URCall: Blue Star-adjacent

From the ICR’s URCall series of videos, hosted by Markus Lloyd. “Blue Stars” (link)

Transcript:

Blue stars burn so brightly that they consume their fuel much faster than other stars. The hottest blue stars last only a few million years, and no astronomer has ever observed a new blue star forming. So, if astronomers are still seeing blue stars – which should have burned out a long time ago – how can the universe be billions of years old?

When talking about this topic the ICR likes to display telescopic vistas of stars, most of them blue, presumably to exemplify the point that astronomers can’t explain how all these stars formed. This is a bait-and-switch, because all but a fraction of those stars are actually irrelevant to the argument being made. Those that are are known as “blue supergiants.”

The cliffs notes on these massive stars is that they do indeed burn very quickly, and have lifespans in the mere millions of years. But the underlying reason why the ICR claims that we can’t explain their formation, thus meaning that the universe cannot be old, does not seem to be anything special about the stars themselves, but is instead a result of how YECs refuse to accept either the models of or evidence for star formation full stop. What they seem to want is for an astronomer to point their telescope at a cloud of gas continuously for a million or so years to watch a star form from beginning to end. Merely taking pictures of a star in the process of forming, for example, doesn’t seem to cut it.

This obstinance makes for a rather dull topic, but the part that I find interesting is how they like to use “blue stars” like the term is synonymous with “blue supergiants.” As I said, the typical blue star isn’t supergiant, it’s merely young and may have billions of years ahead of it. There is even another little subcategory, the blue stragglers – so named because they are slightly younger, and therefore bluer, than the minimum age of the others in their cluster – which the ICR has a somewhat different claim about. But the ICR just likes to call them all “blue stars.”

It’s more convenient that way.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “URCall: Blue Star-adjacent

  1. This is a blatantly ridiculous YEC assertion. Its like saying the oldest tortoise in the world only lived 255 years, therefore the Earth cannot be older than 255 years. You know, since we “werent there”. It hinges on the stupid assumption that the “evilutionists” think all stars we see have continued to exist. since the birth of the Universe. And you are right, they confuse “blue supergiants” with all blue stars.

    I wrote a very detailed refutation of the YEC goddidit argument of star formation a while back:
    http://reformingthehereticalmind.blogspot.sg/2014/06/creation-wiki-doesnt-understand-star.html

  2. Their insistence on “direct” evidence like that is analogous to claiming that the lottery has never been won because no one has seen someone win it. Have you ever seen someone “win” the lottery? No you haven’t. You’ve seen them buy a ticket. You’ve seen the draw made. You’ve seen them collect their cash. You’ve seen people check their tickets. You’ve seen people realise their numbers match up to the draw numbers. But you’ve NEVER seen someone “win” it. Ergo the lottery doesn’t exist.

  3. There are blue stars, and the science deniers admit that they burn for a few million years. There are also plenty of longer-lived stars in the sky too. But I suppose YECs have convinced themselves that they are suddenly burst into existence on a single day around 6,000 years ago.
    The reason they reject ongoing star formation (either on 12.6.14 or at the time – often before the YECs’ ‘Creation Week’ – at which what astronomers observe out elsewhere in the Milky Way occurred) is NOTHING to do with how the observations appear to them. It’s simply that they believe that God is still ‘resting’ after his work of Creation Week thus no NEW creation of stars can possibly take place now. But this also helps them make their argument that there is something wrong with the ‘secular’ ie scientific age of the Milky Way galaxy.

Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s