I gave several examples of satellite galaxies being gobbled up by their parent galaxy. Now what makes you think the star was captured a relatively short time ago? The star is 13.2 billion years old. If it was captured a long time ago, the galaxy in which the star formed in might well have been completely disrupted.
You say our galaxy is old enough to have such stars and you say our galaxy may have caught such a star. Make up your mind. Old stars are normally in the rim and not half way in to the centre. While a small galaxy may have disrupted, there would surely be some "damage" to our galaxy and not one but a fair number of such stars in the area.
Name some. The purported evidence against the big bang is for the most part crackpot garbage: pooh-pooh. Dark matter and dark energy are a bit problematic, and many cosmologists are trying to find alternatives that either explain these phenomena or do not require them. Note well: These alternatives are refinements to the big bang, not wholesale replacements.
Some first second problems. Where did the singularity come from? Why a singularity? Singularities if they exist (and there is no evidence. Even Hawking gave up on them) would be ultimately stable. Then we have unproven inflation, solely to explain away the homogeneity of the CMB. At around 10^32 second we have matter appear and so gravity at which point that would be the end of the universe since there can be no more inflation. Then inflation slows down to expansion somehow.
Are you going to give yourself a warning for being discourteous so many times to me in just a few posts?
This is pretty much nonsense. What is this type 1A supernova fiasco to which you are referring? What exactly are you trying to say here?
A dwarf star rotates a bit faster, it can hold twice as much material before going supernova (old news), so making a larger explosion, so appearing much nearer. Hardly a standard candle. Rotating slower would have the opposite effect. Supernovae in gas and dust areas can appear far brighter or duller. The make-up of the material taken from another star can affect the brightness of the explosion, etc. Many possible factors involved.
This has nothing to do with the age of the galaxy other than setting a lower bound on that age.
We have a very old rim, an increasingly young inner circle and a supermassive black hole at the centre. I think we need to understand galaxy formation before we can set a definite age. However in the very oldest galaxies formed by merging minor galaxies, such traumatic events would surely make stars of just about all the material around, leaving almost nothing for star formation several billion years later.
The rest of your post comprises random, unconnected thoughts. Try sticking to one topic for once.
The rest of my post was pointing out that I had gone into your point of picking up stars from other galaxies elsewhere, so I don't know where you got this from?
