How do creationists explain stars?

What? That's all they do.
I thought you were going to say that they don't explain how it began.
They definitely explain the current state of the universe as it is now measured, or else we wouldn't use them.Also, do you actually know what these theories say about the universe? When it comes to the universe as a whole time isn't that simple or even applicable. I can explain if you wish. I think the use of the word "law" in the phrase, laws of physics, might be conveying something to you that isn't intended.There isn't some law preventing light from being transmitted in the early universe, it is simply that the arrangement of matter was such that, being so hot and dense, matter simply instantly reabsorbed any photons which were emitted.

What if I showed you an mpeg file of the cloud actually collapsing and the nuclear furnace bursting into life, such as LkHa 101 in Perseus?
We've seen their birth in real time from molecular clouds.
And what is with the "dumb enough" comment, it's not like us cosmologists are actively trying to fool you. Depends, how much of the subject have you actually read?
Do you know about Quantum Field Theory or General Relativity? Time is simply a direction within the universe and isn't absolute. Different observers will call different paths through the universe time. What's time for one observer might be an angle in space to another.With regards to the expansion of the universe I'll paste an old post from me:Think of the Universe as the Earth.Each Longtitude up from the south pole to the North pole is the Universe at a given time.
The South Pole is the Big Bang for Example and the North Pole is the Big Crunch. Each Circle is the Universe at a different time.The Universe at a given time (Each circle) gets bigger away from the South Pole.
To us this looks like Inflation because we crawl up each bit of longtitude and see the circle getting bigger.
In reality the Universe was always been this shape and is static. The Circle seen here would be the Universe at its maximum size, half way between the Big Crunch and Big Bang.As you can see, whether there is space outside the Earth or not doesn't matter when discussing this.
A similar case applies to the Universe.(I know there doesn't necessarily have to be a Big Crunch, but this is just to make the Example simpler.) No, it's not a regulating force nor does it limit things. The laws of physics is simply a phrase used to describe the Classical idea of various principles which underline how the world operates. They don't regulate it actively or anything, the simply describe it.However the phrase "laws of physics" isn't really in use anymore. Before with respect to whom?Also, as I've pointed out above the universe is more like a sphere, where North-South is time. Everywhere on the sphere matter, and the rules which go with it, exist.
The sphere itself doesn't need a beginning though.
There is no time "before" the rules. The matter that absorbed the photons. No. I don't understand what you mean here.

Except for the 80+ stars we've observed form in real time. What would be the repulsive force preventing it from doing so? Except when we have an observationally confirmed theory of how the formation takes place.
For instance we even take quantum mechanics into account, with Fermi-Dirac distributions.

Dude, this isn't worth my time.I could go to my University right now, get the mpeg that was recorded and post a link to it here. However I know you'll just have some lame "rebuttal". Your previous post shows that you have no interest in actually listening to what I have to say. You'll just misinterpret either accidentally or purposefully.
Either that or show that theories which have withstood testing for a century are obviously ridiculous. The average kinetic energy per particle is less than the escape velocity of the cloud.
Standard Newtonian gravity with Maxwell-Boltzmann distributions.