HOME EVOLUTION CRUNCHER TOC ENCYCLOPEDIA TOC

   SEARCH NEW MATERIAL NATURE  BOOKSTORE -- LINKS





Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 1 

Chapter 2 ORIGIN OF THE STARS    

   

BASIC ARRANGEMENT OF THIS CHAPTER

Introduction

Stellar evolution theory

1 - Description of the theory 

2 - Sixteen basic reasons why the theory is incorrect 

3 - Eighteen additional problems with the theory

Concluding points 

Appendices 

1 - Stellar evolution

2 - More evidence against the theory 

3 - Do black holes exist? 

4 - More scientific statements about stellar evolution 

Study and review questions 

THE ORIGIN OF THE STARS

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. "—

*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June, 1966, p. 19. (Grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley, Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential writers and philosophers of the 20th century.]

"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, ‘All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism. "—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.

Go out on a clear night and look up at the hundreds of stars in the sky. Out beyond them lie millions upon millions of additional stars. Our sun is 860,000 miles across, which is 100 times as wide as our planet. A million earths could fit inside our sun. But there are billions more suns out there! So many stars, in fact, that there are over 100 billion just in the one galactic system our planet is in.

Out beyond our island universe there are still more island universes—100 billion of them, each containing, more or less, 100 billion stars!

Everywhere we turn, we find suns and systems all circling in perfectly stable orbits. Such intricate patterns, so carefully designed, circling in massive whorls, clusters, and disk-shaped collections; yet how did all those stars originate? What put them together in such orderly designs?

Evolutionary theory says that the answer is "stellar evolution." But that is not correct, as we shall learn in this chapter.

Evolutionists claim that, after an initial "Big Bang," which brought matter into existence out of nothing, stars later resulted from "the solidifying of gas," whatever that is supposed to mean. Later still, you and I were the result.

"It may come as a shock to learn that nearly all the atoms in your body and in the earth were once part of a star that exploded. "— *K.F. Weaver, "The Incredible Universe, " in National Geographic, 145 (1974), p. 609.

Although this may sound convincing to some, it does not square with scientific facts.

STELLAR EVOLUTION—The theory goes something like this:

In violation of the laws of physics, gas pushed itself together and formed a "young star. " Fueled by hydrogen explosions, gradually the star burned out and became a red giant. in doing so, it had expanded hundreds of times in size and become somewhat cooler.

Next it either exploded as a supernova, or it slowly collapsed into a small, hot white dwarf star. The entire cycle is said to require millions of years.

The public is told that all the facts of science indicate that the incredibly precisioned and complex structures of orbiting moons; planets, stars, and galaxies,—all came from gas and dust which pushed itself together.

"Throughout the Milky Way, and in space between the galaxies, are huge clouds of gases and dust. New stars are formed when portions of the gases and dust join together and begin to contract under the force of gravity. "— "*Sun," World Book Encyclopedia (1972 ed.), Vol. 18, p. 784a.

1 - SIXTEEN FATAL FLAWS

SIXTEEN FLAWS IN THE THEORY—"Stellar evolution" is a totally unworkable theory for a number of reasons. Here are several of them:

(1) Where did the theorized gasses come from? The Big Bang does not provide an adequate explanation for their origin. 

(2) How could they, by chance, develop into all their present carefully-designed rotational and revolutionary patterns?

(3) The birth of a star has never been observed. It is not happening today. Yet, according to stellar evolution, it should be happening all the time.

(4) Considering that there are billions times billions of stars in space, and billions times billions of explosions are required to make them all,—we should see exploding stars ("supernovas," they are called) forming all the time. The theory of stellar evolution requires it. But only rarely does a super-nova occur, and its explosion only releases about 10 percent of its matter. In the previous chapter, we learned that in the past 2,000 years only 14 have occurred in our own galaxy, and their rarity in other galaxies is the same. 

There are few events in outer space as obvious as the explosion of a star. They become very bright for a time, and should be quite easy to see, especially now that we have telescopes which can scan distant places in the universe. Yet they are hardly ever seen. Few astronomers have ever seen such an event..

In relation to the frequency of stellar explosions that had to occur in order to satisfy the requirements of the Big Bang theory, and with 100 billion stars just in our own galaxy, at least 500,000 stars should explode yearly in our own galactic system. And this would be a low estimate. Yet we observe only one a century.

(5) There is no physical mechanism in the near-vacuum of outer space to compress gas into a ball. A cloud of hydrogen gas must be compressed to a small enough size so that gravity can dominate it. For example, our own sun is a stable sphere of gas. But what force could initially press it into a ball? Scientists have no answer. Experiments indicate that it would be next to impossible for floating gas molecules out in space to clump together. There is nothing to compress it. How could the stars evolve from floating gasses? Gravity is not a sufficient mechanism to do this. In outer space, the gas is millions of times more expansive than the critical compressed size needed for gravity to hold it as a stable star. Because of this, outward gas pressures cause these clouds to keep spreading outward! They do not pull together, but instead gradually move outward. In spite of all the starry theories of the evolutionists, the fact remains that gas in outer space always has a density so rarified that it is far less than the emptiest atmospheric vacuum bottle in any laboratory in the world! How could such rarified hydrogen "push itself" into planets and stars?. 

"Few cosmologists [theorists about the origin of matter and the universe] today would dispute the view that our expanding universe began with a bang—a big hot bang—about 18 billion years ago. Paradoxically, no cosmologist could now tell you how the Big Bang ultimately gave rise to galaxies, stars, and other cosmic lumps.

"As one sky scientist, IBM's Philip E. Seiden, put it, 'The Standard Big Bang model does not give rise to lumpiness. That model assumes the universe started out as a globally smooth, homogeneous expanding gas. If you apply the laws of physics to this model, you get a universe that is uniform, a cosmic vastness of evenly distributed atoms with no organization of any kind . .

"How then did the lumps [the galaxies, stars, planets, moons, and asteroids] get there? No one can say, at least not yet and perhaps not ever." —*Ben Patrusky, "Why is the Cosmos Lumpy?" in Science 81, June 1981, p. 96.

(6) It is said that an explosion of a super-nova would compress nearby gasses into stars. But all a super-nova would do is to blow everything outward from a common center! It would not compress the gasses into a condensed mass. A super-nova explosion would push, not squeeze.

(7) The great distance between stars is another problem. Most are at a distance of at least 10 light-years from each other. How could the explosion of one distant star compress another, or influence one another's origin in any way?

(8) There is not enough time in the evolutionary time table for stars to form.

"There has not been enough time since the beginning [when the Big Bang supposedly took place] for such an agglomeration [of stars] to gather together out of an originally homogeneous universe [of evenly-spread, thin gas]."—*Science News, 1979.

(9) Both physical laws and observation of stars indicate that there is a universal trend toward star degeneration, not star formation. And that would be in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which we will discuss in chapter 25, The Laws of Nature.

(10) There are various types of stars, and each one differs from all others in various ways. Throughout space we see variety in the stars and galaxies. If they had all formed in the same way, they should all be alike. But instead, we find many types of stars. In addition, each star has its own spectral fingerprint.

(11) There is also an extremely delicate and detailed order in the stars and galaxies. How could all the complicated order of the moons, planets, stars, and galaxies come from a confusion of explosions? One of the most astounding facts in all the universe is the complicated orbits within orbits that we find in solar systems and galaxies. We will discuss this in more detail in chapter 4, The Stars.

Everything should collide or fly apart, and yet all this myriad of spheres are maintained in their perfect balancings and ideal distances from one another.

It does seem that there is more to the fantastic order of the universe than merely an explosion! Even the gravity that holds the universe together cannot be explained. We are here viewing the handiwork of a super-intelligent Creator who is keeping everything together in perfect balance. Even gravity itself cannot properly explain these delicate balancings.

Picture page 52

(12) No one still has any idea what gravity is! Three centuries ago, Isaac Newton identified it, but no one still knows what it is. Although powerful in its effect on large bodies, gravity is actually the weakest force in the universe. No scientist can explain it. A similar type of puzzle is the nuclear (sub-atomic) orbits within the atoms. The tiny electrons whirl around the nucleus in the center of each atom. But what keeps them in orbit? Why do they not fall into the center? Why do they not fly outward? Why do they whirl around at all? The same question applies to moons, planets, stars, and galactic systems.

(Interestingly enough, in the case of the subatomic particles, they are so small that gravity is not the force that holds them together in their orbits. Instead, something far stronger keeps them together. It is called the "nuclear force," but no one can explain this second of the four natural forces either. Why do the outer particles orbit furiously around the central nucleus, thus balancing nuclear force by centrifugal force? No one can explain that either.)

(13) Stellar evolution is keyed to the theory that stars are fueled by (shine because of) hydrogen explosions (nuclear fusion). It is thought that hydrogen is converted to helium, releasing some of the energy in the nucleus. The amount of mass/energy that it would have to lose daily amounts to four million tons a second.

But the problem here is that, along with heat and light, the fusion process should produce a multitude of sub-atomic particles called neutrinos. . . . . If the stars are fueled by hydrogen explosions, each square inch of earth's surface would be hit by a trillion neutrinos each second, day and night! Scientists have neutrino detectors in place and regularly measure neutrinos coming in from space. But relatively few arrive. This fact alone disproves the hydrogen theory of solar energy. (See Paul Steidl, "Solar Neutrinos and a Young Sun" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1980, pp. 60-64.)

It was not until the 1930s that the nuclear fission theory of starlight was developed by * Hans Bethe and *Carl von Weizsacker. Yet it remains only a theory, for contrary evidence indicates solar collapse as the true cause of solar energy.

(14) The "missing neutrinos" problem is a serious one. *Corliss considers it "one of the most significant anomalies in astronomy." (*W.R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1987), p. 40.) *Bahcall comments on the seriousness of the problem:

"At least one part of the theory of stellar interiors is probably wrong, although there is yet no observational evidence that the basic ideas of stellar evolution and nuclear fusion in stars are incorrect. We of course do not know which part of the theory is wrong, but it seems likely that the solution of the solar neutrino problem may affect other applications of the theory of stellar interiors."—*John N. Bahcall, "Some Unsolved Problems in Astrophysics," Astronomical Journal, 76:283 (1971).

It is hoped that some type of "barrier" will yet be found which is shielding the earth so that solar neutrinos—which ought to be there since the hydrogen fusion theory "has to be correct"—will yet be discovered. But *Larson takes a dim view of the situation.

"The mere fact that the hydrogen conversion process can be seriously threatened by a marginal experiment of this kind emphasizes the precarious status of a hypothesis that rests almost entirely on the current absence of any superior alternative. "—*Dewey B. Larson, Universe in Motion (1984), p. 11.

Scientists have searched for incoming solar neutrinos since the mid-1960s, yet hardly any arrive to be measured. Yet, they dare not accept the truth of the situation—for that would mean an alternative which would shatter major evolutionary theories.

(15) What then causes the stars to shine? The main alternative explanation to fusion is called "solar collapse. . . . . " The scientific basis for this was worked out a century ago by two brilliant scientists: Hermann von Helmholtz (18211894) and Lord Kelvin (1824-1907). If each star is slowly contracting, great amounts of energy would be released all the time. But there is a reason why scientists dare not accept solar collapse as the cause of sun and star shine: It would mean the universe is much younger than theorized. It would also mean that the earth is much younger! The long-age framework of modern evolutionary theory requires hydrogen explosions as the fuel, instead of solar collapse. Nuclear fusion will give billions of years for a star's life, solar collapse only a few million years.

A change in the radius of our sun of about 80 feet a year is all that would be necessary to produce our sun's actual energy release. This is a radius shrinkage of only .009 feet per hour (.27 cm). It is not easy to take the necessary measurements that would confirm or deny this shrinkage, but some scientists believe that they have already succeeded in producing evidence that an actual shrinkage of our sun is steadily occurring.

One major study was done by *John A. Eddy (of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and High Altitude Observatory in Boulder, Colorado) and *Aram A. Boornazian (a Boston mathematician):

"Astronomers were startled, and laymen amazed, when in 1979 Jack Eddy, of the High Altitude Observatory in Boulder, Colorado, claimed that the sun was shrinking at such a rate that, if the decline did not reverse, our local star would disappear within a hundred million years."—*John Gribbiri, "The Curious Case of the Shrinking Sun," in New Scientist,, March 3, 1983,

Evidence has shown that: ". . the sun has been contracting about 0.1 % per century. . corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet per hour [15.24 dm]."—*Gloria B. Lubkin, in Physics Today, vol. 32, no. 17, 1979.

Analyzing measurements of solar transits made at the Royal Greenwich Observatory since 1836 and the U.S. Naval Observatory since 1846 (for the original purpose of determining exactly when is high noon), they calculated that the sun is apparently shrinking at the rate of 5 ft/hr in diameter (0.1 percent per century, 2 arc-sec/century). They also analyzed observations of solar eclipses for the past four centuries.

*Ronald Gilliland did a separate study into this, which confirmed Eddy and Boornazian's report:

"[Gilliland's] first conclusion, from a battery of statistical tests, was that the over-all decline in solar diameter of about 0.1 seconds of arc per century since the early 1700s is real. "—*Op. cit., p. 594,

This would indicate that our sun's output of radiant energy is generated by this shrinkage, and not by hydrogen explosions (thermonuclear fusion) deep within it. In addition, if hydrogen was the solar fuel, then we should be receiving a very large quantity of neutrinos, but careful measurements reveal that they are arriving much more sparsely.

Without hydrogen explosions (nuclear fusion) as the cause of solar energy and light, the entire theory of the Big Bang is undercut.

A separate evidence comes from the largest planet in our solar system. It is of interest that the giant planet Jupiter gives off more heat than it receives from the sun! A surface contraction of just one centimeter per year would account for the measured heat flow from Jupiter. A similar situation exists for the large planet Saturn.

"Jupiter. . radiates twice as much energy as it absorbs from the sun through a contraction and cooling process."—"Star Date radio broadcast, November 8, 1990.

"Saturn emits 50 percent more heat than it absorbs from the sun."—*Science Frontiers, No. 73, January-February, 1991.

Weighing the two possibilities, evolutionists have accepted nuclear fusion as the cause of sunshine. The reason given is simple enough: It is the only possibility which fits in with evolutionary theory.

"Gravitational contraction [solar collapse] can sustain the Sun at its present luminosity for only 15 million years; some other energy source must be sought if we are to account for billions of years of sunshine." —*Michael Zeilik and Elske V .P. Smith, Introductory Astronomy and Physics (1987), p. 274.

"Geological evidence, however, indicates that the terrestrial crust [of earth] has an age of several billion years, and it is surely to be expected that the Sun is at least as old as the Earth . . We must conclude that, although gravitational collapse may play an important role during short phases of stellar evolution, another source must be responsible for most of the energy output of a star. "—*Eva Novotny, Introduction to Stellar Atmospheres and Interiors (1973), p. 248.

Thus we see that the nuclear fusion theory of sunshine has a shaky foundation. In connection with this, it is of interest to note that spectrographic analysis of light from the sun, stars and galaxies does not match the spectrum from hydrogen explosions detonated by mankind. If the sun and stars were fueled by fusion, then their spectra should be the same as spectra of hydrogen bombs. But this is not the case; there are decided differences.

(16) Solar shock waves. An interesting effect that was not accepted by all solar scientists was discovered back in 1976 (see `,Nature 259:87-9, p. 87). These were 160-minute oscillations on the sun's surface. These oscillations tend to agree with solar collapse and negate the fusion theory of solar energy.

"As further evidence against fusion, and for contraction, Steidl mentions what is now famous in solar physics as the 160 minute oscillation. This was detected via Doppler shifts of the solar surface which were interpreted as radial pulsations.

"The long period implies conditions in the sun's interior which do not fit into modern solar theory. (Deep shock waves would efficiently transmit energy, setting up a lower temperature gradient.) The discoverers say bluntly: 'The interpretation of this phenomena seems to cause much theoretical difficulty.' "—Donald B DeYoung and David E. Rush, "Is the Sun an Age Indicator?" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1989, p. 51.

AGE OF THE UNIVERSE—A full chapter will later be devoted to the age of the earth (chapter 6), but there is also scientific evidence that the universe is youthful as well. An appendix section at the end of chapter 3 will provide you with some of that information.

2 - EIGHTEEN MORE PROBLEMS

EIGHTEEN MORE REASONS WHY STELLAR EVOLUTION CANNOT BE TRUE—The formation of the galaxies is a problem that cannot be answered by speculations that "everything made itself."

"These 'theories' amount to nothing more than the statement that protogalaxies have a cosmological origin, and their origin cannot be understood any better than can the original baryons and leptons in an evolving universe . . Probably the strongest argument against a big bang is that when we come to the universe in total and the large number of complex condensed objects in it [planets, moons, stars, galaxies, etc.], the theory is able to explain so little."—*G. Burbidge, "Was There Really a Big Bang?" in Nature 233 (1971), p. 40.

"It is rather embarrassing that no one has explained their origins . . Most astronomers and cosmologists freely admit that no satisfactory theory of galaxy formation has been formulated. In other words, a major feature of the universe is without explanation."—*J. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1987), p. 184.

"The big bang theory holds that the universe began with a single explosion. Yet as can be seen below, an explosion merely throws matter apart, while the big bang has mysteriously produced the opposite effect, with matter clumping together in the form of galaxies . .

"Instead of matter all the time becoming colder and more spread out, we often see it clustering together to produce the brilliant light of swirling galaxies and stars."— *Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe (1983), p. 184-185.

Let us consider eighteen additional reasons why "stellar evolution" is an error:

(1) Galaxies never exist alone. They are always found in pairs or in larger collections of galaxies. Yet cloud condensation would not favor formation of nearby pairs and groups.

(2) As a rule, the amount of matter within each galaxy is not enough to explain why its stars clumped together as they did. The space-to-mass ratio within the galaxy is too great to bind them together.

(3) Because of their immense velocities, as suggested by the current red-shift theory, the clusters of galaxies must be of recent origin, or they would long ago have torn apart their revolutionary patterns.

The starry whirlpool-shaped arms of galaxies are loose. Yet, revolving around the galactic center as they do, within one or two revolutions they should tighten up around that center. Each island universe cannot revolve as a single body tightly held together, because it is composed of billions of separate stars.

Add to this an additional problem: The inner stars revolve around the center decidedly faster than the outer stars! Because of this fact, only one or two rotations—of each galaxy and all its stars—should be enough to wind it all together tightly. But this has not happened. Thus the nebulae show a youthful age.

(4) This wrapping-up factor would also occur within a comparatively short time (if not in some way especially protected) because of the magnetic field within each island universe. This magnetic field runs through the gasses in each spiral arm, yet is not strong enough to provide adequate rigidity to each of those arms.

THREE TYPES Of ROTATION

SOLID BODY ROTATION-In a rotating solid disk, such as a phongraph record, the outer edge revolves faster than the inner portion. 

SOLAR SYSTEM ROTATION-In our Solar System, where the Sun holds most of the mass, each planet orbits more slowly the farther away it is from the sun. For example, Mercury, the closest planet, travels ten times faster than Pluto, which is a hundred times farther from the Sun. 

GALACTIC ROTATION-In a galaxy, mass is more widely distributed, and, because of this, the rates at which gas and stars rotate should increase with the distance from the center-until that point is reached at which most of the galaxy's mass is inside their orbit. Out beyond that point, gas and stars should slow down. But, instead, galactic rotation rates never slow down, the farther a star in the disk is from the cent. The outermost stars rotate about the common canter as fast as most of the stars not far out from the center. This is incredible and cannot be explained by physical laws.

 

(5) The very high revolution speeds of the outer half of stars within the disks of each of these "island universes" are astounding.

Let me explain: [1] On a rotating phonograph record, each next outer circle will travel a little faster. [2] In contrast, the planets, which travel around the sun are different, for the inner planets go much faster than the outer ones. [3] But far more unusual is the revolution of stars in the island universes. As the stars rotate about the giant cluster of stars at the center of their galaxy, the outer two-thirds of the stars all travel together—at the same speed! This means that the outermost ones must revolve at an extremely fast speed to keep up with the ones farther inside! Moving at such a high speed, they ought to fly outward and leave the galaxy, but this does not occur. This fact is a total mystery to scientists.

It was while taking spectrographic studies of the galaxies, that *Vera Rubin made the above discovery. Spectrograms of galaxies should show rotation velocities that rise rapidly from the center and then fall off toward the outer part of the disk. For that would indicate that the mass was distributed in proportion to the matter, with the heaviest concentration near the center. Instead, a totally different pattern emerged from the research. Near the center of each galaxy, velocities rose as expected with increased distance, but instead of falling off farther out, they either leveled off or kept rising all the way to the galaxy's edge!

(6) The usual shape of the galaxies is that of a saucer with a central sphere. This shape defies explanation by the laws of physics. These galaxies are so perfectly held together that evolutionary scientists cannot explain the situation. According to physical laws, galaxies are not supposed to act that way! They should not have this highly-coordinated, inter-orbiting structure arrangement. And they should not remain in it. but should fly apart in every direction. Because scientists cannot figure this out, they have theorized that there must be an immense "black halo"—an invisible sphere of "antimatter" around them to hold them in place! Now, where is that supposed to have come from? Evolutionary theory requires the strangest ideas to hold it together.

(That again recalls to mind the remarkable parallel to the galaxies to be found in the complicated sub-atomic orbits of whizzing nuclear particles within the elements. Why do they not fly apart also? Invisible "antimatter shield theories" need to be invented for the atoms also.)

(7) Each galaxy, with all its stars, travels together in a certain direction; frequently (if the current red-shift theory be true) at a high speed. These velocities should gravitationally unbind the stars within the galaxies, so that they should fly apart as they go, but this does not happen.

All the evidence indicates that the galaxies were created in the patterns in which we now see them, and that they are guided and held together by a power unexplainable by natural forces as we know them.

(8) Some groups of galaxies (sometimes two and sometimes several) are joined by bridges of luminous matter connecting them. This is another inexplicable problem to the evolutionary theorists.

(9) * Harwit's research disproves the possibility that hydrogen gas in outer space can clump together.

This is a major breakthrough in disproving the Big Bang, steady-state, oscillating universe, and stellar evolution theories! Without such clumping, the formation of stars from gas clouds becomes impossible. This significant research conclusion shatters stellar evolutionary theories, for they all require that hydrogen form itself into stars.

Harwit did a research study into how long it would take for matter in outer space to clump together into even a single "grain." The problem here is (1) the density of matter in interstellar space is so low, and (2) there is nothing to attract the particles of matter in outer space to stick to one another.

Gas molecules are widely separated in outer space, even when they are within gas clouds. Harwit's research dealt with the mathematical likelihood that hydrogen atoms could stick together and form tiny grains of several atoms, by the random sticking of interstellar atoms and molecules to a single nucleus as they passed by at a variable speed. Using the most favorable conditions and the maximum possible sticking ability for grains, Harwit determined that the amount of time needed for gas or other particles to clump together into a size of just a hundred-thousandth of a centimeter in radius—would take about three billion years! Using more likely rates, 20 billion years would be required—to produce ONE tiny grain of matter stuck together in outer space. (See *M. Harwit, Astrophysical Concepts [1973], p. 394.)

Other scientists agree:

"There is no reasonable astronomical scenario in which mineral grains can condense.." —*Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, "Where Microbes Boldly Went," in New Scientist (1981), pp. 412-413.

(10) Both red giants (with 20 times our sun's mass) and dwarfs (very small stars, but with the same mass as our sun), are to be found in each galaxy. Because of the mass-luminosity law (which says that the most massive stars burn themselves out the fastest), the very bright and hot stars (O and B) must be of recent origin. Yet they are all found together in the galaxies, and there is no evidence for the formation of new stars now. This means that each galaxy must be as young as its youngest stars!

(11) The chemical composition of stars throughout the universe should vary if some were "young," others "middle-aged," and still others "extremely old." Yet spectral studies reveal that they are all chemically similar, even for stars of widely different "ages." At one extreme are the Bo stars (such as Tau Scorpio which are said to be "very young," and at the other are the red giants (such as Betelgeuse) and planetary nebulae which are supposed to be "among the oldest" formations in the universe. But we find no chemical evidence for stellar evolution. During the lifetime of a star it is supposed to be generating energy out of nuclear explosions of certain of its elements. Yet over a period of time this should change the ratio of elements within it. Yet this does not occur. (Recall that evolutionary theory teaches that it is stellar explosions which changed hydrogen and helium into all the other elements.)

"In 1875, J.C. Maxwell wrote:

" 'In the heavens we discover by their light . . stars so distant that no material thing can ever have passed from one to another; and yet this light . . tells us also that each of them is built up of molecules of the same kinds that we find on earth . . No theory of evolution can be found to account for these similarities of the molecules . . On the other hand, the exact equality of each molecule to all others of the same kind gives it . . the essential character of a manufactured article and precludes the idea of its being eternal and self-existent.'

"So far as we know, the result is still the same as Maxwell inferred; all electrons are everywhere the same, all protons are the same, and so on. We should expect a sufficiently sophisticated theory to tell us why this is so."—*WH. McCrea, "Cosmology after Half a Century, " in Science, June 2, 1968, p. 1298.

(12) No effective mechanism has been shown whereby stars could form from outflowing hydrogen gas. A quantity of gas moving in the same direction is too stable to do anything but keep moving onward.

"One of the chief problems in cosmology is to explain why, in an expanding universe, matter becomes aggregated into galaxies . . A spherical region that is part of an expanding gas cloud will become unstable when the expansion velocity at its surface is greater than the velocity of sound. When the region becomes unstable, is density increases as compared to the mean density. But the rate of this increase is extremely stow. An expanding universe in fact is not dramatically unstable; and this has led to an impasse in the study of galaxy formation."—*E. Harrison, "Universe, Origin and Evolution of, " In Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 18, pp. 1007-1008 (14th ed., 1974).

In the following quotation, *Leslie assumes the current red-shift and expanding universe theories—and shows that even if they be true, the formation of stars would still be impossible.

"It seems, for instance, that altering the rate of expansion at the Big Bang very marginally would have made our universe fall to bits too fast or undergo recollapse too quickly for life to stand a chance of evolving. Persuading expanding gases to form themselves into galaxies of stars and planets requires an adjustment of gravitational and explosive forces quite as delicate as that between the two halves of a pencil in balance on a razor's edge.

". . Even as matters stand, it is hard to see how galaxies could have famed in a universe which is flying apart so fast—and an early speed increase by one thousandth would quickly have led to a thousandfold increase. Again, very slight reductions in the smoothness with which matter is distributed . . would apparently have multiplied the primeval heat billions of times with disastrous effects."—*J. Leslie, "Cosmology, Probability, and the Need to Explain Life, " in N. Rescher, (ed.), Scientific Explanation and Understanding (1983), pp. 53-54.

(13) Careful analysis has been made of the clouds of dust and gas lying between the stars in our own galaxy. There is not enough matter in those clouds to produce stars!

"Basically there does not appear to be enough matter in any of the hydrogen clouds in the Milky Way that would allow them to contract [into stars] and be stable. Apparently our attempt to explain the first stages in star evolution has failed."—*Garrit Verschuur, Starscapes (1973), p. 102.

(14) In Scientific American (233 [1975], p. 35), *Cameron explains that "ordinarily the internal pressure [for gas to expand outward in space] is much stronger than the gravitation [to contract it inward]." The problem here is that gas clouds expand; they do not contract! Yet if they do not contract, they cannot form stars!

(15) It has been theorized that a star exploded and caused nearby gas to contract into another star. There are three problems here: [1] If one star exploded in order to form another star, where did that first star come from? [2] If it takes the loss of a star to make a star, how did the universe become filled with trillions upon trillions of stars? [3] If a star exploded, the outward explosion would compress nothing. It would just shoot outward, and any gas it encountered would simply be pushed along with it.

In the next quotation, * Hoyle is speaking about the fact that an initial Big Bang could not produce stars. But his reasoning would also apply to the impossibility of an exploding star producing another star:

"This persistent weakness has haunted the big bang theory ever since the 1930s. It can probably be understood most easily by thinking of what happens when a bomb explodes. After detonation, fragments are thrown into the air, moving with essentially uniform motion. As is well-known in physics, uniform motion is inert, capable in itself of doing nothing. It is only when the fragments of a bomb strike a target—a building for example—that anything happens. . But in a big bang there are no targets at all, because the whole universe takes part in the explosion. There is nothing for the expanded material to hit against, and after sufficient expansion, the whole affair should go dead."—*Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe (1983), pp. 183-185.

"Even though outward speeds are maintained in a free explosion, internal motions are not. Internal motions die away adiabatically, and the expanding system becomes inert, which is exactly why the big bang cosmologies lead to a universe that is dead and done with almost from its beginning."—*Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang in Astronomy," in New Scientist, 92 (1981), pp. 521, 523.

(16) It is of interest that more than one-half of all the stars that we can individually examine through our telescopes are binary or multiple star systems!

"Over half of the stars in our part of the universe are binary or multiple star systems. By studying the motion of binary stars, much can be learned about the stars considered individually." —Jon K West, "A Pre-main-sequence Stellar Model Applied to Close Binary Star Systems" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1981, p. 15.

In each of these binary or multiple systems, two, three, or four stars are circling around one another. How could this possibly be if they originated by random accident from gas and explosions? Stellar orbits are carefully balanced, and only a little deviation in distance from one another (closer or farther away), or in speed (slower or faster),—and they would crash together or fly apart. The existence of binary and multiple systems is a powerful evidence of Creation. 

(17) Stellar evolution is non-observable science. It is really fiction and myth. Someone may reply that creation science is also nonobservable science, but not so. On the one hand, evolutionary concepts—including the cosmologies (theories of the origin of the universe and the stars)—deal with events that are supposed to have occurred in the past. It is admitted by many evolutionists that no evidence exists that evolution has ever occurred anywhere in the universe. Stars are not now evolving in outer space; plant and animal life is not evolving anywhere in our world. All evolutionary theory is based on speculations about the past.

In great contrast, while observable facts about the past and the present disprove evolutionary theories, creation science is based on scientific facts observable all about us right now—from the structure and orbital motions of stars' and systems, down to the smallest living creature here on earth. Everything proclaims that it was made by a Creator.

(18) The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics are powerful, so much so that some of the greatest scientists who have ever lived declare they will never be overthrown. Both laws solidly disprove evolutionary theory in all of its aspects—including stellar evolution. These laws are so important, that we will later devote most of an entire chapter (chapter 25, Laws of Nature) to them. But here is a brief overview of this important subject:

The First Law of Thermodynamics maintains that the universe and our world began in perfect completeness and quality. The Second Law of Thermodynamics reveals that it is decaying.

The Second Law (law of entropy) says that the universe had to be perfect when it started, otherwise it would be totally run down today. The First Law (law of conservation of mass/energy) says that it could not have started itself. 

The First Law forbids the self-origin of matter or life; the Second Law repudiates the possibility that either matter or life could evolve into greater complexity. 

For a few moments, we will here consider ramifications of these laws, as they relate to the origin and evolution of matter and stars:

*G. Van Wylen, in his book, Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, says that the Second Law requires that the universe was originally created, and has not been here forever. Stansfield agrees:

"The Second Law therefore implies that as energy is being transformed throughout the universe, entropy is increasing. These Laws [the First and Second Laws] argue strongly for a created universe."—* W. Stansfield, The Science of Evolution (1977), p. 57.

This "creation" could not be defined as a bringing of matter into existence by a "Big Bang," or some similar means, for to do so would violate the First Law! Only a creation done by God Himself could accomplish the task.

"The conservation of energy—one of the most cherished principles of physics—is violated in the big-bang model. Since the left-handed side of Einstein's equations has zero-divergence, it follows that the source on the right-hand side must have zero divergence. On the other hand, the energy density in the big bang model is positive definite. Thus it is impossible for matter to come into existence without violating energy conservation."—*J. Narlikar and *N. Padmanabhan, "Creation-held Cosmology: A Possible Solution to Singularity, Horizon, and Flatness Problems, " in Physical Review D, 32 (1985), p. 1928.

Even *Albert Einstein himself upheld the immutability of these laws, although evolutionary theory consistently teaches the opposite

For additional information, see the quotation supplements, "1 - Stellar Evolution" and "2 - More Evidence Against Stellar Evolution" at the end of this chapter.

THOSE HORRIBLE BLACK HOLES—The so-called "black holes" may not appear to be a factor in stellar evolution (the making of stars), but some variant theories transform them into still more mythical "white holes"—to produce new universes! What are these terrible objects which devour matter and whole stars?

For additional information, see the quotation supplement, "3 - What About Black Holes?" in the appendix for this chapter.

THE SEARCH CONTINUES—And so the search continues by evolutionists for man-made explanations for the awesome structural wonder and intricate orbits of the stars; solutions are sought that can provide answers based on randomness, accidents, and explosions.

Evolutionary scientists know that the stars are there, and want them to have made themselves. So a theory is invented, in the hope somewhat of wish-fulfillment. But they admit to one another that they do not have the slightest idea how it could have happened! In the following quotation, Brandt discusses the problem:

"Contemporary opinion on star formation holds that objects called protostars [newly-born stars] are formed as condensation from interstellar gas. This condensation process is very difficult theoretically, and no essential theoretical understanding can be claimed; in fact some theoretical evidence argues strongly against the possibility of star formation. However, we know that stars exist, and we must do our best to account for them."—*J.C. Brandt, The Sun and Stars (1966).

"A scientist can discover a new star but he cannot make one. He would have to ask an engineer to do it for him."—*Gorden L. Glegg, quoted in "Isaac Asimov's Book of Science and Nature Quotations (1988), p. 79.

If, in spite of very obvious evidence to the contrary, men spent their time trying to prove that Beethoven did not write his nine symphonies, we would soon recognize that deeper motives for these discrediting attacks were involved. Men insult the Creator by their efforts to deny what He has done. Instead of continuing on with their self-appointed task, they should consider the seriousness of their actions.

Throughout all nature we find a continuing hierarchy of complexity. The smallest are the subquarks, to be followed by quarks. After these come protons, neutrons, and electrons. Next up in size is atoms, then molecules, and then compounds. Then come pebbles, rocks, mountains, asteroids, and planets. Still larger are stars, solar systems, and star clusters. Next come galaxies, galaxy clusters, and finally super-clusters.

From the smallest particle of an atom to the largest structure in the universe, all declare the glory of their Creator. The evidence is clear: nothing made itself. God made everything.

CONCLUSION—Truly great men are the ones willing to gratefully acknowledge the existence of their Creator.

"For myself, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence—an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered— 'In the beginning God.' "—Arthur Compton, Chicago Daily News (1936).

Isaac Newton is generally considered to be the greatest scientist of the past 500 years: "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."—Isaac Newton, Principia (1687).


   

You have just completed 

-Origin of the Stars

APPENDIX -2