Encyclopedia Vol. 1
Chapter 2 Appendix Part 1
THE ORIGIN OF THE STARS
Here are some statements by scientists
in regard to the possibility that stars could form by chance out of gas:
*Urey is a dedicated evolutionist, yet
he tells us that no one can really know what happened back then since it
was so long before our time. *Zimmerman adds that the theoreticians are
just playing games:
"Harold C. Urey once commented
concerning such [cosmological theory] presumptions:
" 'None of us was there at the
time, and any suggestion I may make can hardly be considered as
certainly true. The most that can be done is to outline a possible
course of events which does not contradict physical laws and observed
"In conclusion perhaps the reader
may agree with Paul A. Zirnmerman as he comments on Dr. Urey's
"'This shows clearly what
cosmogonical thinking is. It is good, clean fun for an astronomer, a
mathematician, a chemist, a physicist. It is an exercise in working
out a logical scheme of proposed events which lead to the formation of
the earth and the solar system as we find them now. It is a game, the
rules of which are to observe the physical and chemical laws. But even
if one wins the game by devising a perfect system that accounts for
every detail of the properties of the heavenly bodies, he still will
not have proven things did, in fact, take place as he deduced they
"There is one theory, of course,
that does fit all the known facts of physics, chemistry and astronomy,
without exception. Furthermore it is the simplest and most direct
system of cosmogony that could be devised. For this reason alone it
should be considered the most probably correct theory. In addition, it
is a theory which follows most naturally from the implications of the
two universal laws of thermodynamics.
"This is the theory of special
creation. By this theory, the universe in all its amazing size,
variety and complexity came into existence at some time in the past
(possibly quite recently) completely and perfectly functioning
throughout, during a period of direct creation by its omnipotent and
eternal Creator."— *Harold C. Urey and Paul A. Zimmerman,
quoted in H. M. Morris, W. W. Boardman and R. F. Koontz, Science and
Creation (1971), pp. 92-93.
Morris, Boardman, and Koontz comment on
the stability of the universe that we see around us as we gaze upon
stars which first sent their starlight to us long ages ago:
"There is no observational reason
whatever to say a gaseous nebula is 'young' and a pulsating star is
'dying.' As long as men have observed gaseous nebulae and pulsating
stars, they have appeared the same. Except for the shift due to the
processional wobble of the earth's axis, the appearance of occasional
exploding stars (novas or supernovas), and the ephemeral phenomena of
comets and meteorites, the starry heavens look the same today as they
did when men first looked at them. The basis for stellar evolution is
the assumption that it must have happened. Once again the essential
stability of the completed creation, which is the first component of
the creationist model of origins, is consistent with all astronomic
measurements since man first began making such
measurements."—H. M. Morris, W, W. Boardman, and R. F. Koontz,
Science and Creation (1971), p. 23.
*Sir James Jeans was a leading British
astronomer early in this century. As a result of years of astronomical
research, this is his conclusion:
"Everything points with
overwhelming force to a definite event or events of creation at some
time or times not infinitely remote. "—*James Jeans, Eos or The
Wider Aspects of Cosmogony, p. 35.
*William Kaufman, a noted astronomer of
our time, recognizes that the fantastic orderly design of the Universe
cries out for recognition of an underlying fact:
"Like most scientists, Einstein
included, I have an almost religious belief in a basic underlying
order—a belief that natural forces are just manifestations of some
deeper thing."— *William Kaufmann, "Luminous
Reputations" in Science Digest, Vol. 89, No. 1 (1981), p. 8.
*Charles Young says it succinctly:
"An undevout astronomer is mad.
"—*Charles A. Young, quoted in *Isaac Asimov's Book of Science
and Nature Quotations,, p. 29.
THE TEACHING STARS
"When I, sitting, heard the
learned astronomer, Where he lectured with such applause in the
lecture room. How soon, unaccountable, I became tired and sick; Till
rising and gliding out, I wander'd off by myself, In the mystical
moist night-air, and from time to time, Look'd up in perfect silence
at the stars. —Walt Whitman (1819-1892).
"When I consider Thy heavens, the
work of Thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which Thou hast
ordained; What is man, that Thou art mindful of him, And the son of man that Thou visitest
"Countless suns are ever circling- Through the boundless realms of space, And the God whose hand has made them -Keeps each orb in its true place. All
revolve in perfect order -Harmony complete we see, Yet the God
whose will they follow -Is the God who thinks of me." —Unknown.
- 2 -
AGAINST STELLAR EVOLUTION
There are surprising facts about stars,
binary star systems, globular clusters, and galaxies which point away
from evolution and toward creation. Here are some of them.
1 - STARS
THE EXISTENCE OF STARS—How can it be
that stars exist at all? There is no way that floating gas or dust in
outer space could form itself into such an object.
The very thought of it is dumbfounding.
"As the big bang bandwagon has
gained momentum, an increasing number of investigations have been
carried out in which attempts are made to explain the condensation of
dense objects from an initial cloud of matter and radiation which is
expanding. It has been known for many years that this is very
difficult to understand, and the investigations have now reached the
point where it is generally accepted that the existence of dense
objects [such as planets and stars] cannot be understood unless very
large density fluctuations in a highly turbulent medium, or otherwise,
are invoked in the first place. There is again no physical
understanding of the situation; it is a condition which is put in, in
a hypothetical state, to explain a major property of the
universe."—*G. Burbidge, "Was There Really a Big
Bang?" Nature, 233:36 (1971).
The experts have "no idea" how
smooth gas all over the universe could form itself into the "local
inhomogeneities," or the lumps we call stars.
We include the last sentence in the following quotation to show the
dogged hope these men have that somehow, someday evolutionists will
figure out how stars managed to form themselves..
"The greatest difficulty is that
we have no idea what induced the formation of the first bound objects
in an expanding Universe [those objects bound together by gravity,
such as planets or stars]. One suspects that the origin of these local
inhomogeneities in the structure of the Universe will be understood
only when we know why the Universe is so remarkably smooth and
homogenous on a large scale. A major effort is now going into the
possibility that this isotropy is the result of quantum effects back
in the period when the compton wavelength of an elementary particle
was comparable with the radius of the then visible
Universe."—*James Binney, "Oddballs and Galaxy
Formation," Nature, 255:275 (1975).
MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN
STARS—Scientists have discovered that stars never get closer than a
certain distance from each other. It appears to be a matter of
preplanned design, more than anything else. Because of this separating
distance, stars never collide nor approach closely to one another. This
is but another aspect of the immense order we find throughout the
"The nearest star system, Alpha
Centauri, is 4.3 light years distant. The average separation of the
stars in the vicinity of the sun is estimated to be somewhat less than
2 parsecs [38.4 trillion miles; 61.8 trillion km], or 6.5 light years.
Sirius, the nearest star larger than the sun, has its gravitational
limit [within which it could draw another star to it] at 5.3 light
years, and the sun, 8.7 light years away, is well outside this limit.
"It is evident that such a
distribution of a very large number of objects in space, where the
minimum separation is two-thirds of the average, requires some kind of
barrier on the low side; it cannot be the result of pure
chance."—*D.B. Larson, Universe of Motion (1984), p. 196.
Larson then goes on to explain that this
separating distance would tend to eliminate the possibility of stars
forming by evolutionary means.
"The isolation of the individual
star system is permanent. These systems will remain separated by the
same tremendous distances because each star, or star system, or
prestellar cloud continually pulls in the material within its
gravitational range, and this prevents the accumulation of enough
matter to form another star in this volume of space. The immense
region within the gravitational limit of each star is reserved for
that star alone."—*Ibid.
(book has picture from page 64)
One intriguing exception to this would
be binary and multiple star systems, in which two or more stars orbit
one another. They are far closer than the accepted minimum distance. Yet
this only adds to the mystery: How could they get so close in the first
place—without crashing into each other? The only way it could be done
would be for a gigantic Intelligence to set them in place in the
beginning, mutually orbiting one another immediately.
STELLAR SIZE BARRIER—Evolutionary
theory dictates that stars gradually change size with age. This concept
is referred to as the "Hertzsprung-Russell diagram." Gradually
a star is said to get bigger until it becomes a red giant, and then it
collapses into a very small star. That is how the theory
But it has recently been discovered that
a physical barrier exists between the red giants and the white dwarfs
they are supposed to evolve into.
During these changes, the star is supposed to shed mass, by throwing off
part of itself into outer space. But this "mass-shedding"
never really occurs, because whatever is thrown off is quickly
reabsorbed, for it did not travel beyond the stars' gigantic
Without such mass-shedding, the star
cannot make the change that the evolutionists require of it. The
proposed path from red giants to white dwarfs is blocked, and that
blocking eliminates "stellar evolution."
"When the issue is squarely faced,
it is apparent that there is no evidence of any significant loss of mass
from any star system, other than the stars that explode as supernovae.
There are, of course, many types of stars that eject mass, either
intermittently or on a nearly continuous basis, but they do not give
their ejecta anywhere near enough velocity to reach the gravitational
limit and escape from the gravitational control of the star of origin.
This ejected matter therefore eventually returns to the star from which
it originated."— *Dewey Larson, Universe of Motion (1984), p. 81.
2 - BINARY STAR SYSTEMS
MULTIPLE STAR SYSTEMS EVERYWHERE!—As
we have already learned, it would be next to Impossible for two stars
to draw close to one another without crashing together, destroying both.
The closer they came, the more their gigantic gravitational fields would
lock them into a destructive collision course. Try placing two magnets
close together: will they orbit around one another, or will they smash
Yet there are binary and multiple star
systems all through the universe! From
the best we can tell, two-thirds of all the stars in the sky are in
these small systems, continually revolving about one other! This most
impossible of stellar relationships exists in two out of three cases
where there are stars.
Evolutionary theory can in no way
account for this!
"In the immediate neighborhood of
the Sun (up to a distance of 20-30 parsecs [384-576 trillion miles;
618-927 trillion km]), where all methods can be applied to exhaust the
entire binary population, between one-half and two-thirds of all stars
appear to form double or multiple systems."—*Zdenek Kopal,
"Binary Stars," McGraw Hill Encyclopedia of Science and
Technology, 2:187 (1977).
"Any viable theory of star
formation must be able to account for this phenomenon. Multiple stars
near the sun are easily resolved visually or are detected by eclipses
and spectroscopic variations. The statistics prevailing in the sun's
neighborhood are extrapolated to the rest of the universe.
"Several theories have been
propounded for the formation of double and multiple star systems: (1)
The natural fusion [splitting apart] of contracting and spinning-up
stars; (2) The condensation [out of gas] of two or more stars in close
proximity; (3) The capture of one star by another. In (1) and (2), the
source of the necessary angular momentum [spinning action] is not
clear. In (2) and (3), the required events seem improbable, given the
large average distance between [single] stars."—*WR. Corliss,
Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1987), p. 17.
systems consist of two stars orbiting one another. They are too close
together to have gotten there by accident—for any casual approach
would have sent them crashing into one another. Could they have
originated by splitting apart during "an evolving out of gas"?
No, this could not happen either. First, gas and dust in outer space
cannot gravitationally draw itself together to form stars. Second, most
binaries are differential.
By "differential binaries," is
meant two stars circling one another,—when each one is different than
the other in its physical makeup! The spectrum of each one reveals
different physical properties.
Most binary and multiple star systems
are composed of different types of stars.
theory cannot explain this.
Here is an example of yet another
conundrum: two very small stars circling each other rapidly—and
doing so at an amazingly close distance from one another. Another
unexplainable anomaly for the evolutionists:
"Two midget stars, orbiting
around one another at a dizzying 450,000 m.p.h., have astronomers
scrambling to their radio telescopes and computers in an attempt to
answer some baffling questions. According to current theory, two
stars as close together as this pair should not exist.
"—*Scientists Baffled by Strange Double Star,"
Astronomy, 2:59, December 1974.
NO BINARIES IN CLUSTERS—Here
is another strange fact about the stars: Although two-thirds of the
stars are to be found in that most unexpected of
relationships—revolving about one another,—yet there are no
binary or multiple star systems Inside globular clusters! Why is this?
No one can explain it. Evolutionary theory surely cannot.
Globular clusters are massive bunches
of stars that have been placed together. Yet nowhere within them are
to be found multiple systems.
3 - GLOBULAR CLUSTERS
HOW CAN GLOBULAR CLUSTERS EVEN EXIST?—From
a distance, a globular cluster is shaped like a gigantic ball, yet
each one contains from 20,000 to 1 million stars! Each entire cluster
is about 5-25 parsecs [96-480 trillion miles; 154772 trillion km] in
diameter. [A "parsec" is 19.2 trillion miles (30.9 trillion
km) or 3.26 light years.] In our Milky Way Galaxy alone, it is
estimated that there are 200 of these giant clusters! Other galaxies
have comparable numbers of them.
How could globular clusters possibly
form, according to evolutionary standards? First, gas cannot form
itself into stars; second, stars would not by chance enter into
clusters without crashing together, destroying them all.
NUMBER OF CLUSTERED STARS—Not
only are globular clusters extremely stable—in spite of the fact
that, along with binaries, they ought to be the most unstable,
self-destructing thing in the universe,—but they also have a
definite minimum size.
These clusters never contain less than
several tens of thousands of stars. (Loose, open groups are not
included here.) Because of this minimum size limit, there are no star
systems between multiple systems of (two to five or so) stars, and
globular clusters with at least several ten thousand stars.
A gap of about three orders of magnitude exists between these two
amounts. We see here a stability factor which we do not exactly
understand, yet nonetheless, it is there. Throughout the universe,
everything is planned; everything is purposive.
"The globular clusters range in
size from a few tens of thousands to over a million stars. No stable
stellar aggregates have been found between this size and the
multiple star systems consisting of a few stars separated by very
short distances comparable to the diameters of planetary orbits. .
This is a very striking situation for which present-day astronomical
theory has no explanation."— *Dewey B. Larson, Universe of
Motion (1984), p. 39.
GLOBULAR RELATIONSHIP TO GALAXIES—As
explained much more fully in chapter 4, the globular clusters are
found both above and below the plane of the saucer-like galactic disk,
yet they are not part of it. They are scattered within a definite
shape that is something like a gigantic sphere, above and below the
center and outward disc arms of the galaxy.
They not only stand outside of the
galaxy in position, they are independent of it in rotation. The entire
galaxy rotates about a common center, yet the globular clusters rotate
separately. (See chapter 4 for more on this.)
Why are these clusters outside of the
arms? Why are they within a definite spherical boundary—never
straying outside of it? Why do they not participate in the common
rotation about the galactic center?
These are all unanswered questions
which evolutionary theory cannot explain. Why are the clusters not
part of the galaxy in so many ways, yet are carefully placed like
chandeliers above and below its plane—yet always within a spherical
"The strong implication that
our galaxy's population of globular clusters is not an integral part
of the galaxy leads to the hypothesis that the globular clusters had
an origin different from the rest of the galaxy. This is contrary to
current astronomical theory."—* W. R. Corliss, Stars,
Galaxies, Cosmos (1987), p. 10.
ORBIT OF THE CLUSTERS—These
globular clusters, located on both sides of the galactic disk, orbit
through the disk, to the other side, and then through it again!
Down through the galactic arms each one goes, then back up again on
the other side. Yet, in doing so, no collisions ever occur. How can
this smooth passage occur without mishap? All the while the starry
arms of the disk are moving on their orbit around the galactic center,
which is an orbit totally independent of the orbits of the globular
clusters. Evolutionary theory cannot explain such precisioned orbits
as we find in the galaxies.
"One of the first discoveries
in the relatively short history of galactic astronomy was that
spiral galaxies possess an extended halo defined by huge groupings
of stars known as globular clusters. Ranging from 15 to 300
light-years in diameter, these dusters may contain anywhere from
tens of thousands to a few million stars, a mass roughly
one-millionth that of an average spiral galaxy . .
"Like the individual stars in
the bulge, globular clusters follow extremely eccentric orbits
around the galaxy's center, rising as much as 300,000 light-years
from the galactic plane. Thus, twice on every several million-year
orbit, the clusters pass through the plane of the disk. The passage
spawns no spectacular stellar collisions."—*Kirk Bourne,
Galaxies, p. 40.
There are several hundred of these
globular clusters in above and below the plane of each galaxy.
NON-COLLAPSING GLOBULAR CLUSTERS—We
earlier mentioned the fact that individual stars in globular
clusters should be pulled together, collide, and mutually destroy one
another. Astronomers tell us that they should also collapse as a
whole. The massive amount of mutually shared gravity should draw
them into the center and total destruction. *Corliss echoes the
general dismay of scientists at the awesomeness of the problem:
". . the failure of globular
clusters to collapse gravitationally, given the stellar densities at
their cores and the force of gravitation. Globular clusters are
considered to be very old astronomical objects, and theory predicts
they should have collapsed long ago. The structure and dynamics of
globular clusters have been observed with high precision. The
apparent long life of globular clusters is contrary to the dictates
of the theory of gravitation. Globular clusters do not rotate at
rates sufficient for centrifugal force to be a factor."
*William Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1987), p. 14.
Any force capable of bringing these
tens of thousands of stars into the globular cluster would have
crushed them all together! Gravity
would not have. brought them that close together—without, completing
the job and colliding them.
"The problem is that only one
force of any significant magnitude, that of gravitation, has been
definitely identified as operative in the clusters. Inasmuch as the
gravitational force increases as the distance decreases, the force
that is adequate to hold the cluster together should be more than
adequate to draw the constituent stars together into a single mass,
and why this does not happen has never been ascertained. Obviously
some counter force is acting against gravitation, but the
astronomers have been unable to find any such force."— "D.B.
Larson, Universe of Motion (1984), p. 29.
4 - GALAXIES
as the family is the basic unit in society, astronomers, since the
1940s, have come to a realization that galaxies are the basic unit in
the universe. Yet no one can figure out how they could have
"evolved" into existence. No one. There is talk; much of it.
But all the talk falls dead when faced with the facts of galactic
order, precisioned orbits, and all the rest. The total amount of
preplanning exhibited in the layout and workings of galaxies is
The Andromeda Galaxy was the first to
be examined in detail. It is about 50,000 light years in diameter, and
about 2.5 million light years away. And there are billions more. The
average distance between galaxies is about 20 million light years. We
will describe a typical island universe in much more detail in chapter
Although books and magazine articles
for the public spin the yarn that "galaxies coalesced from the
debris of the Big Bang," there is no scientific basis for such
The truth is that a major feature of
the universe is without explanation.
"Despite the optimism of the
preceding chapters, there are a great many things that the
cosmologist not only does not know, but finds severe difficulty in
envisaging a path towards finding out. Even if we beg the question
of how the universe started, how did it become as it is now? In
particular, how did the galaxies form? The encyclopaedias and
popular astronomical books are full of plausible tales of
condensations from vortices, turbulent gas clouds and the like, but
the sad truth is that we do not know how the galaxies came into
existence."—*Laurie John (ed.), Cosmology Now (1978) p. 85.
"The other urgent task in
cosmology [the producing of stellar theories] is to understand how
in the more recent past great masses of gas collapsed to form
galaxies and clusters of galaxies."—*James Binney,
"Oddballs and Galaxy Formation," Nature, 255:275 (1975).
"Now some writers have
discussed the possibility that some irregularity of density was
present in the universe from the outset and that this led ultimately
to the occurrence of galaxies. This idea has not achieved any
success, since it assumes practically all that is to be
inferred."—*Laurie John (ed.), Cosmology Now (1976) p. 92.
There are two theories as to how
galaxies managed to form themselves.
The first is the "bottom up
theory," which speculates that gas formed itself by chance into
all the billions of precisioned galaxies. These in turn gathered
together, without crashing together, into larger superclusters. One
problem is the impossibility of perfectly balanced orbiting stars,
binaries, multiple systems, globular clusters, and galaxies with their
arms and all the rest, forming by chance from gas. Another is the
"smoothness" problem that the theorists pay such close
Recent measurements of cosmic
background radiation show no fluctuations greater than 2.5 parts in
100,000. Not even a 5-inch rock could form out of smooth gas like
that, much less stars and galaxies.
The second theory is the
"top-down theory," which says that the smooth gas first
formed itself into gigantic systems of stars (superclusters), and
these "broke apart" into galaxies. The marvelously
precisioned structures known as galaxies are not the result of smashed
super-clusters! The author of Alice in Wonderland would value
these theories. If Lewis Carroll were still alive, he could use them
to produce a whole series of wonderland books. Perhaps some of the gas
could make itself into rabbits. That would be no more remarkable than
what the theorists say gas makes itself into in the skies overhead.
Don't laugh. They believe the gas
clouds eventually produced you!
"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."— *KF. Weaver, "The
Incredible Universe," National Geographic, 145 (1974), p. 809.
THE EXISTENCE OF SUPERCLUSTERS—Why
would the galaxies be gathered together into clusters—and those into
superclusters, that is, groups of dozens to hundreds of thousands of
galaxies? Why are not the galaxies equally spaced all through the
universe? Random formation would require such a distribution. But,
instead, in most cases they are gathered together into larger
"Galaxies form dusters rich
[many galaxies) and poor [fewer galaxies]. The Coma cluster contains
on the order of 10• [10 million] galaxies, while in our Local
Group [the duster containing our own Milky Way Galaxy] the latest
count is only 21. The clustering tendency is quite marked; isolated
field galaxies [not in dusters] are exceptional."—*Jon
Darius, "Superclusters: Fact or Fancy?" New Scientists,
Just as most galaxies have a definite
organizational arrangement, so also do the superclusters! One or two
giant elliptical galaxies are usually in the center of each cluster.
"Rich clusters, like the one in
Virgo, contain hundreds or thousands of galaxies of all types. These
rich clusters invariably contain near their center one or two of the
largest types of galaxies known-giant elliptical galaxies, which may
contain as much material as 50 spiral galaxies like our Milky
Way."— *Laurence A. Marschall, "Superclusters: Giants of
the Cosmos, " Astronomy, 12:9, April 1984.
This is a description of the largest
supercluster in our vicinity—a supercluster which includes us!
"The northern galactic
hemisphere—that portion of the sky lying to the north of the Milky
Way—is rich in bright galaxies; the southern hemisphere is
relatively barren. For a generation or more, astronomers have
debated why. Their consensus today is that our galaxy lies at the
edge of a much larger assemblage of galaxies, a structure some 60
million light-years across. They call it the Local Supercluster. The
northern galactic hemisphere appears overpopulated because our own
galaxy happens to lie almost face on to the supercluster core.
"The core itself is a swarm of
galaxies lying 50 million light-years from the earth in the
direction of the constellation Virgo. Some 60 luminous galaxies and
hundreds of not-so-luminous galaxies are contained there within a
spherical region no more than 10 million light-years across . . The
Virgo cluster is a particularly rich example of a galactic cluster,
and it forms the center of the Local Supercluster."—*
"Superclusters of Galaxies," Mercury, 8:142 (1979).
RAPID MOTION OF OUTER GALACTIC STARS
This startling fact was mentioned earlier in this chapter. But we will
note it again in this collection of unexplainable facts about galaxies
which evolutionary theory cannot satisfactorily explain.
Those stars which are in the outer
one-third of the arms of the galactic disks rotate far too fast. The
farther a planet is from the sun in our solar system, the slower it
orbits the sun. This is understandable. But in the galaxies it is
far different! The farthest stars from the center rotate as fast as
the closer ones! How can that be! Evolutionary theory has no
satisfactory answer. The best they can come up with is to say that
there is a mysterious "dark matter halo" surrounding each
galaxy that enables those stars to whirl about the galactic center so
"The first hint that something
was amiss in the universe came 50 years ago. Astronomer Fritz Zwicky
noticed some peculiar goings-on in a rich group of galaxies known as
the Coma cluster, located 300 million light years from Earth. The
galaxies were moving about in the cluster much faster than expected.
"Zwicky added up all the light
being emitted by the cluster and realized that there was not enough
visible matter to bind the galaxies together, yet the cluster was
obviously not flying apart. Where was this other mass that was
providing the gravitational glue [to keep the fast-moving outer
stars from flying out of the galaxy?] It seemed to be
missing—hence the tag 'missing mass.'
" 'It's not really missing,'
stresses Jeremiah Ostriker, a Princeton astrophysicist. 'There's
something there, you know it's there, but you just can't see it.'
"—*Marcia Bartusiak, "Missing: 97% of the
Universe," Science Digest, 91:51, December 1983.
Did you notice that last title?
"Missing: 97% of the Universe." Can you imagine that?
Because scientists cannot figure out how stars in the outer portions
of billions of galaxies can orbit so fast around their galactic
centers, they have decided that unbelievably huge masses of invisible
matter surround each galaxy, holding those stars on their course.
It may not be something, but Someone that is guiding those stars in
"As radio and optical
astronomers have extended the velocity measurements for the stars
and gas to the outer regions of such a galaxy, they have found that
the stars were not slowing down, but were moving at the same speed
as the ones closer in! A substantial part of the mass of the galaxy
is not concentrated toward the center of the galaxy, but must be
distributed in some dark, unseen halo surrounding the visible
galaxy."— *Wallace Tucker, "The Matter of Missing
Mass," Mercury, 10:107, 1981.
Everywhere the theorists turn, they
encounter similar problems. The only solution they can come up with is
to invent "dark matter" to hold the universe together!
"Dark matter betrays itself by
the gravitational effect it has on the matter we can see. Dark
matter is present on all distance scales, from the close
neighborhood of the Sun in our own Galaxy, the Milky Way, to the
rotation of the galaxies themselves, the dynamics of clusters and
superclusters of galaxies, and in the expansion of the Universe
itself. Every time we move to a larger distance scale, we need
proportionately more dark matter to explain our observations of how
the bright matter is distributed and how it moves. At the upper
limit, on the scale of the whole Universe, it seems that only
one-tenth of all the gravitating mass can be concentrated in the
bright stars and galaxies that we can see by their electromagnetic
radiation."—*John Gribbin, "In Search of the Missing
Mass," New Scientists, January 9, 1988, p. 37.
There are clouds of obscuring dust in
certain areas of the sky, but that is not what the theorists mean by
"dark matter." They mean "invisible matter," for
it is not obscuring anything. It surely is not obscuring the stars. If
it had any obscuring power at all, this "90 percent of the matter
in the universe" would blot from sight all the stars!
In order to explain the rapid motion
of the outer stars (and to "close" the universe by supplying
enough matter to eventually stop the theoretical expansion of the
universe), the amount of matter in the universe was very recently
increased ninefold! It is now filled with imaginary matter; with only
10 percent of it real.
"Studies of galactic rotation
rates in the early 1970s confirmed the disquieting fact that dark
matter makes up at least 90 percent of the mass of the universe. In
contradiction to Newton's and Kepler's laws of gravity and motion,
rotation rates hold steady beyond the luminous edges of galaxies
rather than falling off with distance from the center.
"With galaxies apparently
buried in invisible halos that extend ten times the diameter of
their luminous parts, the debate has focused on two theories of what
this unseen material might be. One camp espouses the notion that it
is ordinary but extremely dim matter such as failed stars. The other
favors a host of exotic particles, many of them as yet purely
theoretical. According to this hypothesis, as clouds of primordial
gas cooled in the early universe, atoms of ordinary gas fell to the
center to form galaxies, leaving halos of exotic particles
behind."— *Allan Fallow, et. al., Between the Stars (1990),
By "exotic material," they
mean types of matter which has never existed, and which is totally
outside the periodic table of elements. It is imaginary matter which
has no real existence anywhere.
Yet another problem, mentioned
earlier, is the fact that the stellar formations (spiral galaxies,
elliptical galaxies, and star clusters) do not fly apart. Why is this?
The theorists tell us the answer is that 90 percent of the matter in
the universe is pressing them inward. That invisible matter cannot be
seen, felt, or recorded on visual, radio, or spectroscopic
telescopes;—yet somehow it must be there, the theorists tell us.
"One of the most intriguing
puzzles facing astronomers today is that of so-called dark matter,
or the missing mass problem. Starting in the early 1930s, scientists
studying the velocities of stars in the Milky Way galaxy noticed
that the mass necessary to account for their observed motions was
twice as much as the mass the stars themselves seemed to embody.
"The same discrepancy was seen
in other individual galaxies—and also in galactic multitudes. In
1936, for example, astronomer Sinclair Smith of Mount Wilson
Observatory examined the Virgo cluster, an assemblage of 250 large
star systems [250 galaxies] and at least a thousand lesser ones,
located about 70 million light years from the Milky Way. Given their
velocities and visible mass, the galaxies should be drifting ever
farther apart. Instead—mystifying—they are held together by
unseen mass 300 times greater than that of the luminous stars and
dust."—*Allan Fallow, et. al., Between the Stars (1990), p.
Of course, there would have to be
exactly the right amount of "invisible matter" out there to
agree with theoretical calculations. But, if it was there, it would
fill not only the space outside of the galaxies and clusters—but
also the space inside—between the stars in the galaxies and the
clusters! If that was so, the stars could move inward or outward
anyway, for the "invisible matter" would not be merely
outside pressing in, but inside pressing out! This would provide the
stars with a balanced pressure on all sides so they could go in any
direction) "Invisible matter," composed of "exotic
material" outside the periodic table of elements is not the
WHY DO THE GALAXIES ROTATE?—Yes,
why? Why do the galaxies not just stand still?
This is but a larger example of the
question of why moons, planets, and stars rotate.
Evolutionary theory simply cannot explain it.
The problem here is that there is
no possible mechanism by which randomly floating gas could transform
itself into rotating objects.
"Galaxy rotation and how it got
started is one of the great mysteries of astrophysics. In a Big Bang
universe, linear [straight line, non-turning] motions are easy to
explain: They result from the bang. But what started the rotary
motions? To convert linear motions to rotary ones usually takes some
trickery."— *Dietrick E. Thomsen, "Galaxies that Came in
from the Cold, " Science News, 128:316 (1985).
ELLIPTICALS HAVE TOO MANY CLUSTERS—Elliptical
galaxies are not shaped like flattened disks, but like gigantic
slightly elongated balls, with stars smoothly distributed outward from
a denser core of stars in the middle. The theory goes that spiral
galaxies collide—and the resulting wreckage are the beautifully
precisioned elliptical galaxies that we see in space! It does not
require much thought to recognize in this a foolish theory. But the
fact that elliptical galaxies have such a high proportion of globular
clusters within them is used by skeptical scientists as evidence that
they could not have originated from the shattered remains of spiral
galaxies. So where did they come from?
"Nor is it understood why
elliptical galaxies seem to have many more globular clusters per
unit of mass than spiral galaxies. The observation is of particular
significance because it argues against a popular theory of how the
ellipticals formed. Alar Toomre of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology and other investigators have proposed that the elliptical
galaxies are formed when spiral galaxies collide and merge. The
strongest evidence against this hypothesis is the higher proportion
of clusters in the ellipticals."— *Ivan R. King,
"Globular Clusters," Scientific American, 252:79, June
Before leaving this subject, let us
consider the awesome beauty of elliptical galaxies. As you will
recall, we earlier mentioned that one or two giant ellipticals will be
in the center of each cluster of galaxies.
Visualize an immense nearly spherical
mass of stars, with many of them crowded in near the center, and with
the rest evenly spaced all through the outer portion. Then, scattered
here and there throughout the whole, we find gorgeously-arrayed
globular clusters of tens of thousands of stars! What a sight! Surely,
the hand of a Master Craftsman designed the elliptical galaxies.
PARALLEL GALACTIC ORIENTATIONS—Here
is another strange fact about galaxies which could not have originated
by chance, nor can it be explained by evolutionary theory.
The largest central galaxy in a
cluster of galaxies will tend to be axially the same as the entire
cluster. This means that the
longest (lengthwise) measurement of that galaxy will be parallel
(point in the same direction) as the longest measure of the entire
cluster! Scientists have no answer to this puzzling fact. In
addition, many of the other galaxies within that cluster will often
be lined up the same way. But in some cases, they will be exactly 90°
(a right angle) to it!.
"The long axis of the central
brightest galaxy in a cluster tends to line up with the axis of the
cluster."— *P.J.E. Peebles, "Origin of Galaxies and
Clusters of Galaxies, " Science 224:1385 (1984).
"Stanislav Djorgovski of the
University of California used photometric observations of galaxies
in the Coma cluster to show that the long axes of individual
galaxies are generally aligned parallel to the major axis of the
cluster."—*Barry Parker, "Mystery of the Missing
Mass," Astronomy, November 1984.
"Examination of all the
galaxies in our seven-cluster sample reveals that the major axes of
these cluster members tend to lie either along or perpendicular to
the cluster major axis and avoid intermediate position
angles."—"M. T. Adams, et. al., "Linear Clusters of
Galaxies," Astrophysical Journal, 238:445 (1980). .
To the degree in which the galaxies
follow this pattern, they exhibit yet another indication of the
orderly patterns to be found all through a carefully planned creation.
You have just completed
Chapter 2 Appendix Part 1
Go to APPENDIX