Seeing Mountains in Starry Clouds of Creation

NY Times ^ | November 15, 2005 | DENNIS OVERBYE

[neverdem]

In 1995, astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope produced "The Pillars of Creation," an image of stars emerging from biblical-looking clouds of dust that has become an icon of the space age.

Now astronomers operating NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope have made their own version. The new image, appropriately called "Mountains of Creation," shows star-forming pillars in a region known as W5 in the constellation Cassiopeia. These pillars, at heights up to 40 light-years, are 10 times as large as those in the famous Hubble image.

The astronomers, led by Lori E. Allen of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, say the towering mountains of the new image probably represent the densest, most fecund remnants of a larger, cloud. It is being eroded by radiation and winds of particles from a ferociously bright star just out of the top of the picture.

Nestled within the dusty pillars are hundreds of embryonic stars. But Spitzer's detectors are designed to see infrared, or "heat," radiation right through the dust, allowing astronomers to study the cloaked stars, which Dr. Allen described as "offspring" of the big star.

"The Sun could have formed in such a cluster, since many stars form in clusters," Dr. Allen said in an e-mail message...

[neverdem]

NASA
An infrared image of emerging stars captured by the Spitzer Space Telescope.

[Just Lori]

Awesome! That wasn't just "there". It was CREATED by God.

[Jaysun]

I'm an amateur astronomer (very amateur). I had my telescope out last weekend and showed a few things to my brother-in-law. Pondering the endless wonders of the space gave him an anxiety attack. I'm not going to think about it too much.

[taxesareforever]

Awesome! That wasn't just "there". It was CREATED by God.

Probably inadvertently they are admitting that when they call it the "Pillars of Creation". We all know that Creation refers to Genesis and God. Man has never and will never "create" anything.

[sagar]

"It was CREATED by God."

According to who? Should the scientists accept that little feel good belief and deal with it, or try to study it in detail to find real answers?

[Treader]

"According to who?"...G-d

[Ichneumon]

Probably inadvertently they are admitting that when they call it the "Pillars of Creation". We all know that Creation refers to Genesis and God.

"We" do? Sorry, but the Bible has not appropriated words in the English language. "Creation" refers to anything created by any means, including stars being created in dust clouds, hailstones being created in updrafts in stormclouds, etc.

[Ichneumon]

Awesome! That wasn't just "there".

Why not?

It was CREATED by God.

For what reason? According to the Bible's account, mankind will end before we could possibly reach that part of space, and before the stars being formed there could ever possibly be "born". Why would any deity create something so useless and irrelevant to the alleged purpose for his creation?

[Talking_Mouse]

bookmark

[WestVirginiaRebel]

Space is big. Really, really big. You think it's a long walk down to the chemist's, but that's peanuts compared to space.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

If we are awed by the wonders God has made that He allows us to see with our puny little telescopes, can you just imagine what is out there, unseen, that we can't even begin to comprehend?

[Treader]

What "Bible" are you refering to, Ichneumon?

[Zeroisanumber]

Man has never and will never "create" anything.

Ye of little faith.

[mlc9852]

"According to the Bible's account, mankind will end before we could possibly reach that part of space,"

What Bible account are you referring to?

[Treader]

What "Bible" are you refering to, Ichnemon? lol... You don't mean your profile page, do ya?

[crghill]

Not getting it I see. The problem mankind has is that most of us cannot fathom "creation". It is impossible for those that reject God to see that he is the Creator and then further fathom that he has always been and was himself never created. The old argument of, you can't have something from nothing is very true except for when God decides he will create. However, the question posed by the anti-God crowd is, "Who created God"? This question alone shows mankind's arrogance in assuming that God had to be created. God, the true God of the bible, was never created. As he said, I am who I am. For those of us who do get it and can see, don't take pride in your vision. Remember, once you were blind but now you see. That is a gift of God and not the work of any man so that none may boast!

[Logophile]

Should the scientists accept that little feel good belief and deal with it, or try to study it in detail to find real answers?

They should do both.

There is no reason someone cannot recognize the universe as God's creation, and then "study it in detail" to see how it works. One can be both religious and scientific.

[Logophile]

For what reason? According to the Bible's account, mankind will end before we could possibly reach that part of space, and before the stars being formed there could ever possibly be "born". Why would any deity create something so useless and irrelevant to the alleged purpose for his creation?

Actually, according to the Bible's account, mankind will not end, but continue forever.

As for the "alleged purpose for his creation," I am not sure that any of us would claim to know God's reasons for everything he does.

[phantomworker]

An emerging star. Now that is cool!

[phantomworker]

Creationist? Is spontaneous ermergence of a star necessarily intelligent design? I don't think so.