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

Hello nlerd! Welcome to EvC It doesn't disprove a young earth since the age of the universe has nothing to do with the age of the earth. It does however disprove a young universe. At least, it does without invoking some crazy, completely unevidenced stuff like "God created the light en-route to earth!".The age of the earth is determined differently, and independant from the age of the universe. Current scientific understanding places it at 4.5 billion years old. Whereas the universe is, according to current scientific understanding, 13.5 billion years old.A little posting tip: Click the "peek" button on the bottom right of my post to see how i made that nice little quotebox. It's not hard to do, and makes your posts so much more pleasant to read.

No, I don't think that's correct. For the interval between two "pulses" does not take longer, it's just that the light from both is red shifted. They pulse so fast I think it's negligible. I could be wrong though.

Not if god put the light in transit very far from earth, making it appear older then it actually is. Which I think is a stupid thing to claim, but there you have it. Which is why you shouldn't take genesis literally. It doesn't reflect what we know about the universe. The bible isn't about science. Like a famous person once said "The bible teaches us how to work to get to heaven, not how the heavens work". Don't try to mix science with the bible, either you'll have to say the bible is wrong, or you'll have to shoehorn the eivdence in htere with rediculous explanations. Just accept that they are two completely different things, leading to two different truths. No problem mate, there's no time limit.

What if none of it is "true" in the litteral sense? Would this detract from the messsage that it is trying to convey? Spiritual truth? Whatever that may be.

I agree. And I agree againAgreeing is nice

Hello PEIN and welcome to EvC! Not really, no. Does time pass differently for you and me, for example?

Well yes, of course. I Should have been more clear. Thanks for bringing that up

Well, I think there are ways to deduce a stars age, which will probably have to do with the ratio of helium versus hydrogen it contains.I think astronomers have a pretty good idea of the age of most stars, and this has nothing to do with when they were first recorded.Then again, it's completely irrelevant, if we see the star now, and it is 300,000 light years away, then it means the universe still has to be at least 300,000 years old, or else, we wouldn't see the star.

Well, not really, now does it. I mean, the age of the earth is of course independent from the age of the universe. Even if the Earth was only made yesterday, the universe would still be at least 3 billion years old from your example star.

I don't see what Hubble's law has to do with the formation of stars. It simply states that the distance of a galaxy to our own is proportional to the velocity with which it is receding from us.

Well, actually (please bear with me here, I just thought of this ), if the star was first visible 150,000 years ago, and was destroyed 3,000 years after it's "birth", we wouldn't actually be able to see it these days, would we? It would stopped being visible at 147,000 years ago.

About the same size as it is today.Here is a picture: Yes, it says "not to scale", but that's only for the ones in the latter stages (red giant and later), whixh is why I suspect it is only on the right of the picture

No, because of the age of the universe. You can't see things if the light hasn't reached you yet, and since the universe is 13.5 billion years old, you can't see more than 13.5 billion light years away. Of course, that what you see at 13.5 billion light years away is at the time you see it much farther away, since it took the light 13.5 billion years to reach us. That's why what you see now as being 13.5 billion light years away is at the time of seeing it actually 46 billion light years away.