Doesn't the distance of stars disprove the young earth theory?

It makes my head hurt to think about this, but would there ever have been two stars 'expanding' in roughly the same direction? After all, the Big Bang wasn't an explosion, but was instead an initial high rate expansion of space. All points in space were expanding away from every other point in space. It might be that two relatively close stars might actually be moving towards each other, but that motion is not due to the Big Bang expansion of space.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Hi TribulationMMA,I think others have actually answered your question. I just wanted to address a few things I saw in your question that might be causing you to misunderstand the science underlying the Big Bang theory.

quote:

---

With the Big Bang theory, when all the matter first exploded, it would have to obviously be very close to each other.

---

The Bang was not an explosion. So there was no matter explosion which hurled stars away from each other. Instead, the big bang was a period of rapid expansion of space. During that period, the rate of expansion of some points in space might well have been greater than the speed of light, but matter was not actually traversing space faster than the speed of light.

quote:

---

In the Big Bang did the matter travel faster than the speed of light to where we cannot see the stars now?

---

No, for the reasons given above.

quote:

---

If the stars/planets did move faster than the speed of light then how are we seeing any stars or other planets now, because they would still be moving that quickly.

---

I think cavediver's ballon analogy is the best way to picture things. In nearby regions of space, the expansion rate is not significant. It's certainly not appreciable within our galaxy. I think that means we can forget about the effect on any planets we can see or detect, and likely on any individual stars we can see other that weird things that emit enormous amounts of lignt such as supernovae.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Not a theory in the scientific sense, but I'd be surprised if the idea hadn't occurred to someone before. I've speculated on similar ideas myself.What bothers me about these hypotheses is the requirement that God must intervene quite so often. If God created a Big Bang for the express purpose of creating Adam, why would God need to keep showing up every few hundred million years to tweak things? Wouldn't an earth just show up somewhere after a few billion years after the Big Bang?Maybe God did spare himself some wait time by either accelerating time, or simply by not watching the pot boil. I cannot think of anyway we'd ever be able to detect time having magically accelerating in the distant past. So such speculations seem unlikely to become a scientific theory.