Evolutionary cosmologists have long postulated that stars can somehow form naturally. They have proposed various mechanisms for this, some even going so far as to call areas of space “stellar nurseries”. recently, an astronomer from Purdue University has claimed he observed the birth of a new star in the remnants of a supernova. But is that really what he observed? Have we observed new stars forming and, if we have, what are the implications of that observation? This article will examine the mechanics of stellar formation along with the most recent claim that stars form naturally.
The proposed mechanisms of star formation are complicated and thus have been somewhat inaccessible to the scientific layman. This is a good thing for evolutionists because their mechanism of stellar formation is broken to the point of being unfixable but more on that in a moment. Stars are believed to form in areas where it is extremely cold, just above absolute zero. Because of the extreme cold, normally gaseous molecules bind together into liquid or solid forms, particularly hydrogen. This takes place in what are called dark nebula, so named because we cannot observe them with typical light telescopes because they produce no light. These clouds of gas purportedly collapse under their own weight and the power of gravity. They slowly clump together over millions of years into what are called protostars.
Once this protostar has formed, its gravitational attraction draws in other nearby material. This creates kinetic energy, which is released as heat. It also increases pressure and temperature inside the protostar. Eventually, given enough time, the temperature will get in the tens of thousands of degrees and will cause the protostar to begin emitting radiation. A few million years later, it will supposedly become large and stable enough to begin producing light as a full-fledged star by means of nuclear fusion.
The last two paragraphs have been entirely theoretical. Given the amount of time evolutionists claim it took to form stars, star formation is utterly unobservable. Of course, this is outside the realm of empirical science but then so is the rest of evolution, with the exception of speciation. Thus the gentleman at Purdue is not claiming to see a new star forming. He is claiming to have observed the remnants of a supernova begin to get bright again without the presence of hydrogen. This is something of a new phenomenon and little information is out there beyond pure speculation so it is important to clarify that, despite the articles click-bait style title of “Astronomers witness birth of new star from stellar explosion” no new star has been observed.
There are significant problems with the evolutionary idea of new stars, regardless of their claims. One of those is based on the physics affecting gasses. Evolutionists believe nebulae produce new stars. Nebulae are essentially giant gas clouds, often leftovers of nova or supernova explosions, floating through space. The properties of a gas mean that it always will expand to fill its container and reach equilibrium. The container of the gases in outer space is space itself. Thus it will move from an area of high concentration in the center of the nebula to an area of low concentration at the edge. This means that nebulae will always be automatically expanding to attempt to reach equilibrium. This creates a problem for evolutionary dogma. If nebulae are constantly expanding, then how can they get the nebulae to contract to produce a new star? They can’t invoke gravity because it’s too weak given the size of the nebulae to draw the gas back together. This leaves them with no answer for the formation of stars.
Evolutionists recognize this issue and have attempted various explanations. One of these is based on compression. Compression basically states that as the result of a supernova, a gas cloud is compressed to a point where gravity overpowers gas pressure and allows it to collapse. Failing this, evolutionists look to cooling as mentioned above. This too relies on a supernova explosion to blow particles into a cloud of gas, causing it to rapidly cool and contact. Failing this, they turn to the collision of galaxies to compress gas clouds to a point where gravity will take over. The astute among my readers will have already noticed a problem common to all three of these explanations. They all require preexisting stars to make new stars, don’t they? What are supernovas? Big exploding stars. What are galaxies? Collections of stars. This is the classic chicken and the egg scenario. You have to have old stars to make new stars. Thus evolution fails to provide an explanation for the origin of stars.
The lack of an answer for the formation of stars is not something evolutionists will readily admit to, and with good reason. They have publicly and proudly proclaimed to the public that they can explain the origin of the universe from nothing and proposed multiple theories of stellar formation. Were they to admit that they have no explanation, their theory would lose credence with the public. Thus they stick to theories many of them acknowledge cannot work. Creationists have no such problems with the origin of stars. We know exactly where they came from. Genesis 1:16 “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.” Think about that a moment. Stars are an afterthought to God, yet there are more of them than we can possibly count. We ought to be amazed at the power of our God to create something as awe-inspiring as the stars.