Direct, observational, empirical evidence the universe is billions, not thousands, of years old. We'll start with supernova Sn1987a at a mere 167,000+ year light travel time established by direct trigonometry and verification of the speed of light at the time and place of the supernova event.
OH WELL.. . LETS TRY THIS AGAIN SHALL WE? GOD SAID HE "STRETCHED OR STRECHES OUT THE HEAVENS" 14 TIMES!!!!!
Do scientists really know what the impact would be of having the universe expanded at what was most likely millions or even billions of times faster than the speed of light? How would such a rapid expansion affect the visible red and blue shift we see today in space? How would that affect time, especially at the outer edges of the universe? Could the red shift that evolutionists believe indicates an expanding universe actually be the result of this rapid stretching of the universe that started and ended about 6,000 years ago?
The heavens have been stretched, and we can measure it.
Stretching the heavens will also stretch the light in them. For example, get a wide rubber band and make a zig-zag pattern on it. Stretch the rubber band and the zig-zags also stretch. The phenomena is well known and understood. We put it to use in our daily lives. There is no reason the rate of expansion will make any difference in the stretching of the light other than it will take place faster and be more pronounced.
BTW, stopping the expansion will not restore the waves in transit to their original length so long as the space they are transiting remains "stretched."
Since the light waves are being stretched along with the space they occupy, the expansion will cause a red shift. The faster the expansion, the greater the shift.
The observed and measured red shift is not nearly enough to account for a 6000 year old universe. For example, in my paper on supernova Sn1987a it is shown that the distance to Sn1987a is measured by direct trigonometry to be over 167,000 light years and that the speed of light at the time and place of Sn1987a was consistent with what is measured on Earth today. To cover that distance in only 6,000 years, the space would need to stretched by a factor of 27.8. The light waves in that space would be 27.8x longer than if the space had not been stretched. There is no evidence of any significant red shift in the light from Sn1987a.
Going out to galaxy Andromeda, the most distant object visible to the unaided eye, at 2.4 million light years (measured by "standard candles"). The light from that object to reach Earth in 6000 years would need to be stretched by a factor of 400. Instead of the light from Andromeda being stretched, we find it is compressed.
And these two are, in astronomical terms, our next door neighbors.
The only "solution" I've been able to find for the discrepancy would be for God to "insert" light waves. The problem is that light carries with it a LOT of information. In the case of Sn1987a, the information was that there was a blue giant star observed and documented as Sanduleak 69-202. In February, 1987, that star was observed to erupt in a supernova explosion. The first images were within minutes of the first light from the event reaching Earth. In order to make the light appear at the proper wavelengths after stretching the light, it would be necessary for God to put in place the light signature of a star; a supernova explosion; a remnant with a circumstellar ring; and a host of other light signatures right down to isotopes of elements.
In other words, the observed, documented, and catalogued star Sanduleak 69-202 never really existed and the supernova event observed in February, 1987, never actually took place.
Dr. Russell Humphreys suggests in his book Starlight and Time that it may have given the universe an older look the farther you move away from Earth into the outermost reaches of the universe. From Earth's perspective, the universe would be about 6,000 - 10,000 years old. However, in the outermost reaches of the universe, this rapid expansion may have given those galaxies the appearance of being billions of years old, even though they aged that much in what is most likely less than 24 hours.
Humphreys has admitted his Starlight and Time proposal didn't work for nearby astronomical objects such as Andromeda, Sn1987a, and even the center of our own Milky Way. He has developed a new hypothesis that has its own problems.