Creation: Stellar Evolution Part III
A guest post today from my brilliant husband, Gregg.
The 6 types of evolution taught as fact in the average public school today, the first 5 being types of Darwinian evolution which are preached as religious beliefs, and the 6th being simple modifications within kind, or changes within kind, and not even really “evolution” are:
- Cosmic evolution
- Stellar evolution
- Chemical evolution
- Abiogenesis—Life from non-life
- Micro-evolution (Variations within kind, not really evolution)
In the previous 2 posts on Stellar evolution, I chronicled the history of the theory as well as numerous scientific problems with the theory. This post will conclude my look at the Darwinian take on the Birth of Stars by listing further scientific problems with the theory and concluding with the number one problem that is insurmountable for Darwinist believers.
More Problems for Stellar Evolution
Young or Old, stars are uniform. According to the theory, the farther we look out into space, the farther back into past eons of time we can see. This means that the farthest stars and galaxies ought to be the youngest. Yet research reveals the farthest stars are just like nearby stars.
Young or Old, stars are just as heavy. According to the theory, older stars should have more heavy elements because they are continually manufacturing them. But the so called “older stars” have been found to have no more heavy elements than the so-called “younger stars.” All stars, from “young” to “old,” have the same amount of heavy elements.
Heavy Gas & Dust. The theory says that gas floating in interstellar space is leftover from the Big Bang, and can only consist of hydrogen and helium. The truth is that extra-galactic gas has a variety of heavier elements in it.
Explosive Mechanics. The theory says that the super-fast particles, hurled outward by the Big Bang, were evenly radiated. Yet, as scientists have noted, a perfectly smooth cosmic explosion would only have produced perfectly smooth, increasingly rarified particles. So the very existence of stars disproves the theorized original giant explosion.
Cosmic Mechanics. The theory requires a continual rush of particles outward, leaving nothing inside this outer perimeter of outflowing matter. Yet there are stars and galaxies all through space, not just at the outer edge. Even if clumped gas could have formed any stars, everything would continue to be hurled to the thin, outer edges of space with an expanding center containing nothing.
Inward pushing gas would not change into a rotating star. According to the theory, stars were formed by the “inward gravitational collapse of hydrogen gas clouds.” If so, why do the resultant stars rotate? Some stars rotate very fast. If ten spaceships in a circle pushed marbles in toward a common center in space, the marbles would not begin rotating or circling after they reached the center. Applying additional speed, increased linear momentum, only amplifies the problem.
Rotation (angular momentum), turning, revolving, spinning, and orbital mechanics. There is no possible way that floating gas could transform itself into rotating and orbiting objects, like stars, planets, and moons. Angular momentum present a serious problem for the theories. Why do stars turn? Why do galaxies rotate? Why do planets orbit stars? Why do binary stars circle one another? How could the super-fast linear straight line motion, initiated by the supposed Big Bang, have changed into rotation, spinning, or revolving motion and revolutions or orbiting motion? How could angular momentum exist, and in such perfectly balanced and finely tuned orbits throughout space?
Matter-origin theories cannot explain why stars spin. Darwinian theorists tell us that stars somehow started spinning; but, with age, they slow down. Yet some stars spin faster than either “younger” or “older” stars. Some spin once in less than an earth-day. The fastest known, Hz 1883, has a spin period of less than 6 hours.
Really Fast Stars. There are high-velocity stars that are traveling far too fast to accommodate the Darwinian evolutionary theories of matter and stellar origins.
Contrary angular movements. If the Big Bang theory were true, all stars would move in the same direction; but stars, clusters, and galaxies are moving in various directions opposite to one another.
Contrary orbits. Some stars orbit backward to that of other stars. Darwinian theorists cannot explain this either.
Contrary rotations. Evidence is accumulating that the entire universe is rotating. This is angular momentum on the most gigantic of proportions. Yet the Big Bang should only have produced linear movement outward from it.
The lumpy problem. Theorists are deeply bothered by, what they call, the “lumpy” problem. The universe is “lumpy”; that is, it has stars, planets, etc. in it. Yet none should exist if the Big Bang theory were true. They argue fiercely over these problems in their professional journals, while assuring the public the theory is accepted by all astrophysicists. They consider this to be a major unsolved problem.
Gas shortages. The universe is full of stars, with relatively little gas. But it should be the other way around: full of gas and no stars. The Big Bang should have produced a “homogenous” universe of smooth gas ever flowing outward with, at best, almost no “inhomogeneities,” or “lumps” such as stars and island universes.
Superclusters. It has recently been discovered that the galaxies are grouped into galaxy clusters, and these into still larger superclusters. The universe is full of galactic superclusters. These are the biggest “lumps” of all. The “Big Bangers,” as their colleagues call them, excuse the problem by saying that “gravity waves” produced the galaxies. But gravity, in any form, could not press floating hydrogen and helium into a star or planet out of gas, make a marvelously organized disk network of stars, or produce the precisely balanced spinning and orbiting of planets and stars.
Stellar Evolution based on Incorrect Premise
The evidence — the primary premise — for Stellar Evolution all hinges upon fusion as the source of heat and light in stars. There is evidence that this is not the case, but rather than Solar Collapse is responsible.
This is the most tremendously damaging refutation of both the Big Bang and all currently accepted Stellar evolution theories. As a limiting factor, Solar Collapse completely undercuts the entire theory of the Big Bang.
Solar Collapse, not nuclear fusion, has been shown to be the cause of solar energy. The nuclear theory of starlight was developed by Hans Bethe and Carl von Weizsacker in the 1930s. Despite wide acceptance, it remains a theory. In contrast, there is strong evidence pointing to Solar Collapse as the true cause of solar energy.
There is evidence that our sun “shines,” not by hydrogen explosions, but by Solar Collapse. Unfortunately for Darwinists, stellar evolution is keyed to the fact that stars are fueled by– and shine due to –hydrogen explosions caused by nuclear fusion. The amount of mass/energy our sun would have to lose daily amounts to 4 million tons [3.6 million mt] per second.
The problem is that the fusion process should produce trillions of trillions of sub-atomic particles called neutrinos per second, and each square inch of the earth’s surface should be hit each and every second by a trillion or more neutrinos. Scientists have neutrino detectors in place and have searched for them since the mid-1970s, but hardly any arrive from the sun. This single fact alone disproves the hydrogen theory of solar energy.
The missing neutrinos are known to be one of the most significant anomalies in astronomy.
The scientific basis for solar collapse, as the source of solar energy, was developed over a century ago by two brilliant scientists: Hermann von Helmholtz and William Thomson Lord Kelvin (who also created the Kelvin scale of temperature measurement). If each star is slowly contracting, great amounts of energy would be constantly released. But Darwinists cannot accept this possibility, because it would mean the universe (and the earth) is much younger than their religious preference dictates. Nuclear fusion would mean billions of years for a star’s life; solar collapse only a few million.
A change in the radius of our sun of about 80 feet [24.27 m] 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 [.27 cm] per hour.
Some scientists have found evidence of solar collapse. One major modern study was done by John A. Eddy and Aram Boornazian. The basis for this is an analysis of solar transit measurements, made at the Royal Greenwich Observatory ever since 1836 and the U.S. Naval Observatory ever since 1846. They calculated that the sun is shrinking at the rate of 5 ft/hr in diameter (0.1% per century, 2 arc-sec/century). They also analyzed solar eclipses for the past four centuries.
Jupiter is also apparently contracting, because it is giving off more heat than it receives from the sun. Jupiter radiates twice as much energy as it absorbs from the sun through a contraction and cooling process. A surface contraction of just one centimeter per year would account for the measured heat flow from Jupiter.
A similar situation exists for Saturn. Saturn emits 50% more heat than it absorbs from the sun.
The above findings indicate that our sun’s output of radiant energy is generated by this shrinkage and not by hydrogen explosions (thermonuclear fusion) deep within it. Again, if hydrogen was the solar fuel, we should be receiving a very large quantity of neutrinos, and we don’t.
Summarizing solar collapse:
- The evidence that hydrogen explosions (thermonuclear fusion) are the cause of solar energy (sunshine) would be a great abundance of neutrino radiation and there is none
- The evidence that solar collapse (gradual shrinkage) is the cause of solar energy exists
- Darwinists reject solar collapse as the cause…
- since it would mean that our sun and the universe could not be more than a few million years old;
- their cosmology theories would be wrong; and
- the Darwinian theories of Cosmic and Stellar evolution would both be completely gutted.
These facts are known and directly refute Darwinian theory. Therefore, these facts are ignored until a “naturalistic explanation that fits the Darwinian model” is found. In other words, the decision has been made to stick with solar fusion (hydrogen explosions) as the cause of solar energy and sunshine because that fits the secular humanist model.
In my experience, there are folks who fight and folks who engage in flight. It takes courage and character to confront and cope with the truth, because the truth requires something in return, some sacrifice, some struggle, some energy on your part. Fleeing from the truth effectively, for a lifetime, can put off that obligation and responsibility all the way up to judgement day.
In the secular humanist worldview, the materialist cries out to the universe proclaiming, “I exist!” and this heartfelt cry creates in the universe no sense of obligation.
In the Christian worldview, we cry out to God and proclaim, “I exist!” and God answers, “I know. I created you. And I love you and want what is best for you.”
The material universe tests the humanist to see how long he can survive before dying forever and rotting in the dirt. The Christian life tests the human to see how much he can love his neighbor and live a Christlike life before spending the remainder of eternity at the right hand of the Creator.
In the book of Genesis, we are told how God created absolutely everything, light and darkness, heavens and earth, water and dry land, plants and animals, and man. Almost as an aside scripture reveals, to paraphrase, “Oh, yeah. He made the stars, too.”
God’s power is without limit. Certainly, our craven little minds cannot encompass such infinite power and knowledge. Certainly, the constraints that secular humanists would put on God to limit His power are therefore illogical and, in truth, the artificial constraints of a small and very closed mind that is actively fleeing from the truth. This is a methodology of thought that cannot even confront and cope with the small truths of certain very real scientific facts — preferring to ignore any facts that refute the Darwinist religious beliefs in favor of fanciful lies.
How can this methodology of thought, then, cope with the truth of a love that endures forever? How can this mindset allow for an eternal Creator who corrected the errors of his creations by sacrificing His very best lamb?
And in so doing, beloved, He demonstrated his unlimited power by bringing forth a brand new star. It was the only time in the history of the human race that humanity has ever witnessed a star coming into existence. Just a few thousand years ago, that star led the most intelligent people on the face of the earth to worship at the feet of the newborn King of Kings, the living son of God.
Matthew 2:9-11 …behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceedingly great joy. And when they had come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him. And when they had opened their treasures, they presented gifts to Him: gold, frankincense, and myrrh.
In order to change that mind, there must be a change of heart. If you are seeking the truth this season, tired of fleeing, tired of running, ready to confront and cope with an eternal love — I encourage you to open your heart. The rest will follow.
I wish you happy Holy Days and a joyous Christmas. Gregg
Additional Posts dealing with Creation and DarwinismPin It