Oh boy. Not sure where to go with this. I am aware of all the different models that have been proposed, from Lisle's ASC nonsense to Russ Humphrey's White Hole Cosmology.
Some of the most notable issues with White Hole Cosmology are: (1) This model is geocentric and extremely ad hoc. The only motivation to invoke a white hole is to stretch time in the desired way. (2) It separates the age of the earth from the rest of the universe, while there is a strong body of evidence that the earth itself is 4 billion years old. Also, many features of the earth are explained by “ordinary” planet formation. (3) It predicts a universal blue shift of light which we do not observe. On the contrary, we are observing a universal red shift due to the expansion of the cosmos. (4) It cannot deal with the Cosmic Microwave Background except by the ad hoc inclusion of a shell of radiating hydrogen as the outer bound of the universe, centered on earth.
The universe is in fact expanding at an accelerating rate. Not sure what you are getting at here as if space is expanding it would take longer for further objects to get here, not allow them to get here faster. Your mistake is understandable as you haven't studied the material too in depth. At least I can almost respect Danny Faulkner's model where he invokes a miracle to explain distant starlight (https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/starlight/a-proposal-for-a-new-solution-to-the-light-travel-time-problem/). At least he doesn't pretend that science actually converges on a 6,000 year world view like the other models. He believes it by faith and requires random miracles to make reality fit his version of Genesis.
Starlight doesn't prove the universe is billions of years old. It is one of the pieces of the puzzle and the age of the universe is determined via electromagnetic radiation. Measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background help take us back to 13.7 billion years ago (of particular note are hundreds of things, not just starlight that help paint a picture of our old age: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation). Lisle writes about 3 assumptions that supposedly Cosmologists make...
- The starting conditions
- The constancy of rates
- The contamination of the system
He questions the constancy of the speed of light. I can't believe he actually includes this nonsense, but he writes it to cast doubt upon the science despite it being completely debunked and rejected even by other creationists. He assumes time ticks slower on Earth, but light traveling into a gravitational well blue shifts light as noted above (and we don't see this, we see the opposite, a redshift). He should know better because he actually has a PhD in Astronomy or something like that. But he still writes it in his book, deceiving many Christians as if 'scientists' don't know and he accuses us of having 'blind faith.' Shame on him. We can measure how fast time passes elsewhere in space (i.e. Cepheid Variable Stars, Pulsars, and Big Bang Nucleosynthesis actually affirms that the laws of physics were exactly the same 13.8 billion years ago as they are today)
And then he goes on to equate inflation with the YEC distant starlight problem. Again, very dishonest as there is actually many pieces of evidence for inflation where there is no evidence for any YEC model.
He concludes his article by saying:
As creation scientists research possible solutions to the distant starlight problem, we should also remember the body of evidence that is consistent with the youth of the universe.
There is none Jason. Just stop. Spiral galaxies are quite stable for billions of years, blue stars are not a problem at all because it turns out that new stars can actually be created. A new one appears in the Milky Way about once a year. Comets and magnetic fields cannot last for billions of years? We have evidence of asteroids that are 5 billion years old and a detailed record of the Earth's magnetic field in rocks highlighting it has been going quite strong for at least hundreds of millions of years.
The most evil thing he does is probably in the entire book Jason wrote is making Jesus teach their Young Earth model. So now it is not just an interpretation of Genesis vs. science but it's Jesus vs. science. And of course we Christians choose Jesus, which when the world sees, making more atheists than Richard Dawkins ever could.
I've read pretty much every article related to Cosmology on AiG, CMI, and ICR and found they contain virtually no science. All they ever try to do is prove that 'x' is wrong and incorrectly conclude that it somehow proves the YEC view. They make you doubt science, to hate it almost, and certainly not to trust anything it ever says.