From the outset let me assert that I am not putting into question the expansion of space. Redshifts and all that. But there is an example which one often reads in popular astronomy articles which appears at first glance to be faulty, although I suspect it is my reasoning that is faulty, and I welcome correction. That is, one often points to the contrast between the age of the universe (14.5 billion years old) and the fact that we see galaxies which are reckoned to be 20 billion light-years away. The explanation is of the stretching of space. But this reasoning seems (???) to assume that the earth and the said galaxy were contiguous at the beginning of the universe, as if the Big Bang started from a single kernel; however, what is there to prove that the energy that turned into that galaxy did not simply exist in a state that, after spacetime came into being, was not already far away from our present position? Shouldn't something else be added to this popular explanation to make it watertight?