I apologize if anyone feels this is off-topic. I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to astronomy and physics. But whenever I see someone arguing against YEC via cosmology, I am always reminded that the school of thought they are typically coming from is the convention of Big Bang cosmology. This is a theory that has to invent fantasy objects to even begin to maintain itself, to the point where even secular physicists and other scientists question whether or not the Big Bang can even qualify as being a scientific theory.
OK.... we can eliminate the Big Bang. For purposes of this discussion, we can take the position that the BB is completely, totally, absolutely, 100% false.
Now, how can we directly observe objects millions, even billions of light years distant in a 6,000 year old universe?
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community (Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory. But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors....
(list of signees at link) http://cosmologystatement.org/
Actually, more recent analysis of data indicates "inflation" may have been confirmed. On March 17, this was published:
"The detection of gravitational waves by the BICEP2 experiment at the South Pole supports the cosmic inflation theory of how the universe came to be."
"Dark energy" was proposed as a temporary explanation for the accelerating expansion of the universe discovered a few years ago. Basically, we know the expansion of the universe is speeding up. That requires some source of energy. The source of energy is unknown. Hence the term "dark energy." In other words, we know it's there because we can observe it's effects, but we don't know what it is.
The reason I bring this is up is because I am always so struck by the hubris with which proponents of conventional cosmology launch attacks against the YEC model, usually based on a single problem. Conventional cosmologists are arguing from a foundation sinking in sand. If they were to apply the same critical standards to their own cosmological model that they direct towards YEC, they would all but obliterate their entire framework for understanding the universe. That's all I wanted to say.
Like I said... toss the BB out. It does nothing to change our ability to see objects millions of times farther than we should be able to in a 6,000 year old universe. What remains is whatever happened to create the universe.... "Big Bang;" God saying: "Let there be light."; or some other event.... it took place around 13.8 billion years ago.