Since the YEC's on here claim to be thinkers - Refute this argument.

But as I pointed out, that is irrelevant to the argument.

You don't need the stellar evolution theory age.

It's not relevant to the argument in the original post. I even mention there that a YEC would not accept the stellar theory date BUT that is not necessary for my argument above. Read it carefully.

I don't know if I am the first person to bring this to the YEC attention but I have found no reference to this in either the 'science' community or the YEC websites etc.

I posted it because not only is it interesting, it prevents the mindless cut/paste AND forces some real thinking on both sides.

The gist of the whole thing is that the dates from stellar theory (which YEC obviously don't accept) are not needed a priori.

You can get a timescale from basic Newtonian mechanics, which we should all agree are valid. I can predict the time for the orbits of binary stars to circularise based upon basic mechanics.

We observe binaries to be circularised and MOST IMPORTANTLY the binaries are circularised in correlation with the ages we expect from stellar theory.

So to answer your 3 points

1) We date via 2 independent methods.

stellar evolution theory - which YEC wont accept
classical mechanics - which we all (I hope) accept

2) Yes - these are known observations of many systems

3) Yes

Stellar formation Theory:

Observed - Yes but not in a single system - This is not a cop out response, bear with me.

The problem is astrophysically this is a rapid process BUT it is still from a human perspective very long. From initial cloud to star is theoretically expected to be several million years. This is not hand waving or WAGs. This is based on accepted physics of classical mechanics, readiative transfer theory, thermodynamics, atomic physics and statistical mechanics and magnetohydrodynamics.

The biggest theoretical problem is getting rid of angular momentum to allow the collapse to proceed. This has proved a bugger. There are mechanisms to do it (space here doesn't permit) but I would be lying if I said it is a solved problem (though I think it is understood reasonably well.)

Of course gravity is there. A cloud of gas will begin to collapse under it's own gravity. Same thing is happening in a star. The Sun is in a hydrostatic balance between it's gravitational collapse and the thermal pressure from within (plus a little radiation pressure.)

The difficulty of modeling star formation is that the process is not in hydrostatic equilibrium but is a hydrodynamic phase. Thus the equations to be solved cannot ignore the inertial terms (2nd time derivatives) and instead the full Navier-Stokes equations of fluid dynamics need to be solved including magnetic terms. This is a non-linear system of equations so it's a bugger.

Look I know I jumped on you hard about your physics knowledge but there is a big difference between high school/undergraduate physics than graduate level and research experience.

You asking about where is the gravity tells me that your physics knowledge is not that advanced. Sorry.

Plus since you are in the USAF I think I shall hazard a guess that your physics education was engineering curricula based. My experience is that engineers are good at engineering but weak on physics.

Still available for refutation

Still for sale