- The Laws of Science
- The Doctrine of Uniformitarianism
- The 1st Law of Thermodynamics
- The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
- The Four Fundamental Forces
- The Big Bang
- The Age of the Universe
- The Age of the Earth
- Star and Planet Formation
- The Origin of Life
- Macro and micro evolution
- Darwins Evidence
- Punctuated Equilibrium
- Isn't Evolution "Just a Theory?"
- Is It Really That Important to Teach Evolution?
- Intelligent Design
- Conclusions from Science
- Environmental Change and Species Extinction
- The Bible
- Objections to Christianity
- Suggested Reading
Star and Planet Formation
The Facts of Star and Planet FormationThe accretion model is the currently accepted method by which the stars and planets were formed. It is thought by most scientists that following the Big Bang there were clouds of gas and dust left swirling around in the universe. These clouds of gas and dust then began to be pulled into distinct masses due to the force of gravitational attraction. If the total amount of mass was great enough then these masses would eventually become stars. The other less massive clouds became planets. (It is thought that the planet Jupiter was close to becoming a star but it lacked "just enough" mass.) Using the Hubble space telescope scientists have found what they claim to be "star nurseries". These "star nurseries" are areas of gas and dust that are currently thought to be producing new stars.
Observations on Star and Planet FormationThe accretion model can be proved false by any observant person taking a ride at an amusement park. If you were to get on a merry-go-round you would feel pulled toward the outside - not the inside. When we spin in circles, whether on a ride or on a swing-set, we feel a pull toward the outside. The assumption that spinning clouds of gas and dust were pulled inward goes against all of the scientific evidence and everyday experience as well. In every experiment ever conducted, spinning objects are pulled outward by inertia - not inward. In order for the accretion model to have any success in computer modelling the four fundamental forces must be given values different from what they have today. As we have just seen, this assumption goes against all of the scientific evidence. The accretion model is accepted by scientists only because they have no other, natural, alternative. The scientific evidence actually indicates that there was a force, currently unknown to science, that was present during the creation of the stars and planets. Due to the self-imposed limitations of science this force may never be identified using modern scientific methods.
It turns out that so-called "star nurseries" have no scientific evidence to support their existence. Contrary to popular opinion, no one has ever observed a star forming. The time frame over which a star is assumed to form is too long for a human to observe. A simple analogy would be with trees. It is impossible to observe the growth of a tree in a one minute time period. And yet we know, from experience, that trees do indeed grow. So why can't we observe, and record, that growth? It is because of the time frame involved. A tree grows too slowly to have their growth be observed in a one minute period. It is the same with stars. It is impossible to observe in 100 years an event that supposedly takes 20 million years to occur.
We know that trees grow because we can observe their growth in our life-times. But we cannot see stars form in our life-time. The assumption that stars are being "born" in "star nurseries" is pure conjecture. It is not based on any type of scientific evidence. Of course this does not mean that stars aren't forming after all. And it does not mean that stars nurseries do not in fact exist. It only means that, based on the available evidence, we do not know how, or when, stars form.The Origin of Life
Home » Science-and-christian-belief » Star-and-planet-formation