Star Births? Stellar Evolution? 4 -- Science Disproves Evolution

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

A similar problem exists for stars that are more than twenty times more massive than our sun. After a star grew to 20 solar masses, it would exert so much radiation pressure and emit so much stellar wind that additional mass could not be pulled in to allow it to grow (g). Many stars are heavier than a hundred suns. Black holes are millions to billions of times more massive than the sun. Poor logic is involved in arguing for stellar evolution, which is assumed in estimating the age of stars. These ages are then used to establish a framework for stellar evolution. That is circular reasoning (h).

In summary, there is no evidence that stars evolve, there is much evidence that stars did not evolve, and there are no experimentally verifiable explanations for how they could evolve and seemingly defy the laws of physics (i).

g. �Once a protostar reaches a threshold of about 20 solar masses, the pressure exerted by its radiation should overpower gravity and prevent it from growing any bigger. In addition to the radiation pressure, the winds that so massive a star generates disperse its natal cloud, further limiting its growth as well as interfering with the formation of nearby stars.� Erick T. Young, �Cloudy with a Chance of Stars: Making a Star Is No Easy Thing,� Scientific American, Vol.�302, February 2010, p. 40.

�Nascent stars above 20 solar masses are so luminous that they would be expected to disrupt their own formation, as well as that of nearby stars.� Ibid., p. 37.

i. �Nobody really understands how star formation proceeds. It�s really remarkable.� Rogier A. Windhorst, as quoted by Corey S. Powell, �A Matter of Timing,� Scientific American, Vol. 267, October 1992, p. 30.

�If stars did not exist, it would be easy to prove that this is what we expect.� Geoffrey R. Burbidge, as quoted by R. L. Sears and Robert R. Brownlee in Stellar Structure, editors Lawrence H. Aller and Dean McLaughlin (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), p. 577.

�We don�t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.� Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, �Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,� Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750.