It's Okay to Question New Scientific Dogma

Scientists admit they don't even know how our moon was formed. Each theory has problems and lacks evidence.

How much more difficult must it be then to conclude how stars thousands of light years away were formed?

Is it any surprise then that scientists, relying on observations made using a newly made, stronger telescope, are now confronted with having to rethink previously-held beliefs about how stars were formed?

These latest observations, made with this new and stronger telescope and deemed to be so much more reliable than any previous observations, are allegedly of light that is still being reflected around an area of space some 4,000 light years away and some hundreds of years after the event causing the initial burst of light occurred and the re-reflected light is now some 20 billion times fainter than when the alleged event occurred.

Imagine how difficult that must be. Imagine how much scientists must have to rely on previous assumptions in order to hypothesize about what they are observing. And yet this is considered groundbreaking improvement in scintists' ability to observe; it's considered so much of an improvement that they're willing to reconsider long-established beliefs because of it.

So how much more difficult must it have been for scientists to deduce their earlier conclusions (about the way stars were formed and hence their age)? Way more difficult than making conclusions about how our own moon, which we can see with the naked eye, was formed - which scientists admit not being able to do yet. And yet scientists' previously-held assertions about how stars were formed and hence their age were accepted almost without question by many. Text books were filled with their dogma, which presented it like foregone conclusions.

It's okay to refrain from giving immediate assent to difficult-to-substantiate scientific assertions, until time has proven them with practical developments which attest to their correctness.