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

Making sure I understand you correctly, are you saying that Einsteinian relativity is incorrect and that clocks moving relative to one another and/or experiencing different accelerations measure identical amounts of time? And that this means that the light from stars further away than it takes light to travel in 6000 years still arrives here in less than 6000 years?--Percy

This doesn't sound right to me if you're thinking there's a relationship between the age of our universe and its size, observable or not.--Percy

Stars with a mass of more than twice our sun live less than a billion years. The largest stars live less than 10 million (that's million with an "m") years.Apothecus's example isn't affected by the actual lifetimes of stars. It was an explanation of how distance affects how long it takes light to reach us. The object emitting the light isn't a pertinent detail of the explanation.--Percy

Withdrawn.Edited by Percy, : Crash and Hooah had pretty good responses, removing mine now.

Hi whiteboywushu, welcome to EvC.Can you tie your comments into the topic of this thread? If not then it might be better to find another thread, or perhaps propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.--Percy