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 facts.'

"In conclusion perhaps the reader may agree with Paul A. Zirnmerman as he comments on Dr. Urey's statement:

"'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 might have.'

"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 him."—Psalm 8:3-4.

"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.

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 universe.

"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 goes.

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 gravitational field.. 

"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.

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 together?

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.

DIFFERENTIAL BINARIES—Binary 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.

Most binary and multiple star systems are composed of different types of stars. Evolutionary 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.

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.

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 boundary?

"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.

GALAXIES EXIST—Just 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 breathtaking.

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 4.

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 theories.

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 attention to.

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 organized groups.

"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, 74:383 (1977).

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 rapidly.

"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 their courses.

"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), p. 115.

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. 113.

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 answer.

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 1985.

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.

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.