had become. We aren't seeing what they were created as.
Then of course we have genetic mutations that come to be made manifest as a result of the fall. Neanderthal is an example of that. A "self limiting" example of that even; as there are no "Neanderthals" today, despite humanity still has "neanderthal DNA".
Selective breeding can also cause mutations to become more evident and compounded more "destructive". We see this today also in the dog world. How many "pure bred" dogs have copious numbers of health problems caused by their genetics. This has become such a problem that pure bred dogs are on the verge of "extinction" even despite their continued existence is supported by humans willing to care for them. (Most "pure bred" dogs would never be able to survive in the wild. That's obvious!)
So did subgroups of humans (like Neanderthal) "do this to themselves" as an experiment in self imposed selective breeding? A "mark of Cain" type of thing? Who knows? We don't have enough information on "neanderthal culture" to know what they thought of themselves. We know they were hunters, used tools, knew how to start fires, and could have drawn pictures on caves?
We also have examples in the fossil record of bipedal apes. (We have bipedal apes now.)
Yet, just another piece of the puzzle.
That is possible; yet God could have also set supernovas into motion for a specific reason. (My understanding that a supernova is the death of a star, not the creation of one.)
Which brings me specifically to the point of the crucifixion. If Jesus had forsaken the atonement; there would have been no reason for time to continue. There would have (probably) been the sabbath (Saturday) and the destruction of the cosmos would have commenced Sunday morning. Every human up to that time would have been cast into the Lake of Fire and the cosmos would have been recreated solely for Christ's purposes and what He'd decided should inhabit it.
After all the incarnation of the 2nd person of the Trinity added a dimension to the Son's existence that was not eternally existent. And thus to accommodate what the Son had chosen to become a cosmos would have been created to incorporate His decision. And subsequently could have potentially been populated literally with Gods. ("Material" representations of the 2nd person of the Godhead.)
Yet Jesus went through with the atonement and thus His "progeny" are those He atoned for. Thus why Jesus produced no children in the flesh, nor do believers on the other side of eternity.
That's a whole other theological discussion though.
I'll have to look this up. Haven't heard of this book before.
This is possible; yet I believe there is another explanation for supernovas too.
Jumping back to what I'd just said about the completion of the atonement. In the space of "the great tribulation" where atonement was being secured; the sun was darkened for 3 hours during the crucifixion. And the moon "did not give her light". Was this a "sign in the heavens" that imminent judgement was upon the cosmos should the atonement not be completed? (That's what I think was going on; because the events of the crucifixion to the destruction of Jerusalem was a "foreshadow" of the end of time.)
So was the "outer parts" of the cosmos starting to come unraveled on the question of the completion of the atonement? And thus the evidence of that as the light reaches earth hundreds and even thousands of years later; we only now start to see?
Again though, assuming the "rules" that govern the current cosmos have always been consistent? God certainly could have (and evidently has) allowed things to "come unglued" for His purposes and the demonstration of the fact that a day of reckoning is coming.
And this is why I believe He's done that. To allow us to "see" that He is the sovereign Entity that controls all of this and that there is a day of reckoning coming. What we understand of the current cosmos will no longer exist.
For as much as men "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" there WILL be a Judgement Day.
I agree that yes indeed "God moved the light from the exploding star forward across time to show up on earth in 1987." Although I don't think that had anything to do with a particular angelic being.
I know Sanduleak was the name given by astronomers to the supernova star; but I'm not aware of any "Sanduleak" named in Scripture.
The only problem with earth being an "incorruptible spiritual state" is that the Son was incarnated in a material state like unto Adam. Jesus had a Divine nature, but also a flesh and blood human nature; which consisted of all the needs and capabilities of Adam. Christ had to eat, sleep, pee, poop, bathe etc. Yet Jesus was without sin.
The doctrine you quote here. sounds like a tenant of gnosticism that believes the actual material construction of the universe is "evil".
Again though, the "evening morning" "day 1" 2, 3, 4 etc nature of the language in Genesis doesn't support this. The Genesis account is a narrative. It's not poetry or allegory or any other style of writing. Where as most other creation accounts outside of the Bible are written as allegory or poetry and not narrative format.
Principally speaking; I agree here. Unless of course God decides to do something for His own purposes. And in all the places where we see God intervening in the laws that govern the cosmos it was always a demonstration of redemption, judgement or both.
Best "rule of thumb" here is to keep digging through the text to see if we can find the answers to the questions we have from the text itself. The Bible is it's own dictionary, commentary and interpreter and what ever questions we have about the Bible we'll find the answer in the Bible (specifically in relation to theology). The Scripture actually tells us to compare it to itself; and not try to devise what we think it means out of our own human understanding.
And even when we do compare it to itself; we don't always get that right either. There's a lot of information in the Scripture and sometimes finding the answers requires an awful lot of digging.
I've actually "accidentally" found many things in Scripture that connect together that I wasn't even aware that they connected together. Bible "deep dives" can get complicated (and frustrating)!