Correct, this answer doesn't match scientific justification. It matches biblical justification. You are going off the notion of looking at the universe as though it is billions of years old and trying to prove it. I am looking at it as though it is thousands of years old and trying to prove it. I am going from a biblical standpoint, and my theory matches it. You however, don't. This is why these arguments will always fail. It's because one side will never accept the other when providing evidence. What I mean to say is, you will not take the biblical account into your perspective. You say the stars were not formed until 350,000 years after the big bang. I say that they were created immediately. There is no way to determine who is right, and that is where argument will never be answered. However, let me show you some information that may surprise you.
- Gravity is roughly 10^39 times weaker than electromagnetism. If gravity had been 10^33 times weaker than electromagnetism, "stars would be a billions times less massive and would burn a million times faster."
- The nuclear weak force is 10^28 times the strength of gravity. Had the weak force been slightly weaker, all the hydrogen in the universe would have been turned to helium. Making water impossible for example.
- A stronger nuclear strong force by as little as 2 perscent would have prevented the formation of protons-yielding a universe without atoms. Decreasing it by 5 percent would have given us a universe without stars.
- If the difference in mass between a proton and a neutron were not exactly as it is, roughly twice the mas of an electron,then all neutrons would have become protons or vice versa. Say goodbye to chemistry as we know it. And to life. The very nature of water, so vital to life, is something of a mystery. Unique among the molecules, water is lighter in it's solid than liquid form. Ice floats. If it did not, the oceans would freeze from the bottom up and earth would bow be covered with solid ice. This property in turn is traceable to unique properties of the hydrogen atom.
- The synthesis of carbon, the vital core of all organic molecules, on a significant scale involves what scientists view as an astonishing coincidence in the ratio of the strong force to electromagnetism. This ratio makes it possible for carbon-12 allowing the cecessary binding to take place during a tiny window of opportunity 10^-17 seconds long.
The list goes on and on and on. A comprehensive compilation of these coincidences can be found in John Leslie's book: Universes. The depth of the mystery involved here has been captured best by astronomer Fred Hoyle. The former proponent of the steady state theory.
All that we see in the universe of observation and fact, as opposed to the mental state of scenario and supposition, remains unexplained. And even in its supposedly first second the universe itself is acausal. That is to say, the universe has to know in advance what it is going to be before it knows ho to start itself. For in accordance with the big bang theory, for instance, at a time of 10^-43 seconds the universe has to know how many types of neutrino there are going to be at a time of one second. This is so in order that it starts off expanding at the right rate to fit the eventual number of neutrino types.
Hoyle's notion of the universe needing to know in advance later outcomes captures the depth of the mystery. The fine tuning of seemingly heterogeneous values and ratios necessary to get from the big bang to life as we know it involves intricate coordination ove fast differences in scale, from the galactic level down to the subatomic one, and across multi billion year tracts of time. Hoyle, who coined the term "big bang" has questioned the very legitimacy of the metaphor of an initial "explosion." An explosion in a junkyard does not lead to sundry bits of metal being assembled into a useful working machine. It would only create a bigger mess. The more physicists have learned about the universe, the more it looks like a put-up job.
Once you see that the big bang has to be controlled by something, that just leads me to believe that God and the bible are right. The bible explains that the stars were created in the beginning of time. When you look at it this way, my theory has validity. The one thing I had a real problem with on your post is you apparently did not understand my explanation fully. You explained a red shift, but you did not understand my full meaning. The light bulb moving faster than light of course would not show us the light from it's current position. It would show us the light from when it was 6,000 lightyears away.
And in case it is obscure within the context of this post, I really do appreciate you being level headed in approaching this topic. Unlike so many others that just yell a bunch of bull and expect everyone to go along with them.
