A survey of the centre of the Galaxy by Hubble has revealed a number of “Young Blue Stars”, which Brian Thomas claims could not exist in “standard long-age cosmologies”. They also don’t like the explanation for the star’s formation:
long-age astronomers have been forced to resort to a non-explanation that is indistinguishable from an appeal to magic: that blue stars somehow formed in the distant past through unknown, unobserved processes.
Actually, if you go look at the news release for the survey that Thomas links to, their explanation doesn’t seem to fit that description:
It is not clear how blue stragglers form. A common theory is that they emerge from binary pairs. As the more massive star evolves and expands, the smaller star gains material from its companion. This stirs up hydrogen fuel and causes the growing star to undergo nuclear fusion at a faster rate. It burns hotter and bluer, like a massive young star.
Make up your own mind…
The ICR also seems to have a problem with star formation in general:
The physical barriers to star formation by collapsing gases—the standard nature-only story of star formation—are prohibitive, because the denser a cloud of gas becomes, the more vigorously its particles repel one another.
They also argue that nobody has ever observed a star forming. What, exactly, is their definition of “observed”? Stars take time, a lot more time than we have been watching them. We can see, however, star nurseries – do these not count? Or are they disputing even that?
On a related note, the article admits that the stars are 26,000 light years away, still longer than their chronology allows. How do they explain them?
Why did I ask?
The scientific evidence shows, and the Bible clearly states, that blue stars were put in place on purpose recently.4
Naturally, the citation is to the Bible (there have been a lot of those lately):
“Seek him that maketh the seven stars and Orion” (Amos 5:8)
No mention of a purpose (or blue stars, or for that matter the whole starlight problem) there, and I have a hunch that he has misinterpreted the entire verse. Ah, well, no surprises here…