ACTS III Global Ministries

"Sometimes what you need the most...you don't even know you need."

The Battleground of Apologetics

Chapter 5: Stellar Evolution?

            We probably should start off with a good working explanation of the theory of Stellar Evolution.  Basically the first kind of star to thought to evolve is what’s called a Generation III star.  Hypothetically, according to this theory, they are made primarily of Hydrogen and Helium.  This presupposition is necessary to the evolutionists in order to make this theory seemingly plausible.  You see, the evolutionists know that the only possible elements that the “Big Bang” could have even theoretically produced are Hydrogen and Helium.  (And that still takes a lot of imagination and faith)  So that is what the first stars had to be made of according to the theory of stellar evolution.  There were no other hypothetical ingredients.

These stars are theorized to have eventually created heavier elements – metals – when they exploded millions or billions of years later.  From there, eventually the exploded stuff from the Generation III stars condenses into other stars—Generation II stars.  These stars are believed to have created even more of the heavier elements and then exploded.  When that stuff gets ready, it makes Generation I stars—they have the highest metal content.  This is the Fairytale known as the Theory of Stellar Evolution.  Just in case you are like me and need visual aids, I have included the graphic to the left.

The reason that the theory of stellar evolution had to be invented was because evolutionists know there is no mechanism in the universe for which these heavier elements could have been formed.  Even this savior falls short as you will soon see.

The only naturally occurring mechanism in nature that could even theoretically form stars is gravity.  Since gravity is greatest in stars, this is where their theory had to start.  It is theorized out of necessity to save the Big Bang Theory—not because of supporting evidence.

            Did you know that there are absolutely no Generation III stars that have ever been found?  Out of the countless Billions and Trillions of stars, NONE are these theoretical Generation III stars!  Nope…they were created in the minds of the evolutionists to bridge the gap between what stars we know to exist today and how their theory had to start out.  I think it is obvious that God was showing evolutionists another missing link in their theory so that they are without excuse for not believing in the Creator.

Now, let us look at some quotes from predominantly evolutionist sources:

"One might expect Population III stars to have the same sort of distribution of mass as the stars forming today.  The problem is that, despite extensive searches, nobody has ever found a zero-metallicity star.”[1]  (Population III = Generation III star)

            Isn’t it funny that these scientists know and realize that there are 0 of these stars in the known universe and yet they have blind faith that they exist?  This just shows that evolution is a faith based belief system and not science.

            The Apostle Paul warned Timothy almost 2000 years ago about this kind of “science.”  Notice what is written in 1 Timothy 6:20—“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called” ^[2]

"Are there any stars older than Population II? There should be, if our ideas about the early history of the universe are correct. . There is no statistically significant evidence for Population III objects [stars]."[3]

“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 [like stars, planets, etc.] the theory is able to explain so little.”[4] (emphasis mine)

“Because gas in outer space does not clump, the gas could not build enough mutual gravity to bring it together. And if it cannot clump together, it cannot form itself into stars. The idea of gas pushing itself together in outer space to form stars is more scienceless fiction. Fog, whether on earth or in space, cannot push itself into balls. Once together, a star maintains its gravity quite well, but there is no way for nature to produce one. Getting it together in the first place is the problem. Gas floating in a vacuum cannot form itself into stars. Once a star exists, it will absorb gas into it by gravitational attraction. But before the star exists, gas will not push itself together and form a star—or a planet, or anything else. Since both hydrogen and helium are gases, they are good at spreading out, but not at clumping together.”[5] (emphasis mine)

            The quote above brings up a common stumbling block for evolutionists—the old chicken or the egg problem.  We will see it a lot in the Life section of the book.  Here the quote points out that gravity works well after a star is formed to hold it together, but that it cannot cause stars to form.  Kind of like chickens start growing well once the egg is laid, but the chicken can’t hatch from the egg until the egg is laid.  It’s the same with gravity.

            Worth noting here is that evolutionists are constantly trying to generate more and more theories to try and guard their religion.  They build theory after theory on top of bad theories.  This is done in order to at least fool people that aren’t going to ask questions or do any research for the truth.  This is one of their most successful tactics. 

In this case, the aforementioned Religious Scientists-of the Big Bang Order, have come up with another theory to try and fix the inability of the Big Bang being able to produce clumps in the universe.  In order for these gas clouds to eventually ‘evolve’ into stars and other bodies, they invented another false savior —this time it’s the compression wave.  Read the article below:

“Astronomers believe that stars form when enormous compression waves traveling through gas clouds create dense knots of gas in the cloud. Gravitational forces of these denser areas attract nearby gas particles. As a knot grows, its gravitational force increases, and it attracts more gas particles.”[6]  (emphasis mine)

“It may be that an interstellar cloud cannot give birth to a star unless an outside force causes the cloud to collapse.  The phenomenon that triggers this process may be some kind of shock wave…A shockwave is a disturbance that moves through a medium faster than sound.”[7] (emphasis mine)

The above quote was form Stephen P. Maran.  At the time of the quote, he was a senior staff scientist at the NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt , MD.

It is worth noting that this proposed savior of the stellar theory is referred to as a “Phenomenon” meaning that it is, “An unusual, significant, or unaccountable fact or occurrence; a marvel.”  Kind of sounds like a secular word for a miracle doesn’t it?  Is phenomenon to an evolutionist what a Miracle is to a Christian?  Hmmmm…  Does this sound more like a science or a religion that requires a lot of faith?

Evolutionary Shoes?

A humorous tidbit worth noting here is that in the definition of the Big Bang on page 23, in section number 3, it mentions the String Theory.  I find a humorous pattern in that the Big Bang Theory is resting on a savior called the String Theory and the Stellar Evolution Theory is resting on this Knot Theory to be its savior.  I suppose that the theoretical evolutionary formation of the planets and such will depend on the “Bow” Theory.  Maybe evolutionists are trying to tie their Theoretical Shoes hence the names, String, Knot & Bow. 

            Now without being too scientific, a compression wave is caused by some kind of compressing force—kind of like a wave in water.  When you jump in the pool, you compress the water and cause a wave to form.  The problem with this being applied to star formation is two fold:

1. First, there was nothing to cause the compression wave after the Big Bang.  All the matter (wherever it came from) exploded in one giant explosion.  Remember that literally nothing existed in the entire universe – there was no universe.  So when the big bang happened, there was no other force that could have caused a compression wave.  Whatever matter had exploded would have just kept going.  Using our example above, there would have been no one jumping in the pool to cause any waves.
   
2. Secondly, there was nothing to compress the gas against or between.  Even if the Religious Scientists-of the Big Bang Order could produce an imaginary wave, what would it compress the Hydrogen and Helium gasses against?  If you were to hit a puddle (or glob) of water in outer space with your hand, you would not compress it—you would just move it.  The same would apply to this imaginary compression wave.  If there was one, it would have simply pushed the gas farther away from the “Big Bang” center.  There was nothing in the path of the exploding front of the theoretical debris and gasses to compress it against.  Using our example above, there would be no pool walls for the waves to compress against.

Notice the quote below demonstrating this point:

"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."[8] (emphasis mine)

Here are some more quotes extrapolating on this difficulty of the big bang giving berth to stars:

“In order for the gas to produce stars, it would have to move in several directions. First, it would have to stop flowing outward. Then it would have to begin moving in circles (stellar origin theories generally require rotating gas). Then the rotating gas would have to move closer together. But there would be nothing to induce these motions. The atoms from the supposed Big Bang should just keep rushing outward forever. Linear motion would have to mysteriously change to angular momentum.”[9]  (emphasis mine)

The next group of quotes deals with the realization that there is not enough mass in the universe to support the various evolutionary theories of the origin of matter and stars.

 “The total mean density of matter in the universe is about 100 times less than the amount required by the Big Bang theory. The universe has a low mean density. To put it another way, there is not enough matter in the universe. This "missing mass" problem is a major hurdle, not only to the Big Bang enthusiasts but also to the expanding universe theorists.”[10]

"Attempts to explain both the expansion of the universe and the condensation of galaxies must be largely contradictory so long as gravitation is the only force field under consideration. For if the expansive kinetic energy of matter is adequate to give universal expansion against the gravitational field, it is adequate to prevent local condensation under gravity, and vice versa. That is why, essentially, the formation of galaxies is passed over with little comment in most systems of cosmology.”[11]  (emphasis mine)

            This last quote lets us know that most evolutionists simply ignore the facts that are contradictory to their religion.  If they cannot explain it – then they ignore it.

            Up until now, we took a look at stars in general.  Now let us see what the star we are most knowledgeable about – our sun – has to tell us. 

What About Our Sun?

Naturally, the star that we know the most about is our own Sun.  However, even though we know more about it than other stars, we still do not know exactly what causes it to burn hot enough and long enough to heat our solar system.  That may sound crazy, but there is still much debate over what is causing the sun to burn.  Just think, what mechanism could possibly allow the sun to burn so hot that we feel such ferocious heat 93,000,000 (yes 93 million) miles away?  Also, don’t forget the other planets that are even farther away from the sun.  For example, Saturn is 886,000,000 miles away and still receives heat from the sun, and there are still at least 3 more planets past Saturn.

            More central to the issue is not what makes it burn so hot…but so long!  If the evolutionary cosmological time scale is correct, then the sun is around 4-5 billion years old!  What is the source of this seemingly limitless energy supply according to evolutionists?  What are the alternatives?

            There are two seriously considered theoretical methods by which the sun produces its enormous heat.  They are nuclear fusion and contraction.  Either method is fine for the Creation model, but the contraction model does not fit the needed time scale for evolutionary cosmologists—the Religious Scientists-of the Big Bang Order. 

The Contraction Model: More problems for the Evolutionary Faith

It is known that internal gravitational contraction of a heavenly body causes heat to be released.  In fact, contraction principles are widely accepted and included for the models of planets, stars, and are even needed for the hypothetical beginning of the big bang.  So then the question becomes, ‘why is it not OK for explaining a considerable amount (if not all) of the way that the sun generates its heat?’

Evidentiary Rules in Evolution Court

Put simply, the evidence for the contraction model is excluded only because it does not fit the evolutionary timeline.  Imagine a court case, where all evidence was thrown out that did not implicate the suspect that the prosecution wanted to be guilty.  Imagine that you have the evidence that person A committed the murder:  his signed confession, 100 reliable eyewitness testimonies that matched perfectly, a full-color video of the crime, the weapon with only person A’s fingerprints, and the victim wrote a letter before he died telling the world ‘who done it.’

            Sounds like an open and shut case huh?  Well, that is unless you are in an evolutionary court where evidence is irrelevant and only desired outcomes matter.  In the case above, if the prosecution (evolutionists) wanted to convict the Butler instead, they would dismiss all hard evidence and replace it with speculative and baseless theories.  All this, just because they had an agenda to prove the Butler did it.   Evidence to them is irrelevant if it does not fit their faith in their religion. 

The Evidence for the Contraction Model of the Sun

“On June 13, 1979 , a paper was presented at the meeting of the American Astronomical Society, in which authors—John A. Eddy (visiting scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics) and Aram A. Boornazian (mathematician with S. Ross & Co.) – concluded that:”[12]

“the Sun has been shrinking for a hundred years, and perhaps at least as long as 400 years”, and, “The implication is that the Sun, and presumably similar stars, could now be deriving a significant part of their energy from gravitational contraction.”[13]^-[14]

            This was not a new idea.  The idea of gravitational contraction was actually proposed around 1850 by Hermann von Helmholtz.  In essence, the theory states that the sun is shrinking under its own weight.  If this theory is correct then the sun could be no more than tens of millions of years old.  This idea was of course rejected due to the new and improved theory of evolution gaining supporters during this time.  Bias and bigotry by evolutionists towards evidence that destroys their religious theories has continued to this day.  This can be demonstrated by the following quote:

“If gravitational contraction were the power source, the sun could only last about 50 million years; the sun’s age is over 100 times that.”[15]

            Again, this shows that imposters claiming to be scientists are prejudice against the evidence.  They discount the facts not because they are wrong, but because the facts destroy their faith in their religious theory.  If it does not fit their imagination, then it is discarded.  And this is science?  No…it is a cult!  The age of the sun that this author is clinging to is based on a chain of broken theories long known to be false.

            In spite of the complete disregard of the true evidence by evolutionists (Religious Scientists-of the Big Bang Order), significant contraction has been scientifically measured and observed in our sun.  Even though the contraction has not been measured for very long, we can use the evolutionary principle of uniformitarianism to conclude that if the sun is shrinking now, then it has always been shrinking.  Reason would then demand that if it is getting smaller…obviously it was larger.  This is another point for the Creation side.  The sun could not have been much larger than it is now without making life on earth impossible.  Look at these quotes below:

“The sun was larger in the past than it is now by 0.1% per century… if the rate of change of the solar radius remained constant, 100 thousand years ago the sun would be twice the size it is now. One could hardly imagine that any life could exist under such altered conditions. Yet 100 thousand years is a minute amount of time when dealing with evolutionary time scales.”[16]

Using the same shrinkage criteria, one comes to the conclusion that the sun would have been touching the earth only 20 Million years ago!  Obviously, neither the sun nor the earth is that old!  This is why you almost never see contraction discussed in any evolution based science textbook.  They do not want anyone to think about this proof against their religion.

The concept of contraction producing heat is not theoretical, it is known to take place right here in our own solar system.  Look at these quotes below from Non-Creationist sources:

“Jupiter…radiates twice as much energy as it absorbs from the sun through a contraction and cooling process.”[17]

“Saturn emits 50 percent more heat than it absorbs from the sun.”[18] 

Just as a little side note here, since these planets are cooling off (giving off more energy than they receive) 100% and 50% respectively more heat than they receive, they should be cold now if they were billions of years old.  This will be discussed more in the next chapter. 

Evidence against the Fusion Model

Even though the case for the contraction model is considerably strong, we will still take a brief look at the fusion model.  In simple terms, this model predicts that the sun is powered by a nuclear process.  This model is the only one that will yield an age that makes their evolutionary theory of the big-bang work; that is why it is absolutely necessary for their faith.

Seemingly out of an innate drive to offer proof for their faith, evolutionists invented another theoretical savior.  This newest savior is called the neutrino.  Just as God would have it, there is a scientific method that can be used to determine whether or not the sun is powered predominantly by the hypothesized nuclear fusion mechanism.  The test involves the detection of a subatomic particle called a neutrino.  As we look at the evidence, keep in mind that this theory of the fusion model is absolutely critical for them.  They must have this theory in order to explain our sun as well as the whole theoretical stellar evolutionary process. 

            Raymond Davis assumed the monumental task of searching for these neutrinos in the 1960’s.  Without getting too technical, the detection of neutrinos required quite a large effort.  For starters, Davis had to fill a tank with 100,000 gallons of a common cleaning fluid, perchloroethylene. This chemical is common in dry cleaning and as is used as an industrial solvent.

            Now, Davis had to put this tank in a special place to prevent it from picking up any background radiation that might skew the test.  So he placed it at the bottom of a gold mine in South Dakota —4,850 feet underground (nearly 1 mile)! But…that wasn’t enough; he also had to flood the entire cavern with water.  This is an awful lot of work just to prove a theory.

Don’t get me wrong, being a Christian, I understand wanting to please God and give my life for Him.  After all, He gave His Son to die for me so that I could live eternally.  But I wonder what kind of religious zeal led him to go to the trouble of buying 100,000 gallons of toxic cleaner, designing & building a container system, transporting & installing it nearly 1 mile underground, flooding the chamber, and monitoring it for who knows how long…  What has the god of evolution done for him?  Other than provide him with a job and funds for his religion, what would cause him to go to such extremes?   He must have a lot of faith.  Either that or he did not really care since it was likely tax-supported grant money that paid him to occupy his time and support his religion with this experiment. Anyway, let’s see what the evidence showed:

“there is little reason to believe that nuclear fusion of any kind is taking place in the sun.”[19]

Just think, all of those dollars, time, and valuable scientific initiative that could have been used to find answers to the plagues of disease, fresh water shortage, etc. were wasted trying to disprove God.  Again, instead of admitting the failure of their religion, they have created alternative excuses to attempt to fix and explain away this problem.

            Another piece of evidence against the fusion theory is a phenomenon called Solar Shock Waves (Oscillations).  Here is a quote to demonstrate:

“As further evidence against fusion, and for contraction, Steidl mentions what is now famous in solar physics as the 160 minute oscillation…The long period implies conditions in the sun’s interior which do not fit into modern solar theory.  The discoverers say bluntly: ‘The interpretation of this phenomena seems to cause much theoretical difficulty.’” [20]

            The conclusion in this section is that the evidence clearly favors the Creation Model.  The Gravitational Contraction model eliminates the big bang and evolutionary theory, and the Fusion Model has serious flaws.  However, even if the sun is powered by fusion (which the evidence is against), it is still shrinking.  Neither method contradicts or cause problems for the Creation Model.

God is trying to let these evolutionists know that they are dead wrong and doomed, but they refuse to see the error of their ways. 

Quotes about our Sun & Stars

The underlying problem as you can well see is that evolutionists pretending to be scientists cannot figure out how galaxies, stars, and planets formed. Although there are billions of stars out there, the experts do not have the slightest idea of how even a single one of them was produced. Consider these quotes:

"A handful of sand contains about 10,000 grains, more than the number of stars we can see on a clear night. But the number of stars we can see is only a fraction of the number of stars that are [there] . . The cosmos is rich beyond measure: the total number of stars in the universe is greater than all the grains of sand on all the beaches on the planet earth."[21]

            The quote below comes from Science magazine.

"The universe we see when we look out to its farthest horizons contains a hundred billion galaxies. Each of these galaxies contains another hundred billion stars. That’s 10²² stars all told [10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000]. The silent embarrassment of modern astrophysics is that we do not know how even a single one of these stars managed to form."[22] (emphasis mine).

"The problem of explaining the existence of the galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn’t be there, yet there they sit. It’s hard to convey the depth of frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists."[23]  (emphasis mine)

            The quote below demonstrates that evolutionary scientists themselves know that there is a plethora of evidence that contradicts and neutralizes their theory of an old earth, sun and universe.  In fact, it even concedes the Creationist date of around 6,000 years ago!

"I suspect that the sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the Earth and Sun [4004 B.C.].  I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that."[24]  (emphasis mine)

Even though these Religious Scientists of the Big Bang Order are staunch supporters of their faith, many of them are coming to their senses regarding the only other possible (and true) cause of stars, galaxies, and planets, etc…our Creator!

"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."[25]

Robert Jastrow wrote the quote below.  He is acknowledged to be one of the best-known astronomers of the 20th century--he is not a Creationist.  Notice that he points out that the efforts of scientists to use reason to do away with God have brought them full circle to God as the only possible explanation for our universe. The Truth was here and known all the time.

"The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy... For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."[26] (emphasis mine)

            Discussing the problem of the difference between stars and the interstellar medium (ISM--the gas clouds that stars are supposed to form from), Stephen P. Maran, senior staff scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center states:

“Material is exchanged between the stars and the ISM as stars are born, evolve, and die, so that the composition of both should be similar.  What became of the missing matter?  Scientists believe that it must be trapped in the dust grains, though they are not quite certain how it got there.”[27] (emphasis mine)  Notice the underlined word – isn’t a belief faith and not science?

Sir Isaac Newton is considered one of the two greatest scientists of the last 500 years. He clearly saw the implications of celestial mechanics and the intricately designed wonders in the sky.  Below is a story published in 1957.

"One day, as Newton sat reading in his study with his mechanism on a large table near him, a friend, who saw things differently than he did, stepped in. Scientist that he was, he recognized at a glance what was before him. Stepping up to it, he slowly turned the crank, and with undisguised admiration watched the heavenly bodies all move in their relative speed in their orbits.

"Standing off a few feet he exclaimed, ‘My! What an exquisite thing this is! Who made it?’ Without looking up from his book, Newton answered, ‘Nobody.’

"Quickly turning to Newton , his friend said, ‘Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this?’ Looking up now, Newton solemnly assured him that nobody made it, but that the apparatus had just happened to assume the form it was in.

"The astonished man replied with some heat, ‘You must think I am a fool! Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I’d like to know who he is!’

"Laying his book aside, Newton arose and said, ‘This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system, whose laws you know,—and here I am not able to convince you that this mere toy before you is without a designer and maker!

"‘Yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken, with its more massive and complicated orbital motions, has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such a conclusion?’"[28]  

"I know of no reason [for the motion of the planets] but because the Author of the system thought it convenient."[29] Isaac Newton. 

Chapter Summary 

To this point, we have only produced scientific and logical proof against the Big Bang theory, and the stellar formation theory.  Even though the rest of the theory of evolution is irrelevant because it has no beginning, we will continue in order to expose each “link.”

Here is a brief summary of the basic problems with the Stellar evolution theory: 

1. 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.
   
2. There are not enough exploding stars in space to account for our current infinite abundance of stars.  Since it takes stars to make stars according to this theory, evolution again finds itself in a circular pit of false logic.  Some accounts suggest that given the theory of stellar evolution coupled with the 100 billion or so stars in our own galaxy, we should witness at least 500,000 stars exploding in the Milky Way alone.  Yet, we only know of about 1 per century!
   
3. There is no mechanism for an exploding star to push things together.  This was previously discussed in the Big Bang chapter.
   
4. There is not enough time for the evolutionary theory to account for all of the stars. Notice the quote below:
   
   "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 [evenly spread-out thin gas] universe." Science News, 1979.
   
5. From what we know of our own sun, the evolutionary theory is billions of years off.

            Next we will take a look at the planets in our solar system and the problems they cause for evolutionary theory and the big bang cosmology.

Index

Foreword

Overview
Chapter 1
Chapter 2

Creation vs. Evolution
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Chapter 10

Biblical
Apologetics
Chapter 11
Chapter 12
Chapter 13
Chapter 14
Chapter 15
Chapter 16

Volume II Cults & False Hopes
Chapter 17
Chapter 18
Chapter 19
Chapter 20
Chapter 21
Chapter 22
Chapter 23

Glossary

Appendixes
A
B
C
D
E