Hey, thanks for the invite!
There are perhaps three things I could say:
(1) Humans and nature, all of creation, share many properties. This is not contrary to Scriptures nor problematic in any way. It only becomes an issue if we interpret the data by leaving God out of the equation; if we assume that there is no Creator. But I contend that all of nature points to a Creator.
There's a deeper issue at work here, and that is that nature does not disprove God, but it's quite possible to gather evidence and interpret it in a way that eliminates the need for God, theoretically speaking, but that doesn't mean that it must be correct or scientific. It's not hard science. There is interpretation involved by humans who are inclined to sin.
(2) The doctrine of God's omnipotence is very important to appreciate when we hear of different theories and competing creation accounts. That God is all-powerful means that He is above even space, time, natural law, and all reason.
So, it's sufficient to ask ourselves (A): Does God have the power to do this? (B) Did He say that He did it? (Is it written in the Bible?), then the conclusion is always (C): He did it.
(3) The doctrine of ex nihilo is also very important. This means that all of creation is made out of nothing. Here scientists agree with the Biblical account insofar as that creation had a beginning. But again, they erroneously leave God out of the equation, so, by necessity, they will land on a wrong conclusion. This is to say, what is created ex nihilo, out of nothing, cannot be measured. If we measure it, the conclusion must be wrong.
I've used this example many times now, sorry for repeating it, but I just think it's very helpful: Suppose a man could create a rock out of nothing. First is hand is empty, then suddenly, he holds a rock. Now, if a contemporary scientist were to study the rock and determine its origin, he couldn't - not by studying the rock alone. His conclusion would be false because he didn't recognise that it was made out of nothing. He didn't recognise the creator, and so, he can't rightly recognise the creation.
Conclusion:
If we understand what it means for God to be almighty and that He created the cosmos out of nothing, there really is no problem. Don't be troubled by alternative theories! Stay firm in God's Word, which is never popular, but is the truth.
I don't know of any articles that deal with stardust in particular, sorry. I can only think of Dr. Paul Edmon, who I believe is an Astrophysicist at Harvard and a Lutheran. Perhaps he's written or presented on something related.
God bless +
It's not the same thing, but my point is that stardust does not disprove the Biblical account, so there's nothing to reconcile. It only becomes a problem when people dismiss God as the creator.
