Hi Stevan
You wrote:
"Here is a couple of paragraphs from a dear book of mine and I thought maybe some of you would like to comment."

We'd love to know the name and author of the book -- you and me both? :) Here, for better or worse, is how I approach a passage such as that. Do others approach it differently?

If stars evolve, we should see about as many star births as star deaths.
This implied "if...then" statement must be elaborated omore fully. The second part does not follow from the first part. If stars evolve, that does not self-evidently cause a condition where star births nearly equal star deaths. Since it is not elaborated in the subsequent sentences, that assertion seems
unsupported.


The deaths of stars are bright and sudden events called supernovas. Similarly, the birth of a star should be accompanied by the appearance of new star light when comparted with the many phtographic plates made decades earlier. Instruments should also be able to detect dust falling into the new star. Actually, the stars that some astronomers believe are very new are expelling matter. We have never seen a star born, but we have seen hundereds of stars die. There is not evidence that stars evolve.
These assertions are not sufficiently elaborated
here. A PhD. astronomer should be able to refute some of your points. As you indicate, the assembly of causal and sequential relationships from a snapshot, however large the sample, may contain hazards. Alternate views are welcome.

Stellar evolution is used to estimate the age of the stars. These age estimates are then used to establish a framework for stellar evolution. This is circular reasoning. Any comments - just curious?

Ideally, astronomy theorists are welcome to ffer reasonable counter-explanations to each step of the process whereby the theories of stellar evolution and stellar age were assembled.
Have you found astronomers unwilling to consider a rigorous body of alternate explanation?

Mike