I am not a physicist, nor have I even taken any physics courses, so my questions may sound a bit uneducated, but could anybody please answer me these questions. Again, please keep in mind that I have not taken any physics classes, so please forgive me if the answers might be something very basic. Also, if you could use layman's jargon I'd appreciate it. Thank you.

Background: Theory has it that you can tell the age of the universe by looking at the most distant stars. Ex: A most distant star 14 billion light years away is 14 billion years old. From this model scientists believe the age of the universe to be 14-15 billion years old.

Question #1: While I can understand a conclusion that the age of the universe is at least 14 billion years old, I can not understand how it could only be that old. Such an idea would only make sense if the earth had traveled away from the most distant star at the speed of light. If we look at the speed the earth is traveling at and compare it to the event of seeing the light from a star 14 billion light years away, my uneducated opinion is that the age of the universe must be thousands or maybe even millions of times older. Why not?

Question #2: Assuming a "Big Bang": Was the resulting debris of the big bang scattered evenly 360 degrees in every direction?

Question #3: Assuming your answer to question 1 was that the earth was thrown from the the big bang at the speed of light: would it not therefore be physically impossible to see any debris (galaxies, stars, etc.) that were scattered by the big bang that is on the other side from the big bang, since we would be limited to only see back the age from the big bang (I'm probably not using correct terminology, but if big bang took place 14 billion years ago and the earth is at a point that is 14 billion years away, galaxies and stars that were thrown in the direction away from the earth would be 15-28 billion light years away, but we would never be able to see them because we can only see at most 14 billion light years away). Does any of this make any sense. If not, why?

Also, would not the size of the universe and number of stars be at least twice as much, if not more?

Question #4: I read somewhere that the stars circle the centers of their galaxies, conceptually much like planets circle stars? Are galaxies circling the big bang? If not, why? Why did the focal point where the big bang took place (and which contained the entire weight and gravitational pull of the entire universe) not have sufficient gravitational pull to at least capture and collapse some or most of the galaxies and make the remainder that escaped circle it? On the other hand, if (some) the galaxies are circling the point of the big bang, what effect does that have on the ability to gage the age of the universe?

Thank you for your anticipated responses.

Try on the order, of sixtyfour trillion years old.

the universe is way bigger than 14 billion light years..
we live in a light cone that is 14 billion years in radii at the present time.
light traveling 14 billion light years is only one way we age the universe since the big bang. when you are looking at that star 14 billion light years away.. you are looking down our light cone and not out at the stars present position as that is unknown to us. You are looking at our past.
due to the expansion of the universe.. the galaxies that are 14 billion light years away are actually retreating from us at a speed greater than the speed of light. I wont entertain nothing goes faster than light.. as the galaxies aren't really traveling faster than light.. they are helped by the overall expansion of the universe to appear to be receding faster than light.

some people think the big bang wasn't a one time event so the universe could be much older.. but for us it only makes sense up to the point of our big bang.