How do creationists explain stars?

Why would we admit we do not know something for which we have much evidence? Naturally by "know" I mean in the scientifically tentative sense.Rather than arguing on the basis of evidence for and against an ancient age for stars you seem to be using a more general argument that there are things science can't know. General arguments concerning the limits of scientific inquiry belong in the [forum=-11] forum.--Percy

Percy, I know what you mean, but strongly disagree. The reason is that the metaphysical implications of tentatively knowing thse things that are repeated by TV science programs are enormous...And in that way, science is affecting things that it admits it cannot answer for.

If you want to debate the age of stars, this thread is the place. If you want to debate the limits of scientific inquiry then propose a new thread over at [forum=-25].--Percy

Rob writes

quote:

---

The reason is that the metaphysical implications of tentatively knowing thse things that are repeated by TV science programs are enormous...

---

I find most of the so-called science programs out there to be either oversimplified versions of elementary science text books or outright misrepresentations of what we do know. For example, I have been quite annoyed with the science and history channels having programs on the supernatural and present things like alien abductions and ghosts as facts.But to relate this to the age of stars, you shouldn't put too much faith in tv. They care more for ratings than the truth.And just so you know, your girlfriend Ann Coulter embraises Einstein's relativity as both scientific and "godly" in her new book The Church of Liberalism: Godless. You should read it.Edited by rgb, : No reason given.

Hi all I'm new here. The Creation vs. Evolution topic is one of my favorites. I am a Creationist. I will admit I didn't read the whole 12 pages of this topic but I am going to answer the original answer with the only answer that fits the evidence we have today. God made the stars about 6000 years ago and they are all slowly dying. We have not observed one star being formed ever. In fact the process described in science text books contradicts itself. In order for stars to form the gases would have to swirl rapidly to form a gravitational force. This has been observed. What has not been observed is the formation turning into a star. This is because the swirling motion creates heat energy and this energy creates an outward force that overpowers the gravitational force way before a star has time to form.

---

Matt G.

Welcome to EvC but seldom has so much misinformation been stuffed into one first message as in yours.To begin your education on stars, here is a link to some pictures of stellar nurseries, stars being formed.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thanks for the greeting. That Eagles Nest isnt all its cracked up to be. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/stars.asp Check it out the evidence is not there.

---

Matt G.

Yes, sure. Nobody has ever seen a star form.I guess trees don't grow either. Nobody has ever seen a tree grow. If you look at a tree in the evening, its the same size as it was in the morning. So obviously, trees don't grow. But every now and then God poofs the old tree out of existence, and poofs a new and slightly larger tree into existence.#end sarcasm

*Chuckles* Of cource you dont see a tree grow but the evidence is there. I planted a tree 3 years ago in my back yard. When planted it was 6 inches tall. Now it is about 7 feet tall. My point is we have not seen stars form. There are no new stars as far as we can tell. In fact all we see are dying stars. All stars are running out of fuel and energy.

And likewise, the evidence is there for star formation. We see them in various stages of formation. The evidence is there.

hello again.just a tip. when replying to someone, it's best to use the lgrb (little green reply button) below their post. this sends them a little email notification (if they have that option checked off) and helps everyone follow the threads of communication, and who was answering whom.(welcome to evc, btw)

---

Where is this evidence you claim to have? This an interesting article on this topic. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/stars.aspAs I said there is no evidence for the formation or growth of stars.

Pure unadulterated B-S. There's plenty of evidence.Why not try visitng a NASA website rather than relying on AiG?
Here's one example..
http://origins.jpl.nasa.gov/library/exnps/ch03_0.htmlOr just google for hundreds of pictures.
formation of stars - Google Search

Hum. Let me see. Nasa, a government agency, or Answers in Genesis, a faith base organisation that makes outragously inaccurate scientific claims?? NASA or AIG?? Nasa or AIG.I think Nasa would have the better science after all

NASA has still not observed the formation of stars. That link BTW was mostly about formation of planets. The laws of physics deny the possibility of stars forming.