The author is Danny Faulkner. AIG provides this biographical information about him. They say he taught physics and astronomy until he joined AIG. His undergraduate degree is from Bob Jones University. We’re impressed.
His essay begins with a lot of basic information about stars, and then he says, with some bold font added by us:
Perhaps the most interesting are the brilliant blue stars, which have lots of fuel but are so hot that they consume their fuel quickly. In fact, the hottest blue stars could last only a few million years at best. Both creationists and evolutionists acknowledge this fact.
Even evolutionists acknowledge it. That’s amazing, considering that their primary concern isn’t astronomy. Never mind that. The article continues:
Yet blue stars are found throughout the universe in spiral galaxies, both nearby and far away. This is not a problem for biblical creationists, who date all stars at around 6,000 years. But it creates a big conundrum for astronomers who reject the Bible’s history.
Observe, dear reader, that as is typical of creationists, Danny focuses only on the evidence he likes. First, he ignores the problem that old stars present for creationists who think the universe is young. Second, while focusing only on the new blue stars, he also ignores the fact that we see some of them millions of light years away. They obviously existed long ago, otherwise their light couldn’t reach us. But even if we limit the discussion to only blue stars, and we ignore their distance, why are they a problem for real scientists? Danny tells us:
To explain the prevalence of blue stars, these astronomers must assume they have been forming spontaneously throughout most of history, even in recent times. Despite their diligent search, however, they have never observed one of these blue stars forming — or any other star, for that matter. Nevertheless, they must believe that stars form continually because their theory demands it.
We don’t need to literally see one in the process of formation. They’re blue, so we know they’re new — at least they were when their light was being sent to us. Aside from that, as this recent article at PhysOrg says, we do observe the formation of new stars. It quotes University of Arizona astrophotographer and astronomy educator Adam Block, who describes a photograph he made of what was behind a dark cloud of dust and gas in the constellation Serpens:
“You can see that in the red area, toward the lower right of the image,” Block explained. “In the glowing, red area toward the lower right of the image, that’s where star formation is occurring. The young stars embedded in the cloud make the area glow.”
Why wouldn’t Danny know about things like that? It only took us 30 seconds to find it. [Addendum: here’s another — A fiery drama of star birth and death.] Danny hasn’t been keeping up since he joined AIG. What else does he have to say? He attempts to explain that gas clouds in galaxies somehow can’t form stars. He says: “The largest problem is that a gas cloud is so spread out that its gravity is miniscule.” Then he tells us:
The astronomer Sir James Jeans asked and answered this question in 1902. He found that the cloud must be somewhat larger than a star, but many orders of magnitude smaller than any observed cloud for this to happen. That is, no observed gas cloud is even close to the Jeans length.
Oh — that’s what James Jeans said back in 1902. Did we say that Danny wasn’t keeping up? It looks like we were right. Oh wait — he does seem to be aware of a few things:
As predicted, very distant galaxies (and hence galaxies from the early universe) are systematically brighter than nearby galaxies. Astronomers call these “starburst” galaxies and say the blue color is evidence for explosive star formation early in the universe. Furthermore, though astronomers have not observed the actual contraction of a gas cloud into a star, they have identified a number of different kinds of odd star-like entities that they view as snapshots of stars in various stages of formation.
If he’s aware of such things, then what’s the problem? There doesn’t seem to be one, except that Danny doesn’t like the idea that new stars are still forming. It contradicts his fantasy universe in which everything was created 6,000 years ago. He continues:
Despite these claims, we should note that astronomers think that in the universe today, condensed clouds overwhelmingly produce low-mass red stars, but in the early universe they formed massive blue stars.
“Overwhelmingly”? Even if that were true, it doesn’t say that blue stars aren’t still forming. Here’s how he finishes. It’s the predictable end of any creation science article:
[C]reation astronomers depend on the Book written by the infallible Creator who was there and made the stars. As we would expect, modern observations about the star-filled universe confirm the Lord’s creativity; and blue stars in particular are consistent with the Bible’s account of a young universe.
So there you are. But after reading it over again, we have no idea where that is.
Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.