National Geographics and PBS are very biased in their
presentations. Remember Carl Sagen (sp?). The astronomer at
the lab didn't think much of him yet both PBS (NOVA) and
NG slobbered over his every word.

Reply:
What, you mean they are biased toward science. Yep, I think they are.

I have partially watched that HC segment of star birth. It is
interesting
what you see reported in such programs compared to profession
astrological journals. Programs like this are highly dramatized and
have a habit of playing quite loose with the facts.

Reply: And nothing plays more loosely with the facts than 'astrological'
journals.

I will say it again, there has been no historical record of a star
ever being born. Of the professional astronomers that I have
personally known, one actually heading up a large observatory
in Az., they have been very cautious about this.

Reply: Cautious about what?

In conversations
they have taken the view that perhaps a dust formation has
moved and thus a star has now become visible to us, or, as
mentioned before, the stars light has only just reached us. I'm
not going to name names because I haven't been in contact
which the man since 2000, but he had this really great program
that he had written in conjunction with others where you could
type in a date and a location on earth and the program would
produce the stars position at that time. Yet he never held the
position that there was any record of any star ever being
observed forming into existence.

Most TV programs speak of scenarios, not actualities.
If A and B occur, then there is good likelihood that a
star will be born. But do they ever list the historical
record, let alone the most recent record, of actual star
births? I've never seen it.

This star birth thing is based upon the presupposition of
uniformitarianism, a most arbitrary supposition.

Reply: As far as I know an actual star forming has never been observed.
There are many reasons for this. The star is always born in a dust cloud and
is hidden from optical view. In addition the light from a new born star is
nothing more than a tiny, tiny point of light on any photographic plate and
is not that noticeable. We know new stars are formed, not from Loren's
assertion of uniformitarianism( I hardly see how that would apply in this
instance) but from the H-P diagram and the fact that the universe is
expanding, thus requiring new stars to be formed. Without the birth of new
stars we wouldn't be here to discuss this. The thermonuclear ignition of new
stars are accompanied by a blast of particles and radiation from the star
that often sweeps the dust away and allow us to optically see the star.

Of course the Spitzer telescope is capable of seeing through clouds of dust
so if they haven't recorded an actual star birth, it won't be long.

I also think there are many things you haven't seen and what you think you
saw is probably incorrect.