How do creationists explain stars?

I am also a Creatioists. However I believe God created a world where we are able to perform observations and conduct tests, and eventually come to the right conclusion. However, only IF one makes the assumption that the Bible is the Word of God and that it is correct. Any assumptions one uses that contradicts this one, will not only arrive at different answers, but at WRONG answers.So, using wrong assumptions can still lead to answers, but not the right one.Now I will use what I have said for the formation of stars.The explanation for stars can be scientifically understood. But this understanding cannot come from the Bible alone, for the Bible does not touch on the physical laws that are being used to make stars. But the order in which God makes the heavens and the earth, the time in which He makes the heavens and the earth, are valid starting points to pluck into equations dealing with the the Beginning, and what happened and using the first verses as a guiding tool for a method God may have used. For instance, Dr. Humphrey does this in his creation model of how the universe formed under the direction of God.A simple scientific experiment can show that different assumptions can lead to seamingly correct conclusions, but only one assumption can identify the correct problem.Here we go...Consider a lighting stand on a desk. 2 people come into the room and see that the ligth bulb is not on. Now the assumptions start. (A & B)Person A, assumes the lightbulb is broken, and therefore replaces the bulb and flicks the switch, and the light bulb turns on.Person B, assumes that from the start the switch was not turned on, he goes over and turns the switch and the light comes on.Here it is obvious that person A started off on the wrong foot, even knowing that one has to turn on the light switch first to see if it will work. But he missed that the first time. But being a keener, he knew to flick the switch after replacing the bulb, and satisfied with the result, believes the previous light bulb was indeed broken.Im sure you get the point.I think this example can illustrate the difference between evolutionists and creationists.

My question to you is, what observation?From what I read at:http://www.ldolphin.org/stars.html

quote:

---

What actually happens behind that murk is anyone's guess. Alan Boss spoke in these terms:

​

"What are the early stages in the formation of a star? What determines whether a cloud of star-forming matter will evolve into one, two or several stars? Because clouds of gas, dust and debris largely obscure all but the initial and final stages of the birth of a star, these questions have so far not been answered by direct observation....it has been impossible to date to view the cloud as it collapses through this range of densities. Consequently stars cannot be observed as they form." {3}[my emphasis]

---

quote:

---

The problems associated with the idea that stars can form from the gravitational infalling of a massive volume of nebular gas are great. Star formation by this route is physically impossible. The fairly simple formula for Jeans' Length (Sir James Jeans) shows what is necessary for stellar formation. A gas cloud must be within a critical radius in order to collapse by gravity (Jeans' Length). Jeans' Length (JL) is equal to the Gravitational constant (G) times the mass (M) of the cloud squared, divided by two times the number of moles of gas, times the Gas Constant (R), times the Temperature (T) in kelvins (see Table below). {5} There are other ways to calculate the physical parameters for star formation, but similar problems develop. Leo Blitz says that about 99 percent of the mass of a Giant Molecular Cloud (where stars are thought to form) is molecular hydrogen, H2. {6} I used this fact to calculate the minimum number of moles (n) of hydrogen that would have formed the core of the sun and solved for T. The temperature that the sun's equivalent cloud mass would have to be in order for it to contract under the force of gravity, considering the mass of the Sun, expanding its radius to the distance of one light year, and plugging in the values for the constants. The result was 1.69 degrees K (- 456.68 degrees F. Absolute Zero, 0 degrees K = - 459.67 degrees F), one degree less than the temperature of the 2.726 degrees K cosmic background radiation, according to the latest COBE satellite measurements. {7} The universe is too hot for star formation!

---

quote:

---

Chapter 26, "Survey of Stellar Evolution," of Cox and Giuli's work was the only chapter on star formation. What they had to say confirms what I said in my original challenge to Dr. Ross. {8} On page 947, they make their first direct comment on star formation:

​

"The very earliest stages in the star formation process must consist of the condensation of a 'protostar' from the interstellar medium. These stages constitute one of the most poorly understood areas in the whole field of stellar evolution, and we shall simply assume that a protostar has somehow formed."

---