# Birth of stars



## Tyrese (Jan 9, 2013)

Scientist claim that new stars are constantly being born. They say old stars are fading and new ones are being born. Now I know they feed us with a lot of non sense and for the most part very little facts, but this is very interesting. Does anyone have any knowledge of this? And if so, how does Genesis 1 line up with these claims? Just curious.


----------



## Tyrese (Jan 9, 2013)

> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> > And if so, how does Genesis 1 line up with these claims? Just curious.
> ...



How do they know is my thought as well. I guess my question is how should we respond to such claims? By the way I agree entirely with your response.


----------



## JohnGill (Jan 9, 2013)

They don't know. There is no actual evidence for it. The comment below the article about circular reasoning demonstrates the fallaciousness of this claim: http://www.popsci.com/science/artic...e-old-and-universe-making-hardly-any-new-ones


----------



## Tyrese (Jan 9, 2013)

Heres an article that I read recently. I realize that its filled with specualtion but I want to hear some of your thoughts as im begining to see this more and more. FOX News - Science - on Air & Space - Swirling birth of planets captured by space telescope - Page 1 of 5


----------



## arapahoepark (Jan 9, 2013)

How do they know they are new if they are so far away and light takes 13 billion years to reach us?


----------



## Afterthought (Jan 9, 2013)

Tyrese said:


> Scientist claim that new stars are constantly being born. They say old stars are fading and new ones are being born. Now I know they feed us with a lot of non sense and for the most part very little facts, but this is very interesting. Does anyone have any knowledge of this? And if so, how does Genesis 1 line up with these claims? Just curious.


So far as I know, this is fairly standard astronomy. The theory is that stars are born from highly dense gases that eventually compactify by gravity to form a star. I'm not sure if we have actually observed any stars being formed, given how long of a process it is, but we have probably observed such stars in the process of formation (that is, what looks like a star in the process of formation). I'm sure Googling around a bit could clear this up (that is, what _exactly_ is observed, what _exactly_ is the method to observe these things, what _exactly_ is used to interpret the observation (That is, "How do we know that what we are looking at is a star forming?"), etc., like Joshua already mentioned).

As for how it fits with Genesis 1, I'm not sure what the problem is. Stars being born and dying are actions within Providence, just as land formation, fossil formation, and species generation are. Is it that Genesis 1 says God created all the stars, and that therefore, there can be no new stars and no stars that die? I'm not sure there is a problem here any more than the rejection of the immutability of species, or the birth of human children. I suppose one difference is that there is no mention made of stars producing after their own kind, while that is said for animals and humans. However, stars are also inanimate objects, so it would be strange to speak of them reproducing after their own kind. Given a lack of a positive statement to the contrary about stars, I'm not sure that the above question is a necessary inference from Genesis 1.

I suppose one remaining question might be: God finished creating back then, so why do we see new stars now? I'm not sure of the answer myself, but it may be that there is no original creation of stuff but rather a reorganizing of stuff already created out there. However, this answer does not seem to account for the parts of Genesis 1 in which God creates stuff out of the stuff He already made. I suppose a difference is, the creation is more of a direct activity in Genesis 1 while the "creation" now is done through ordinary government?

Just some thoughts.


----------



## Tyrese (Jan 9, 2013)

arap said:


> How do they know they are new is they are so far away and light takes 13 billion years to reach us?



That's also my question.


----------



## Tyrese (Jan 9, 2013)

JohnGill said:


> They don't know. There is no actual evidence for it. The comment below the article about circular reasoning demonstrates the fallaciousness of this claim: http://www.popsci.com/science/artic...e-old-and-universe-making-hardly-any-new-ones



That article was worse than the one I posted. After reading the comments below its interesting to see there are people who follow that as of its absolute fact. Very sad.


----------



## Philip (Jan 9, 2013)

Tyrese said:


> Does anyone have any knowledge of this? And if so, how does Genesis 1 line up with these claims? Just curious.



I guess, like some of the others, I'm not exactly sure what the problem here is, exactly. I mean when I read, "And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars." I guess I don't see anything in there that would preclude God, in His ordinary providence, making new stars and destroying others. There's nothing in the text here that indicates that only stars created in the beginning are around now or that God will create no new stars through natural processes.


----------



## arapahoepark (Jan 9, 2013)

Philip said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone have any knowledge of this? And if so, how does Genesis 1 line up with these claims? Just curious.
> ...



I see nothing wrong with that either just like how we have formed different breeds of dogs ourselves. But, the objection I have is how do they really know they are 'just born' so to speak, how do we know all stars goes through certain phases like red giant or white dwarf, then supernova and then black dwarf, or something like that?


----------



## Tyrese (Jan 9, 2013)

Philip said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone have any knowledge of this? And if so, how does Genesis 1 line up with these claims? Just curious.
> ...



The Bible says in the beginning God created heaven and Earth. I thought he finished His work. I personally don't think you can believe God finished his work and believe that stars like our own are forming with planets around them. It makes it look like our sun could have just formed out of nowhere. The individuals who write these articles have to make up in there minds that God is a fairy tale before they accept these theories. Comparing planets to animals is silly. That's just my opinion and I realize I could be wrong as we are dealing with the unknown.


----------



## arapahoepark (Jan 9, 2013)

Tyrese said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone have any knowledge of this? And if so, how does Genesis 1 line up with these claims? Just curious.
> ...


True...just playing devil's advocate, what about the creation of land? Is he finished with that? What about submarine volcanoes like surtsey that formed an island in two years of it's eruption off the coast of Iceland in the 1960s? Is that a valid comparison?


----------



## Tyrese (Jan 9, 2013)

arap said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> > Tyrese said:
> ...



It's a good comparison, but were talking about the creation of other worlds.


----------



## Philip (Jan 9, 2013)

arap said:


> I see nothing wrong with that either just like how we have formed different breeds of dogs ourselves. But, the objection I have is how do they really know they are 'just born' so to speak, how do we know all stars goes through certain phases like red giant or white dwarf, then supernova and then black dwarf, or something like that?



That's a question of scientific method and inference, though. I think the subject of discussion here is how such a pronouncement about celestial objects lines up with Scripture.



Tyrese said:


> I personally don't think you can believe God finished his work and believe that stars like our own are forming with planets around them. It makes it look like our sun could have just formed out of nowhere. The individuals who write these articles have to make up in there minds that God is a fairy tale before they accept these theories.



No they don't. There are plenty of Christians who are astronomers and talk about this stuff. You're right that God finished His creative work, but I would argue that celestial events like the formation and destruction of stars are part of God's ordinary providence. That's the doctrine of creation: that God upholds and sustains the creation and what happens in it. How exactly would a new star be evidence that God hasn't finished creating? We can also use nuclear forces to create new elements---is that proof that creation is unfinished?


----------



## Zach (Jan 9, 2013)

I think Philip is absolutely right about the formation of new stars being part of ordinary providence. As far as my limited memory of astronomy goes, it seems the hypothesis is that stars go through life cycles of birth and death over a long period of time but that it is completely normal. Where this could potentially conflict with the Scriptures is in trying to use the past formation of stars to "explain" how backwards a theory of creation in six literal days is. My Pastor suggested to me when I took a class on geology that just like Adam looked like a fully grown man even though he was only one day old, so our universe looks like it is much older than it is.


----------



## thbslawson (Jan 10, 2013)

Just as I believe Adam at 3 seconds old was a fully grown man, and a tree that was newly created looked like it had taken years to grow, so stars were created already in various stages of existence, some on the brink of forming, most fully formed, some almost at the point burned out. These display the glory of God's laws of nature and physics that he created, granting to man the possibility to be a witness to the vast wonder of his work.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 10, 2013)

There is absolutely no contradiction between the creation account and stars coming into existence today, any more than there is a contradiction between new plants and animals coming into existence today. It's an example of quite poor reasoning to attribute the existence of "new stars" to anything but God's continuing providential acts in our age.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jan 10, 2013)

Tyrese said:


> Scientist claim that new stars are constantly being born.



There is a world of difference between scientific observation, which posits an orderly universe, a divine Creator with omnipotence and wisdom, and the trash that passes for "science" in our days. If a star takes the fairy-tale gestational period of 13 billion years to form, then _no one has ever observed this process_, and it is mere sci-fi dreaming. The world is roughly 6,000 years old, so no one has or could have observed this "process."

Cheers,


----------



## Tyrese (Jan 10, 2013)

toddpedlar said:


> There is absolutely no contradiction between the creation account and stars coming into existence today, any more than there is a contradiction between new plants and animals coming into existence today. It's an example of quite poor reasoning to attribute the existence of "new stars" to anything but God's continuing providential acts in our age.



At this point I will leave this topic alone because the article above provided by johngill proves scientist really don't know what's happening out there. But I will quickly say that comparing stars to animals and plants is not a good comparison.


----------



## Tyrese (Jan 10, 2013)

Christusregnat said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> > Scientist claim that new stars are constantly being born.
> ...



Very true.


----------



## Afterthought (Jan 10, 2013)

Tyrese said:


> But I will quickly say that comparing stars to animals and plants is not a good comparison.


You have mentioned this a few times. Why is it a bad comparison? So far as I can see, you are arguing that (1) Creation is finished, (2) new stars are new creations, so (3) there can be no new stars. This same logic could be applied to animals (or land formations, or animal species, or plants, etc.): (1) Creation is finished, (2) new animals are new creations, so (3) there can be no new animals. So far, the differences you have mentioned are that (1) we are talking about the creation of new worlds, and (2) stars forming on their own makes it look like the sun could have formed out of nowhere. With respect to (1), I'm not sure why you see that as problematic; perhaps you can explain? With respect to (2), that is the case with land formations, species generation, and really any part of science: science investigates ordinary providence, and so it is to be expected that all sorts of things make it "look like" they could have formed out of nowhere (though really, I'm not sure that is the case anyway; just using your language according to how it seems you intended it).



Christusregnat said:


> If a star takes the fairy-tale gestational period of 13 billion years to form, then no one has ever observed this process, and it is mere sci-fi dreaming. The world is roughly 6,000 years old, so no one has or could have observed this "process."


This is true. However, it should be noted that the "fairy-tale" may be useful for various scientific purposes, provided one realizes the actual state of the evidence (and I don't recall what the actual state of the evidence is in the case of star or planet formation). Whether it is ethical to posit a "hypothetical" (in quotes cause if one runs the calculations using the equations that we currently have and that we apply to less exotic things, one will arrive at these star cycles, albeit, one may require some other less tested things too) universe or "hypothetical" processes for scientific purposes though, I am not sure of.


----------



## SRoper (Jan 10, 2013)

Some of the phase transitions that stars undergo are on a very human timescale. For example, in 1054 AD, astronomers observed a new star that appeared for a short time. After the telescope was developed, astronomers discovered the Crab Nebula at the same location. From observing its expansion over a period of time, astronomers estimate that the nebula is about 900 years old. It is believed that this is an example of a star going supernova.


----------

