@RED DEVIL cv,
RED DEVIL;49495 wrote:Here is an example of a simple theory taught by the evolutionist, and presented to students as the best possibility for the birth of a Star.
Star - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I would like for anyone to present the empirical evidence that this "theory" is based upon, that which is observable. Just how many stars have the many astronomers that daily observe the universe actually have seen a star being born? The answer is none. Some will come back with a claim that it takes billions of years for a single star to be born. Well another question might best be presented for this conclusion. Just how many billions of Galaxies are there in the universe and within these Galaxies just how many stars are there. And finally just how old is the universe.
Your first sentence completely discredits everything you say afterwards.
What exactly does evolution have to do with the formation of a star?
Answer: Nothing. However I will humor you (and myself).
"Key elements of star formation are only available by observing in wavelengths other than the optical. The structure of the molecular cloud and the effects of the protostar can be observed in near-IR extinction maps (where the number of stars are counted per unit area and compared to a nearby zero extinction area of sky), continuum dust emission and rotational transitions of CO and other molecules; these last two are observed in the millimeter and submillimeter range. The radiation from the protostar and early star has to be observed in infrared astronomy wavelengths, as the extinction caused by the rest of the cloud in which the star is forming is usually too big to allow us to observe it in the visual part of the spectrum. This presents considerable difficulties as the atmosphere is almost entirely opaque from 20μm to 850μm, with narrow windows at 200μm and 450μm. Even outside this range atmospheric subtraction techniques must be used.
The formation of individual stars can only be directly observed in our Galaxy, but in distant galaxies star formation has been detected through its unique spectral signature."
Here are the "Notable Pathfinder Objects"
* MWC 349 was first discovered in 1978, and is estimated to be only 1,000 years old. Since the object is located at a distance of 10,000 lightyears, it actually is now 11,000 years old.
* VLA 1623 -- The first exemplar Class 0 protostar, a type of embedded protostar that has yet to accrete the majority of its mass. Found in 1993, is possibly younger than 10,000 years.
* L1014 -- An incredibly faint embedded object representative of a new class of sources that are only now being detected with the newest telescopes. Their status is still undetermined, they could be the youngest low-mass Class 0 protostars yet seen or even very low-mass evolved objects (like a brown dwarf or even an interstellar planet).
* IRS 8* -- The youngest known main sequence star, discovered in August 2006. It is estimated to be 3.5 million years old.
Source:
Star formation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:Science tells us that the universe is 13. 7 billion years old with at least 4% of it observable.
Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I am not much on math but by using some common sense we shall try a simple calculation. Multiply the hundred billion galaxies by the hundreds of billions of stars in the observable universe and divide that by the claimed age of the universe and you get an extrapolated number of one star to have been born every 37 seconds from the beginning of the universe.
As you yourself love to say, something cannot come from nothing. If there's not enough material around for a star to form, it isn't going to form. It needs a source of mass. A nebula is a great example. You expect this to go in a straight line. It doesn't. That's your first mistake.
Quote:Now is it just me, or does anyone else find it strange that there is not one case of a star actually being observed while being born. And please do not point out the "Orion Nebula" as an example of star birth, as this nebula has actually been observed expanding and getting hotter, the opposite requirements for star birth.
Incorrect. Your second mistake. The Orion nebula is the very definition of what you are looking for.
"Astronomers have directly observed protoplanetary disks, brown dwarfs, intense and turbulent motions of the gas, and the photo-ionizing effects of massive nearby stars in the nebula."
So... we're observing the formation of planets, too!
"The Orion Nebula is an example of a stellar nursery where new stars are being born. Observations of the nebula have revealed approximately 700 stars in various stages of formation within the nebula.
Recent observations with the Hubble Space Telescope have yielded the major discovery of protoplanetary disks within the Orion Nebula, which have been dubbed proplyds. HST has revealed more than 150 of these within the nebula, and they are considered to be systems in the earliest stages of solar system formation. The sheer numbers of them have been used as evidence that the formation of solar systems is fairly common in our universe.
Stars form when clumps of hydrogen and other gases in an H II region contract under their own gravity. As the gas collapses, the central clump grows stronger and the gas heats to extreme temperatures by converting gravitational potential energy to thermal energy. If the temperature gets high enough, nuclear fusion will ignite and form a protostar. The protostar is 'born' when it begins to emit enough radiative energy to balance out its gravity and halt gravitational collapse.
Typically, a cloud of material remains a substantial distance from the star before the fusion reaction ignites. This remnant cloud is the protostar's protoplanetary disk, where planets may form. Recent infrared observations show that dust grains in these protoplanetary disks are growing, beginning on the path towards forming planetesimals."
There you have it.
Moving on. The whole "hot, expanding" claim.
Do you know what a Class O star is?
O's are huge. We're talking solar system size huge. They're stars that burn VERY hot, VERY fast. They expel so much energy that not only will planets not form around it, but planets won't form around the stars next to them.
They nova after a short period of time, having gone through their fuel like nobody's business.
"Observers have long noted a distinctive greenish tint to the nebula, in addition to regions of red and areas of blue-violet. The red hue is well-understood to be caused by Hα recombination line radiation at a wavelength of 656.3 nm. The blue-violet coloration is the reflected radiation from the massive O-class stars at the core of the nebula."
That explains why the nebula is hot and expanding. That by no means says that stars cannot form there. Even more so, the matter inside the nebula is forced to be a bit more dense in areas, further encouraging star formation.
"Once formed, the stars within the nebula emit a stream of charged particles known as a stellar wind. Massive stars and young stars have much stronger stellar winds than the Sun. The wind forms shock waves when it encounters the gas in the nebula, which then shapes the gas clouds. The shock waves from stellar wind also play a large part in stellar formation by compacting the gas clouds, creating density inhomogeneities that lead to gravitational collapse of the cloud."
Source:
Orion Nebula - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:What you might find while doing research about the birth of any star is words like...."Scientist think"....."The evidence points to the fact that they MUST be born as such"....."we believe".....Now this is a "perfect" example of what is being taught in our schools and offered as scientific "proof". Why is it that "We believe" and "Science Thinks" are considered empirical, when the definition of faith is a belief in something without actually observing it? As I said, would anyone please present the observed birth of a star and the empirical evidence that the popular theory is backed by scientific observation.
Take a look. There's all the evidence you need.
You need to research a lot more before asking questions and trying to selectively remove arguments that you cannot refute.
Here's some math for you.
Take the number of stars in the universe. I'll make it easy... just draw an 8 sideways. At this point we don't even need to know the planet count (we do know there are planets around other stars). Put a one above that.
That's the chances that this ONE planet around this ONE star, in a universe filled with a near infinite number of stars (the number is mind wrenching), was chosen as the place where it all goes down.
Why this one tiny planet?
Why this one star?
Why the need to "create" a universe this infinitely huge for one planet's worth of people?
Answer me that one.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace