Science or Faith: Star Creation?
By andy77e
@andy77e (5156)
United States
July 23, 2011 12:35am CST
It is amazing how many stars there are on a clear summer night. Certainly more than any person could count. Thankfully we have computers to do that for us.
Yet even then the numbers are amazing.
According to the most recent information, astronomers have calculated that there are roughly 100 billion galaxies in the universe.
Further, they have calculated that there are roughly 200 Billion stars in each galaxy! Wow!
Now according to the 'scientists' stars formed naturally over time. How much time?
Lets say 20 billion years (to keep the math simple. The latest claim is 13 to 16 billion years) Seems reasonable.
Let see, 100 Billion galaxies, with 200 billion stars each, over 20 billion years....
That is 1 Trillion stars forming every year, for 20 Billion years.
That's still hard to grasp.
That is equal to 31,700 stars forming every single second for 20 Billion years.
Thankfully we have tons of evidence of this, in the number of stars we have watched and observed forming today...
Specifically that number is... Zero. There has yet to be a single observational example of a star forming.
So what do we do with that? Well we develop a theory to fit the evidence we do have. Clearly stars did form naturally (because we have already determined this is what we believe), and therefore, there must have been some mystical magical unknown reason that caused all the stars to form directly after the big bang, but no longer.
Now, granted there is absolutely no scientific empirical observational reason to believe in any unknown 'reason' why stars all formed directly after the big bang, but not now. No more reason than to believe in the tooth fairy who hasn't been observed either.
Yet all of this is claimed to be science, while faith in "In the beginning God created..." is presumed unscientific.
But is it Science, or Faith, to believe that 100 billion galaxies of 200 billion stars, all formed naturally for 20 billion years (or less), and then suddenly 'decided' to stop forming now that we're looking at them? Or that some strange magic reason caused them all to be formed at the start, but never again?
1 person likes this
5 responses
@Gordano (795)
• United States
24 Jul 11
Yes, Certainly more than any person could count, but yet, Christians and Jews believe that the Creator of All of this wrestled with Jacob and Jacob prevailed!! then Jacob never let him go unless he bless him!!
I'm not inventing anything here, it is Exactly what the Bible say in Genesis 32:24-26
@Chiang_Mai_boy (3882)
• Thailand
24 Jul 11
Again I have to ask, what does this have to do with the subject under discussion? We are discussing the birth of stars and you are quoting from a book of folklore and mythology on a wholly unrelated subject. 
@Chiang_Mai_boy (3882)
• Thailand
23 Jul 11
Your basic premise is incorrect. Star formation was not a one time event. It is a naturally occurring process that is continuing to this day. If you are interested in knowing more about the physics of this process and can set aside theology for a moment for a bit of science this is a good place to start. http://www.universetoday.com/24190/how-does-a-star-form/
@gjabaigar (2200)
• Philippines
23 Jul 11
hello Chiang_Mai_boy!
You have to read it again my friend, because that was he said. . .
I think he already said the magic words. . . .
"That is equal to 31,700 stars forming every single second for 20 Billion years.
Thankfully we have tons of evidence of this, in the number of stars we have watched and observed forming today... "
I have a mind boggling for you. So, we have learned that there are billions and billions as many as or more as the grain of sands of our beaches and coastlines of hot giant stars and some are dwarfed our own star the Sun of these mega, mega, mega as in mega biggest and largest stars on some part of these whole wide universe. We've receiving their ray of lights and energies every seconds even they are so very, very so far away, they can still bombard our planet Earth of their energies, and we talking about billions or trillions or more hot stars all around this universe. Then why we are still not overheating? Or even some part of these universe? Why does this universe or our galaxy are not overheating?
@Chiang_Mai_boy (3882)
• Thailand
23 Jul 11
gjabaigar you need to read the full statement:
[i]
"Thankfully we have tons of evidence of this, in the number of stars we have watched and observed forming today...
Specifically that number is... Zero. There has yet to be a single observational example of a star form[/i]ing."
That statement is false and with that being incorrect the whole argument falls like a house of cards.
You do not seem to grasp the vast distances between stars. We are not overheating because the other stars other than our sun are so far away from us that the infinitesimally small amount or radiant energy that reaches us is not noticable.
@gjabaigar (2200)
• Philippines
23 Jul 11
awwwtss hahahah yeah boi! You got me! Chiang_Mai_boy! hehehehe sorry about that. And you are right.
Yeah even they are distant but we are talking about trillions and more stars. These stars are all around us, even they are in small amount of ray of lights bombarding our planet Earth or the universe itself but still they are so many and they are still energies.
@gjabaigar (2200)
• Philippines
23 Jul 11
Hey! andy77e! I think your in big trouble explaining this. You are so bad fooling me, about that twisted line of sentences, you got me stunned! hahahaha.
All I thought is positive about his statement but it has spike or twist. I should be careful next time. And Chiang_Mai_Boy was right about that. Thank you for spotting that. hehehehe.
andy77e our universe is a very, very large place. And we got a lot of pollutions and other atmospheric disturbances that blocks our sights of our galaxy or universe during night time. Unless you are on a very remote place, and you can even see the Milky Way. Other than that, our night view or night time is just on limited hours. Or even we are using sophisticated telescope from mirrored or radio waves, spotting forming stars or bursting supernovas are rarely or hard to have or experience by a humans.
But, ancient civilizations and cultures experiences on their naked eyes bursting supernovas and some galaxies during Earth's night time.
@gjabaigar (2200)
• Philippines
23 Jul 11
Our technologies are still on betas or we are just starting to realize something on our universe with these kind of technologies. These technologies we called modern technologies today was just invented yesterday. And we are still developing or inventing more technologies but still we are on primitives technologies. And also let's all accept, we are still on a primitive society.
But we don't know much actually some of other technologies we have now as being humans, because some of advance technologies are hidden to us by our own governments or by some few humans for their own benefits.
Yes you are right, we might have technologies but too much informations to handle by humans, that is correct. We do have a lot of limitations, including our patience beside our lifetime is just a couple of years here on planet Earth. hahahahaha. Your lucky if you get 90 year of old and healthy even without wealth. hahahahaha
I really love science because I really love the truth and love of God. Having knowledge of science are just food and satisfactions of our flesh, and our flesh belongs to the science of this universe or in this dimension only. But my mind, soul and spirits belongs to the science of truth and love of God.
1 person likes this
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
23 Jul 11
Smilingjack I am a technophile I love technology to a massive point while you are pointing out what we have. From a Technology stand point everything that we have today needs to be improved we will never reach a point in time where the current technology that we have will be the max that we can go. We will always be able to push past any limits we have which may form new devices. So in that view point we are always more primitive now than our future selves. Just think 6 months from now new CPUs and new computer and internet hardware and software will be out. That will make the stuff before it primitive than what we currently have today. Which in a Universal time scale we make what we use today primitive by tomorrow.
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
23 Jul 11
Your argument is lacking perspective. I am going to shrink the size that we are talking about but it will keep the perspective. See us Humans have only a few view points into the Universe and really we can't see to much outside our own Galaxy because of earths location in the Milky Way. So we are basically in a forrest all around us are formed trees (Stars) and we are looking for a tree that is growing (A small tree) But we are located in the old growth part of the forest where all the trees have reached maturity. We cant see from our location the ending of the forest (Universal Edge) So we won't find a star being born because our location is closer to the Big Bang and has existed for a lot longer everything around us has been around for several Billion years if not longer. So we would have to go closer to where the Universe is expanding or to what would be where gases are pooling together to form a strong enough gravitational pull to create a new born star.
Your argument is much like standing in the Middle of a Forest for 3 days and never hearing a tree fall and using that as evidence that trees don't fall.
@andy77e (5156)
• United States
24 Jul 11
Ironically I was in the forest, and did hear a tree fall, and it was so loud, it really startled me. I thought someone was shooting.
But that joke aside...
I don't think that is even remotely true. You need to go look at some star charts I think. Or talk to some astronomers. In either case, we have charted cataloged, hundreds of thousands of stars.
With 31 thousand stars supposedly forming every single second, we should be able to point a telescope in any direction, at any point in the sky, and have it pick up stars popping into existence.
Further, since we know that matter can not be created or destroyed, *IF* a star is to form someplace, it would have to be in a nebula. So... we watch nebulas.
And we have watched Nebulas, for a very long time. And STILL we have no proof of stars being created out of them.
Yet this is taught as science.
Your argument is much like standing in the Middle of a Forest for 3 days and never hearing a tree fall and using that as evidence that trees don't fall.
Question... theoretically... If no one had ever seen a tree fall, if there was no picture of a fallen tree, and you had not found a fallen tree while walking in the forest for 3 days...
And you claimed a tree had fallen, would that be science, or faith?
1 person likes this
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
24 Jul 11
I think this article may help you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebula
Also there is a minor flaw in your original post that I didn't notice tell I re read it just now. That 37,000 a second would be how many would need to have happen at the time of the Big Bang / Great Expansion of the Universe. So that number has more than likely lessened as the amount of Free Gas in space has been used up as our current understanding is that the Universe stays at about the same total mass. So as that Mass is consolidated into Stars and Planets as well as other astrological things. There would be less gas floating around for new Stars and planets to be born. So it would be much harder to find. Also it doesn't take 13 to 16 Billion. The most I have seen is 10 million for total time which would mean by now with the Universe under Big Bang theory only being between 12 to 14 Billion years old (From NASA). As you can see by what I found even your original number 37,000 is way off because one your rounded up by at the least 4 Billion Years. From NASA you rounded up by 6 Billion years. Which means that Number and your argument isn't very valid. So Lets redo the math.
Of the formula that is really how many where needed to form to get to current number of stars.
100 Billion Times 200 Billion Stars / 10 Million years / 365 / 24 hours / 60/ 60 (it takes to create one start assuming they are all protostars to begin with.)
63,419,583.967529173008625 gets this number when for per second at the early days of the Universe.
Also remember we are some 12 Billion years late to the party.
@andy77e (5156)
• United States
25 Jul 11
Stars don't "pop" into existence, it takes A LOT of time, more time that the few decades we are able to really watch the nightsky like today.
Irrelevant to the discussion. If 31,000 stars are coming into existence every second, we should be able to clearly see that happening. It is not.
The amount of time required to do this is completely irrelevant to the point, since they should still be being born as we speak, even if it required the last 20 million to come alive.
If there's no evidence that a tree have ever fallen by natural means, it would be indeed scientific to assume that they don't fall over on their own.
Case and point.
So the thought of all geese being white was proven wrong ... science adapted.
True, and still irrelevant to my point.
*WHEN* science actually observes the formation of a protostar, and then the ignition of that protostar into a mature star, *THEN* it will be a scientific discovery.
But the creation of stars from protostars, from dust clouds, is taught as scientific truth today, WITHOUT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
That's not science. That's faith.
dark_joev:
Yes, I gave the theory more time than they actually claim. I did that on purpose, giving the theory the best possible odds. Which are horrible. As you pointed out, the situation is even less likely the more you look at it.
But you did come up with a nice theory. And it is a very nice theory. Fits with the big bang theory. Fits with the lack of stars forming today.
It's a very good theory. But tell me, is that science, or faith, if you believe that?
Do you know for a fact that most of the star formed right after the big bang? Do you know for a fact after the big bang there was only gas? What scientific evidence do you have for this?
Now if you want to say you believe this theory, that's fine. But don't start teaching it in school, because there is no science to support that.
1 person likes this
@damned_dle (3942)
• Philippines
26 Jul 11
I think big bang theory could explain that. But still, it is just a theory.
@Chiang_Mai_boy (3882)
• Thailand
27 Jul 11
andy77e When you dismiss a scientific theory as a myth you display a profound absence of knowledge as to what a scientific theory is.
I would recommend you visit the following sites to educate yourself as to what a theory is so that you don't end up sounding quite so foolish.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory
http://thinking-critically.com/2010/07/08/theory-scientific-vs-laymans-definition/
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
27 Jul 11
Andy77e unlike the Bible or Religion in general. In science you have to have evidence that is peer reviewed and verified. Like by having an experiment and the results be repeatable, then and only then do you get to the point of where something becomes a theory and the Big Bang Theory is actually quite dated now as Physicists and Astronomers are moving in the direction of M-Theory being the main theory. As the M in M-Theory is Mother it is suppose to be the Mother of all theories and will be if it is fully correct which so far it is proving to be true based on the knowledge that we have about the Universe which is extremely limited like trying to fly a plane with 600 Feet Visibility and no radar. (I am not joking we really don't know that much about what is out there we know how things behave in space but we don't know what is out there.
So the Big Bang Theory when it was the primary theory did have evidence but the Big Bang was missing some things that at the time of conception of the Theory we didn't know we where missing. M-Theory Covers it.
