I'd still like to get some type of information or answer from a young earth creationist on this point:1.) If it is true that the initial expansion of the universe was faster than the speed of light(A YEC came up with this idea first, but was laughed at, now that a noncreationist advocated the idea it's acceptable to believe in....well at least for a few nano seconds or seconds or whatever)
"Okay, what catastrophe within the last 7000 years caused us to be able to see stars that are billions of light years away?"
I don't think you're really telling the whole story. I'm not sure who is the person to whom you refer, but I would venture to guess, knowing the nature of science and of the scientific community, that if a person came up with this model as a way of proving his existing metaphysical beliefs, then he would be scorned. However, if a person has valid scientific data to back up the claim, it would be hailed as new knowledge. It all depends on whether there is evidence.
Then it really shouldn't matter if you have a different cosmological modal. Instead of Stars, Black Holes......etc. forming slowly over billions of years, they can form quickly from the speed and power of the initial expansion. Don't forget that Energy equals mater times light squared, and so..........why couldn't that light turn into energy and matter? Why can't all the elements we have on our chemistry chart be formed by the light from the initial expansion of the universe?
And if light was there "initially", then why should it matter if the light of some star is now 13 or 14 billion light years away when both came from the same source? At one time that star wasn't 13 or 14 billion light years away. At one time......the stuff that eventually formed that star was an "inch" or less away of what would eventually form our planet.
Now this is an interesting idea, and the type of idea I had hoped for from those who espouse the young-Earth model. Unfortunately, as I suspected, the scientific knowledge of most of those people is rather lacking. I will attempt to address a few of these issues.
First, yes, we theorise that many of the stars were formed rapidly following the Big Bang. Such an event would naturally cause the abundance of energy necessary for star formation (after all, stars are essentially masses of incandescent gas--i.e. gigantic nuclear furnaces
). In an expanding universe, it is theoretically possible that the speed of light itself is not, as was previously theorised (as recently as Einstein), a constant. If that is true, then yes, the light from distant stars would in fact reach us much faster than their distance in light-years would suggest. Of course, experimentation is needed to see if this is an accurate physical model.
Second, light actually has nothing to do with Einstein's equation. The speed of light is simply the speed of zero-mass objects (of which light itself is one). Electrons, for example, also travel at the speed of light, because they have essentially no mass. The energy of an object is relative (hence the name of the equation) to its mass times the speed of a zero-mass object squared. Note that I say "essentially" no mass, because there is no object whose mass is actually zero. Even the smallest particles have an infinitessimal mass, and therefore, since the speed of light squared is literally astronomical, they have an enormous amount of energy.
Third, all of the elements on our periodic chart were formed by the Big Bang. They are all just rearrangements of the same parts, bound by strong and weak nuclear forces. So everything that exists is made of the same "stuff." It's quite reasonable to believe that the hydrogen that is involved in our sun's nuclear fusion reactions is the same as the hydrogen that is in the water we drink. In fact, that's the essence of atomic theory.