“Well, since the world/universe is not much older than 6,000 years,we could say that it may have exploded anywhere within that period.”
Such precision.
“Also, it depends. How do evolutionists determine when a star explodes?”
Evolutionists ask an astronomer.
"Since they are obviously not at the site of the star, so how can they know exactly how far away it is simply by looking in a telescope?”
Much the way ship navigators can tell the captain how far it is to the lighthouse without having to bounce off of it. Skill, training, technology, not being a dumbshit.
"Or do they just make a wild guess?”
No.
“I would assume that they would extrapolate based upon how far away it is, then divide it by the speed of light, but there are a couple of assumptions that have to be made -
1) How do they know how far away the star is?”
Parallax
“2) Is the speed of light constant?”
That’s not an assumption, dickhead, it’s one of the most tested constants in science.
“3) Evolutionists' dating methods of ANYTHING are based upon their preconceived, faulty geologic column.”
That’s geologists. And aging by strata makes a lot more sense than taking bronze age myths as factual for shits and giggles.
“Any data that doesn't fit this preconceived system is thrown out - even if the data is factual.”
DO you have an example of FACTUAL data being dismissed?
And what proof do you have that it’s factual?
“If you can tell me what methods evolutionists use to date the explosion of a star, then I can tell you how a creationist would determine it.”
Yes, creationism was developed as a reaction to science promoting an old earth, it makes sense you cannot answer a question until you know what you have to dismiss, first.
"It all comes down to interpretation of the data.”
Well, no. We interpret the data. YOU filter the evidence to preserve your conclusion.