So my question is how are we observing this light 11 million light years away now?
No, you are observing light from 11 million years ago. Not that I expect you ill kno the difference.
If it takes 11 million years to travel to earth, how can i see it now? I'm only 20.
If it takes 11 million years to travel to earth then the viewer would need to be 11 million years old.
No, you wouldn't. Your inability to grasp this simple fact is proof that your question was insincere at best, and was not made in pursuit of actual knowledge.
I don't believe light travels at all
What you "believe" is completely irrelevant.
i've looked at various models and worked on many but none of it works.
And your qualifications are what? Am I supposed to believe that all of observed physics can be overturned just because you say so?
The emission theory states that the light emits (not a travelling speed) from our own eyes not from the object we look at.
You have already claimed that "light does not travel" but now you claim that it emits from our eyes. And what the hell is "not a travelling speed"? Any speed is a "traveling speed", if light does not travel then how can light be emitted?
The emission theory is the most common sense
It makes no sense, much less "common sense", and it pathetically easy to refute. Can people see in total darkness? The answer is "NO". Emission theory refuted.
so i don't believe there is any speed of light.
Once more, what you believe is irrelevant. The speed of light can and has been measured time and time and time again. Not only that but the speed of light through hundreds, if not thousands, of transparent mediums has also been measured ad nauseum. Were all of the tens or thousands of those scientists who performed these measurements lying or involved in some wide reaching cover up?
Further more, if light does not travel, how do you explain the function of things like flashlights, lightbulbs, candles, etc.? Under your claims those things simply would not, and could not possibly work.
The 'Starlight Problem' has never been a problem for me and the YEC model.
Denying the existence of an observed and measured phenomena doesn't make the problem it presents for the YEC model go away. It just show that the YEC model is based wholly on dogma and not actual evidence.
The earliest Church Fathers (2nd-4th century AD) who believed in emmision theory also had no problem with starlight and a young universe.
So? The beliefs of the 2nd-4th century church fathers are not what defines reality? hat proof do you have that these people not only believed in, but also supported your theory of magic light from the eyes that doesn't travel yet still manages to illuminate things which would require it to teavel.