There is no event horizon problem when we observe the center of the Milky Way (over 20,000 light years from Earth) .... but YEC has a problem. There is no event horizon problem when we look at Sn1987a (over 167,000 light years from Earth .... but YEC has a problem. There is no event horizon problem when we observe Andromeda (2.4 million light years from Earth) .... but YEC has a problem. There is no event horizon problem when we see NGC4651 (62,000,000 light years away) .... but YEC has a problem. There is no event horizon problem when we see the Hercules cluster at a distance of 500,000,000 light years .... but YEC has a problem.
It is NOT a wash.
You don't really understand what you're talking about here and copy/pasting Wiki doesn't make you look like you do.
I use Wiki mainly because it's broad based, (usually) easily understood, and normally comes up on top of the search. If you like, I'll begin citing primary literature, as I did in my answer to FC.
Wouldn't it be better to demonstrate I "don't really understand what (I'm) talking about here" than to simply make an unsupported assertion?
Here's a suggestion....
I provided a list of objects that we can see but shouldn't be able to in a 6,000 year old universe. They range in distance from 20,000 to 500,000,000 light years. I have claimed the "horizon problem" isn't a problem at all for our ability to see them and that each of them is a problem for YEC. Simply pick any of those objects and show what I said is wrong and why.
Keep in mind these objects range out to nearly 100,000 times as far as we should be able to see in your 6,000 year old universe ..... and there is no "horizon problem" associated with any of them. Yet you seem to think the issue is a "wash."
You also don't understand the creation model for the time/light problem
Another unsupported assertion. Which creation model do I not understand?
so trying to compare what is and isn't an issue is just flat out dishonest on your part.
Now a claim of dishonesty on my part. Do you have anything substantive to offer or do you specialize in unsupported accusations and ad hominems?
What you're basically trying to argue is "We think we have solved a couple of things so we win and you lose."
Not at all. I'm arguing that whetever problems any other model may have, YEC loses because we can see things beyond a 6,000 year old event horizon. Whatever the creative event took place, the astronomical evidence is it happened billions of years ago, not thousands.
You want to impress me with your horizon problem knowledge? Explain to me how something moved faster than the speed of light at the moment of the BB.That would be cool.
What makes you think I'm trying to impress you with my knowledge of an issue that isn't even relevant to my claims? Why do you think a problem another model has 13.8 billion years ago solves the problem YEC has only 6,000 years ago?