The observed stars in the front and observed stars in the back of receding galaxies

I hope I may start this topic here, because it's science and not philosophy or religion.



This is my scientific question:



How is it possible to talk about an observable galaxy, receding at a rate faster than the speed of light (because of the socalled 'expanding universe') as one observable galaxy?



The stars in the back are million years older then the stars in the front of these receding galaxies,

Yet, we see one galaxy going away from us faster then the speed of light. (observed redshift)



Is it not more reasonable to think that the light from the star in the back (million years older then the star in the front) must come from a totally different position in observed space, then where we see the whole galaxy on every moment x in the past.



The observed stars of these receding galaxies (faster then the speed of light) must be spread everywhere in space, because the light comes from totally different positions in time. (millions of years of difference).



So, the explanation of 'an expanding universe in itself' ' doesn't convince me.

via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1xjnlOR