many fields of science. Some of these have been satisfactorily answered by proponents of the hypothesis, some have not. Hopefully, future work will clarify matters further, although a paucity of funding for creation-oriented research could mean that it may take several decades. In the meantime, we would advise caution before accepting (or for that matter rejecting) this proposal prematurely.

Assumption 4: The universe could not have been created 'fully functioning, "with people on earth seeing stars with the light already arriving from the beginning.

This assumes that God is not a God of infinite power, and so is the most presumptuous of all. Biblical creation by definition is a miracle, using processes which are not now in operation. God is not dependent on the physical laws which we observe in the present, since He instituted these Himself. To say that God could not have created a universe which was both large and very young is thus challenging the very nature of God as revealed in His word, not just challenging the fact of recent creation as revealed therein.
The fact that we cannot easily conceive "how" is a different matter altogether. For instance, it is easy to say that "God could have created the light-beam already in place." True enough, but it raises a problem. Say we are watching a star in our telescope which is one million light years away, and we notice that it explodes. That means the light reaching us now is carrying the information recording this distant happening. Now trace this part of the light beam (call it "ex" for explosion) backwards in time along the path of the light beam. By the time you get back to the time of creation (6 to 10 thousand years ago) you have reached a point which is less than 1 percent of the distance to the star. This would mean that the "ex" part of the light-beam began its journey from here--and not from the star! Thus, the information recording this explosion had to be "built-in" to the light beam, so what we see as having happened to that star may never have happened at all. The idea that observation of things further than around 10,000 light-years away is not necessarily linked to physical reality would be unsettling from both a scientific and theological viewpoint.
Nevertheless, the universe was created a mature, fully functioning entity. The stars created on the fourth day were created for man¾as "signs and seasons."  There is no reason to believe that Adam and Eve had to wait four years for the first stars to "switch on" (the nearest star is about four light-years away.)  Similarly, we do not see new stars "blinking on," as if their light had finally reached the earth.  The model mentioned earlier by Dr. Humphreys may give us a way of better understanding how light was originally created "on its way" and yet not have this problem of "built-in information."  In a sense, it may also effectively involve a change in (apparent) c (since as the stars recede rapidly, the lightbeam remains intact), though it would not predict that this would be detectable in historical measurements.

We hope that sufficient discussion has already taken place to enable the reader to see that the apparent problem of having young age and great size to the universe has a number of possible solutions. Did light speed change? If so, did it become constant thousands of years ago or has it, indeed, been detected in historic times? Is the solution to be found in the "stretching" of space implied in the Scriptures? Perhaps a combination of these factors? Or was an altogether different method used during Creation Week to create a fully functioning, mature universe, a method which we will perhaps never be able to elucidate? Whatever the answer, faith in the revealed Word of the Creator is the only reasonable starting point for all such inquiry

Aren't the vast similarities between men and apes "proof' of evolution?

Again, let me answer with a response given on the Answers in Genesis webpage by Don Batten, B.Sc.Agr. (Hons.), Ph.D. (Australia).

The idea that human beings and chimps have close to 100% similarity in their DNA seems to be common knowledge. The figures quoted vary: 97%, 98%, or even 99%, depending on just who is telling the story. What is the basis for these claims and do the data mean there really is not much difference between chimps and people? Are we just highly evolved apes? The following concepts will assist with a proper understanding of this issue:

1. Similarity ('homology') is not evidence for common ancestry (Evolution) as against a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen 'Beetle' car. They both have air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities ('homologies'). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.

2. If humans were entirely different from all other living things, or indeed if every living thing was