You doesn't seem to being understanding grammar. (I had to keep that in, because funny!)

We have measured light, here, via experimentation, and determined a speed, to the best our current abilities, even understanding some aspects of how light works as a wave and interacts with matter. You do know there are scientists who are actively attempting to alter the 'speed of light', yes? Whether or not they've been successful so far is irrelevant; the theory that the speed of light is not a constant is out there. Do you know every property of space/time? Do you know every inch of space between the source of a light and its destination?

You predict that something is a light year away because -- as I so clearly explained -- the mathematics in applying our latest (presumably our most accurate) measured speed of light, combined with triangulation and/or wave spectrum properties, allows us to mathematically predict the location and distance of the source, presuming all of our measurements here are uniform and constant to be sufficiently extended a great distance.

Until you can test that distance, however accurate or trustworthy we believe it to be, it remains a prediction. Whether it's starlight or navigating the sea to uncharted territory. You triangulate utilizing your observations to predict a location to some sufficiently acceptable degree; it's a prediction until it's verified. Accuracy can even be strengthened by multiple predictions coinciding. Still a prediction. Practically speaking, 1st hand verification may never be needed. Still a prediction.

: Light from the nearest star took 2.24 years to reach us. We see it as it was
: 2.24 years ago.

You realize you just supported what I had said.
You say you look back in time.
Then you say they're 2.24 years old, so you see it as it was 2.24 years ago.
Which is it?
You are looking 'back in time' only insomuch as looking at a childhood photo is looking 'back in time'. You are ONLY looking at a snapshot of something as it presumably was at some point in the past.
You are looking at the properties of photons, particles or waves, as they exist now which to the best of our knowledge have remained unchanged since the properties were set upon them. They display for us a snapshot of the properties of the source object at the time it was sent.
Photons are not time portals into the past.

: You seem to be denying it all: Big Bang, speed of light, any biological
: experiment done by a living being, any observation that is not direct
: (whatever that means).

Again, stop putting words in my mouth.
I have denied nothing which I cannot observe, and your comment is undeniably off the mark and insulting.
You explicitly asked if I deny the Big Bang occurred. And explicitly replied that I cannot, because I cannot know, because I cannot travel to the past and observe it occurring.

: Are you serious or are you just pulling our legs?
: I had thought that you were serious but now I'm not so sure. You are
: descending into self parody but I'm not sure if it is intentional or not.
: Are we wasting bandwidth taking your posts seriously? Should we just be
: laughing along with you?

Funny how it always seems to degrade into condescension and ad hominim attacks.
Stop. Now.