Evolution Cruncher Chapter 2
The Big Bang and Stellar Evolution
the Big Bang is a fizzle and stars cannot evolve out of gas
This chapter is based on
pp. 1-47 of Origin of the Universe (Volume One of our three-volume
Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this chapter are at least
104 statements by scientists. You will find them, plus much more, on our
information, see *#1/19 Scientists Oppose the Explosion Theory / #2/1
The Entropy Problem / #4/9 Problems for Origin of Matter and Origin of
about you. There are clouds, seas, and mountains, grass carpets, the
plains; and birds sing in the trees. Farm animals graze in the meadows,
and water brooks run through the fields. In city and country, people
use their astounding minds to plan and produce intricate things. At
night the stars come out, and overhead are billions of stars in our
galaxy. Beyond them are 100 billion island universes, each with 100
Yet all of these things are
made of matter and energy. Where did it all come from? How did
everything begin—all the wonderful things of life and nature?
tell us that it all came from nothing. Yes, nothing.
That is what is being
taught to your friends, children, and loved ones. You should know the
facts in the case.
In this chapter we shall
briefly view what evolutionary scientists teach about the origin of
matter, stars, galaxies, and planets;—and we will give you basic
scientific reasons why their cosmological theories are incorrect.
(Cosmology is the word used for
theories about the origin of matter and stellar objects.)
1 - THE BIG
The Big Bang
theory has been accepted by a majority of scientists today. It
theorizes that a large quantity of nothing decided to pack tightly
together and, then, explode outward into hydrogen and helium. This gas
is said to have flowed outward through frictionless space
("frictionless," so the outflowing gas cannot stop or slow
down) to eventually form stars, galaxies, planets, and moons. It all
sounds so simple, just as you would find in a science fiction novel. And
that is all it is.
WHAT IT IS
originators—*George Lemaitre, a Belgium, struck on the basic idea in
1927; and *George Gamow, *R.A. Alpher, and *R. Herman devised the
basic Big Bang model in 1948. But it was *Gamow, a well-known scientist
and science fiction writer, that gave it its present name and then
popularized it (*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, 1984,
p. 43). Campaigning for the idea enthusiastically, he was able to
convince many other scientists. He used quaint little cartoons to
emphasize the details. The cartoons really helped sell the theory.
to this theory, in the beginning, there was no matter, just
nothingness. Then this nothingness condensed by gravity into a single,
tiny spot, and it decided to explode!
That explosion produced
protons, neutrons, and electrons which flowed outward at incredible
speed throughout empty space; for there was no other matter in the
As these protons, neutrons,
and electrons hurled themselves outward at supersonic speed, they are
said to have formed themselves into typical atomic structures of
mutually orbiting hydrogen and helium atoms.
outward-racing atoms are said to have begun circling one another,
producing gas clouds which then pushed together into stars.
stars only contained lighter elements (mainly hydrogen and helium). Then
all of the stars repeatedly exploded. It took at least two explosions of
each star to produce our heavier elements. Gamow described it in
scientific terms: In violation of physical law, emptiness fled from the
vacuum of space—and rushed into a superdense core, that had a density
of 1094gm/cm2 and a temperature in excess of 1039
degrees absolute. That is a lot of density and heat for a gigantic
pile of nothingness! (Especially when we realize that it is impossible
for nothing to get hot. Although air gets hot, air is matter, not an
absence of it.)
Where did this
"superdense core" come from? Gamow solemnly came up with a
scientific answer for this; he said it came as a result of "the
big squeeze," when the emptiness made up its mind to crowd
together. Then, with true scientific aplomb, he named this solid core of
nothing, "ylem" (pronounced "ee-lum"). With a
name like that, many people thought this must be a great scientific
truth of some kind. In addition, numbers were provided to add an
additional scientific flair: This remarkable lack-of-anything was said
by Gamow to have a density of 10 to the 145th power g/cc, or one hundred
trillion times the density of water!
Then all that packed-in
blankness went boom!
Let’s take it point by
point—That is the theory. It
all sounds so simple, just as you would find in a science fiction novel.
And that is all it is. The theory stands in clear violation of
physical laws, celestial mechanics, and common sense. Here are a
number of scientific reasons why the Big Bang theory is unworkable and
1 - The
Big Bang theory is based on theoretical extremes. It may look good
in math calculations, but it can’t actually happen. A tiny bit of
nothing packed so tightly together that it blew up and produced all the
matter in the universe. Seriously now, this is a fairy tale. It is
a bunch of armchair calculations, and nothing else. It is easy to
theorize on paper. The Big Bang is a theoretical extreme, just as a
black hole is. It is easy to theorize that something is true, when it
has never been seen and there is no definitive evidence that it exists
or ever happened. But let us not mistake Disneyland theories for
2 - Nothingness cannot
pack together. It would have
no way to push itself into a pile. It
would have no way to push itself into a pile.
3 - A vacuum has no
density. It is said that the
nothingness got very dense, and that is why it exploded. But a total
vacuum is the opposite of total density. It
is said that the nothingness got very dense, and that is why it
exploded. But a total vacuum is the opposite of total density.
4 - There would be no
ignition to explode nothingness.
No fire and no match. It could not be a chemical explosion, for no
chemicals existed. It could not be a nuclear explosion, for there were
no atoms! No fire and no match. It
could not be a chemical explosion, for no chemicals existed. It could
not be a nuclear explosion, for there were no atoms!
5 - There is no way to
expand it. How can you
expand what isn’t there? Even if that magical vacuum could somehow be
pulled together by gravity, what would then cause the pile of emptiness
to push outward? The "gravity" which brought it together would
keep it from expanding.
6 - Nothingness cannot
produce heat. The intense
heat caused by the exploding nothingness is said to have changed the
nothingness into protons, neutrons, and electrons. First, an
empty vacuum in the extreme cold of outer space cannot get hot by
itself. Second, an empty void cannot magically change itself into
matter. Third, there can be no heat without an energy source. The intense heat caused by the exploding
nothingness is said to have changed the nothingness into protons,
neutrons, and electrons.
7 – The calculations
are too exacting. Too
perfect an explosion would be required. On many points, the
theoretical mathematical calculations needed to turn a Big Bang into
stars and our planet cannot be worked out; in others they are too
exacting. Knowledgeable scientists call them "too
perfect." Mathematical limitations would have to be met which would
be next to impossible to achieve. The limits for success are simply too
Most aspects of the theory
are impossible, and some require parameters that would require miracles
to fulfill. One example of this is the expansion of the original
fireball from the Big Bang, which they place precisely within the
narrowest of limits. An evolutionist astronomer, *R.H. Dicke, says it
the fireball had expanded only .1 percent faster, the present rate of
expansion would have been 3 x 103
times as great. Had the initial expansion rate been 0.1 percent less,
the Universe would have expanded to only 3 x 10-6
of its present radius before collapsing. At this maximum radius the
density of ordinary matter would have been 10-12 grm/m3, over 1016
times as great as the present mass density. No stars could have formed
in such a Universe, for it would not have existed long enough to form
stars."—*R.H. Dickey, Gravitation and the Universe (1969), p.
8 - Such an equation
would have produced not a universe but a hole.
*Roger L. St. Peter in 1974 developed a complicated mathematical
equation that showed that the theorized Big Bang could not have exploded
outward into hydrogen and helium. In reality, St. Peter says the
theoretical explosion (if one could possibly take place) would fall back
on itself and make a theoretical black hole! This means that one
imaginary object would swallow another one!
9 - There is not enough
antimatter in the universe. This
is a big problem for the theorists. The original Big Bang would have
produced equal amounts of positive matter (matter) and negative matter
(antimatter). But only small amounts of antimatter exist. There should
be as much antimatter as matter—if the Big Bang was true.
"Since matter and
antimatter are equivalent in all respects but that of electromagnetic
charge oppositeness, any force [the Big Bang] that would create one
should have to create the other, and the universe should be made of
equal quantities of each. This is a dilemma. Theory tells us there
should be antimatter out there, and observation refuses to back it
up."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, p. 343.
"We are pretty sure
from our observations that the universe today contains matter, but very
little if any antimatter."—*Victor Weisskopf, "The Origin
of the Universe," American Scientist, 71, p. 479.
10 - The antimatter from
the Big Bang would have destroyed all the regular matter.
This fact is well-known to physicists. As soon as the two are produced
in the laboratory, they instantly come together and annihilate one
We have mentioned ten
reasons why matter could not be made by a supposed Big Bang. But now we
will discuss what would happen IF it actually had.
1 - There
is no way to unite the particles. As
the particles rush outward from the central explosion, they would keep
getting farther and farther apart from one another.
2 - Outer space is
frictionless, and there would be no way to slow the particles.
The Big Bang is postulated on a totally empty space, devoid of all
matter, in which a single explosion fills it with outward-flowing
matter. There would be no way those particles could ever slow.
3 - The particles would
maintain the same vector (speed and direction) forever.
Assuming the particles were moving outward through totally empty space,
there is no way they could change direction. They could not get together
and begin circling one another.
4 - There is no way to
slow the particles. They are traveling at supersonic speed,
and every kilometer would separate them farther from one other.
5 - There is no way to
change the direction of even one particle.
They would keep racing on forever, never slowing, never changing
direction. There is no way to get the particles to form into atoms or
cluster into gaseous clouds. Angular momentum would be needed, and the
laws of physics could not produce it.
6 - How could their
atomic structures originate? Atoms,
even hydrogen and helium, have complex structures. There is no way that
outward shooting particles, continually separating farther from each
other as they travel, could arrange themselves into atomic structures.
We will now assume
that, contrary to physical laws, (1) the particles magically that,
contrary to physical laws, (1) the particles magically DID
manage to move toward one another together, and (2) the particles COULD
slow down and change directions.
PARTICLES CHANGED DIRECTIONS AND FORMED GAS
theory—Gradually, the outward-racing particles are said to have
begun circling one another, forming atoms. These atoms then changed
direction further (this time toward one another) and formed gas clouds
which then pushed together into stars.
This aspect of the stellar
evolution theory is as strange as that which preceded it.
1 - Gas molecules in
outer space are widely separated.
By "gas," we mean atoms of hydrogen and/or helium which are
separated from one another. All gas in outer space has a density so
rarified that it is far less than the emptiest atmospheric vacuum
pressure bottle in any laboratory in the world! Gas in outer space
is rarer (less dense; atoms more separated) than anything on earth.
2 - Neither hydrogen nor
helium in outer space would clump together.
In fact, there is no gas on earth that clumps together either. Gas
pushes apart; it does not push together. Separated atoms of hydrogen
and/or helium would be even less likely to clump together in outer
We will now ASSUME that the
outward-moving, extremely fast, ever separating atoms (shot out by the
Big Bang explosion) could slow, change direction, and form themselves
into immense clouds.
CLOUDS PUSH THEMSELVES INTO STARS
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.
2 - Careful analysis has
revealed that there is not enough matter in gas clouds to produce
3 - There would not be
enough time for the gas to reach the currently known expanse of the
universe, so it could form itself into stars.
tell us that the Big Bang occurred 10 to 15 billion years ago, and stars
were formed 5 billion years later. They only allow about 2½ billion
years for it to clump together into stars! Their dating problem has been
caused by the discovery of supposedly faraway quasars (which we will
discuss later), some of which are dated at 15 billion light-years, since
they have a redshift of 400 percent. That would make them 15 billion
years old, which is too old to accommodate the theory. It doesn’t take
a nuclear scientist to figure out the math in this paragraph. Simple
arithmetic will tell you there is not enough time.
4 - Gas clouds in outer
space expand; they do not contract. Yet
they would have to contract to form anything. Any one of these points
alone is enough to eliminate the stellar evolution theory. Yet
they would have to contract to form anything. Any one of these points
alone is enough to eliminate the stellar evolution theory.
5 - If the Big Bang theory
were true, instead of a universe of stars, there would only be an
outer rim of fast-moving matter.
The outwardly flowing matter and/or gas clouds would keep moving outward
without ever slowing. In frictionless space, with no matter ahead of it
to collide with, the supposed matter from the initial explosion would
keep moving outward forever. This fact is as solid as the ones mentioned
6 - 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.
7 - A quantity of gas
moving in the same direction in frictionless space is too stable to do
anything but keep moving forward.
Gas in outer space which was circling a common center would fly
apart, not condense together.
9 - There is not enough
mass in the universe for the various theories of 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 (*P.V. Rizzo, "Review of Mysteries of the
Universe," Sky and Telescope, August 1982, p. 150). Astronomers
are agreed on the existence of this problem. Hoyle, for example, says
that without enough mass in the universe, it would not have been
possible for gas to change into stars.
"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."—*F. Hoyle and *T. Gold, quoted in *D.B. Larson,
Universe in Motion (1984). p. 8.
Hydrogen gas in outer space does not clump together. *Harwit’s
research disproves the possibility that hydrogen gas in outer space can
clump together. This is a major breakthrough in disproving the Big Bang
and related origin of matter and stars theories. The problem is twofold:
(1) The density of matter in interstellar space is too low.
(2) There is nothing to attract the particles of matter in outer
space to stick to one another. Think about it a minute; don’t
those facts make sense?
This point is so important
(for it devastates the origin of stars theory) that *Harwit’s research
should be mentioned:
dealt with the mathematical likelihood that hydrogen atoms could stick
together and form tiny grains of several atoms, by the random
sticking of interstellar atoms and molecules to a single nucleus as they
passed by at a variable speed. Using the most favorable conditions and
the maximum possible sticking ability for grains, Harwit determined that
the amount of time needed for gas or other particles to clump
together into a size of just a hundred-thousandth of a centimeter in
radius—would take about 3 billion years! Using more likely
rates, 20 billion years would be required—to produce one tiny grain of
matter stuck together out in space. As with nearly all scientists quoted
in our 1,326-page Evolution Disproved Series (which this book is
condensed from), *Harwit is not a Creationist (*M. Harwit,
Astrophysical Concepts, 1973, p. 394).
*Novotny’s research findings are also very important. *Novotny,
in a book published by Oxford University, discusses the problem of
"gaseous dispersion." It is a physical law that gas in a
vacuum expands instead of contracts; therefore it cannot form itself
into stars, planets, etc. That which cannot happen, cannot
happen given any amount of time. Do you agree?
If you agree, you are being
scientific (for you are agreeing with scientific facts); if you
disagree, you are fooling yourself.
We will now ASSUME that the
clouds formed themselves into what evolutionists call proto-stars, or
EXPLODE AND SUPERNOVAS PRODUCE HEAVY ELEMENTS
problem—The Big Bang only produced hydrogen and helium. Somehow, the
90 heavier (post-helium) elements had to be made. The
theorists had to figure out a way to account for their existence.
first stars, which were formed, were so-called "first-generation
stars" (also called "population III stars"). They
contained only lighter elements (mainly hydrogen and helium). Then all
of these stars repeatedly exploded. Billions upon billions of stars kept
exploding, for billions of years. Gradually, these explosions are said
to have produced all our heavier elements.
This concept is as wild as
those preceding it.
1 - Another imaginative
necessity. Like all the other
aspects of this theory, this one is included in order to somehow get the
heavier (post-helium) elements into the universe. The evolutionists
admit that the Big Bang would only have produced hydrogen and helium.
2 - The
nuclear gaps at mass 5 and 8 make it impossible for hydrogen or helium
to change itself into any of the heavier elements. This is an
extremely important point, and is called the "helium mass 4 gap"
(that is, there is a gap immediately after helium 4). Therefore
exploding stars could not produce the heavier elements. (Some scientists
speculate that a little might be produced, but even that would not be
enough to supply all the heavier elements now in our universe.) Among
nuclides that can actually be formed, gaps exists at mass 5 and 8. Neither
hydrogen nor helium can jump the gap at mass 5. The first gap is
caused by the fact that neither a proton nor a neutron can be attached
to a helium nucleus of mass 4. Because of this gap, the only element
that hydrogen can normally change into is helium. Even if it spanned
this gap, it would be stopped again at mass 8. Hydrogen bomb explosions
produce deuterum (hydrogen 2), which, in turn, forms helium 4. The
hydrogen bomb chain reaction of nuclear changes would continue changing
into ever heavier elements until they reached uranium;—but the process
is stopped at the gap at mass 5. If it were not for that gap, our sun
would be radiating uranium toward us!
"In the sequence of
atomic weight numbers 5 and 8 are vacant. That is, there is no stable
atom of mass 5 or mass 8 . . The question then is: How can the
build-up of elements by neutron capture get by these gaps? The process
could not go beyond helium 4 and even if it spanned this gap it would
be stopped again at mass 8. This basic objection to Gamow’s theory
is a great disappointment in view of the promise and philosophical
attractiveness of the idea."—*William A. Fowler, California
Institute of Technology, quoted in Creation Science, p. 90.
Clarification: If you will
look at any standard table of the elements, you will find that the
atomic weight of hydrogen is 1.008. (Deuterum is a form of hydrogen with
a weight of 2.016.) Next comes helium (4.003), followed by lithium
(6.939), beryllium (9.012), boron (10.811), etc. Gaps in atomic weight
exist at mass 5 and 8.
But cannot hydrogen
explosions cross those gaps? No. Nuclear fision (a nuclear bomb or
reactor) splits (unevenly halves) uranium into barium and technetium.
Nuclear fusion (a hydrogen bomb) combines (doubles) hydrogen into
deuterum (helium 2), which then doubles into helium 4—and stops there.
So a hydrogen explosion (even in a star) does not go across the mass 5
We will now ASSUME that
hydrogen and helium explosions could go across the gaps at mass 5 and 8:
3 - There has not been
enough theoretical time to produce all the needed heavier elements
that now exist. We know from
spectrographs that heavier elements are found all over the universe. The
first stars are said to have formed about 250 million years after the
initial Big Bang explosion. (No one ever dates the Big Bang over 20
billion years ago, and the date has recently been lowered to 15 billions
years ago.) At some lengthy time after the gas coalesced into "first-generation"
stars, most of them are theorized to have exploded and then, 250 million
years later, reformed into "second-generation" stars.
These are said to have exploded into "third-generation"
stars. Our sun is supposed to be a second- or third-generation star.
4 - There are no
population III stars (also called first-generation stars) in the
sky. According to the theory,
there should be "population III" stars, containing only
hydrogen and helium, many of which exploded and made "population
II" (second-generation stars), but there are only population I
and II stars (*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, 1984,
5 - Random explosions do
not produce intricate orbits. The
theory requires that countless billions of stars exploded. How could
haphazard explosions result in the marvelously intricate circlings that
we find in the orbits of suns, stars, binary stars, galaxies, and star
clusters? Within each galactic system, hundreds of billions of stars are
involved in these interrelated orbits. Were these careful balancings not
maintained, the planets would fall into the stars, and the stars would
fall into their galactic centers—or they would fly apart! Over half of
all the stars in the sky are in binary systems, with two or more stars
circling one another. How could such astonishing patterns be the result
of explosions? Because there are no "first generation"
("Population I") stars, Big Bang theory requires that every
star exploded at least one or two times. But random explosions never
6 - There are not enough
supernova explosions to produce the needed heavier elements.
There are 81 stable elements and 90 natural elements. Each one has
unusual properties and intricate orbits. When a star explodes, it is
called a nova. When a large star explodes, it becomes extremely
bright for a few weeks or months and is called a supernova. It is
said that only the explosions of supernovas could produce much of the
needed heavier elements, yet there have been relatively few such
7 - Throughout all recorded
history, there have been almost no supernova explosions.
If the explosions occurred in the past, they should be occurring now.
Research astronomers tell us that one or two supernova explosions are
seen every century, and only 16 have exploded in our galaxy in the past
2,000 years. Past civilizations carefully recorded each one. The Chinese
observed one, in A.D. 185, and another in A.D. 1006. The one in 1054
produced the Crab nebula, and was visible in broad daylight for weeks.
It was recorded both in Europe and the Far East. Johannes Kepler wrote a
book about the next one, in 1604. The next bright one was 1918 in Aquila,
and the latest in the Veil Nebula in the Large Magellanic Cloud on
February 24, 1987.
"Supernovae are quite
different . . and astronomers are eager to study their spectra in
detail. The main difficulty is their rarity. About 1 per 650 years is
the average for any one galaxy . . The 1885 supernova of Andromeda was
the closest to us in the last 350 years."—*Isaac Asimov, New
Guide to Science (1984), p. 48.
8 - Why did the stellar
explosions mysteriously stop?
The theory required that all the stars exploded, often repeatedly. The
observable facts are that, throughout recorded history, stars only
rarely explode. In order to explain this, evolutionists postulate
that 5 billion years ago, the explosions suddenly stopped. Very
convenient. When the theory was formulated in the 1940s, through
telescopes astronomers could see stars whose light left them 5 billion
light-years ago. But today, we can see stars that are 15 billion
light-years away. Why are we not seeing massive numbers of stellar
explosions far out in space? The stars are doing just fine; it is the
theory which is wrong.
9 - The most distant
stars, which are said to date nearly to the time of the Big Bang
explosion, are not exploding,—and yet they contain heavier
elements. We can now see out in
space to nearly the beginning of Big Bang time. Because of the Hubble
telescope, we can now see almost as far out in space as the beginning of
the evolutionists’ theoretical time. But, as with nearby stars, the
farthest ones have heavier elements (are "second-generation"),
and they are not exploding any more frequently than are the nearby ones.
10 - Supernovas do not
throw off enough matter to make additional stars.
are not many stellar explosions and most of them are small-star (nova)
explosions. Yet novas cast off very little matter. A small-star
explosion only loses a hundred-thousandth of its matter; a supernova
explosion loses about 10 percent; yet even that amount is not sufficient
to produce all the heavier elements found in the planets, interstellar
gas, and stars. So supernovas—Gamow’s fuel source for nearly all the
elements in the universe—occur far too infrequently and produce far
too small an amount of heavy elements—to produce the vast amount that
exists in the universe.
11 - Only hydrogen and
helium have been found in the outflowing gas from supernova explosions.
The theory requires lots of supernova
explosions in order to produce heavy elements. But there are not enough
supernovas,—and research indicates that they do not produce heavy
elements! All that was needed was to turn a spectroscope toward an
exploded supernova and analyze the elements in the outflowing gas from
the former star. *K. Davidson did that in 1982, and found that the Crab
nebula (resulting from an A.D. 1054 supernova) only has hydrogen and
helium. This means that, regardless of the temperature of the explosion,
the helium mass 4 gap was never bridged. (It had been theorized that a
supernova would generate temperatures high enough to bridge the gap.)
But the gap at mass 4 and 8 prevented it from occurring.
12 - An explosion of a
star would not produce another star. It
has been theorized that supernova explosions would cause nearby gas to
compress and form itself into new stars. But if a star exploded, it
would only shoot outward and any gas encountered would be pushed along
So we find that the
evidence does not support the various aspects of the Big Bang and
stellar evolution theories.
2 - MORE
WHICH BURY THE
FOR STELLAR EVOLUTION
1 - According
to the theory, older stars should have more heavy elements because they
are continually making 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
2 - The
theory says that gas floating in interstellar space is leftover from the
Big Bang, and can only consist of hydrogen and helium. But *Rubins has
shown that this is not true. Extra-galactic gas has a variety of
heavier elements in it.
3 - 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 (ever farther apart) particles. So
the very existence of stars disproves the theorized original giant
4 - The
theory requires a continual rush of particles outward—leaving nothing
inside this outer parimeter 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.
5 - According
to the theory, the farther we look out into space, the farther back into
past eons of time we are gazing. This means that the farthest
stars and galaxies ought to be the youngest. Yet research reveals the
farthest stars are just like those nearby.
6 - Angular momentum
is another serious problem. 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, started by the supposed Big Bang, have
changed into rotation (spinning or revolving motion) and revolutions
(orbiting motion)? How could angular momentum exist—and in
such perfectly balanced orbits throughout space? There is no possible
way that floating gas could transform itself into rotating and orbiting
objects, like stars, planets, and moons.
7 - Inward pushing gas
would not change to 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 people in a
circle pushed marbles in toward a common center, the marbles would not
begin rotating or circling after they reached it.
8 - Matter-origin
theories cannot explain why stars spin. The
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, Hz 1883, has a spin period of only 6
9 - Some stars orbit
backward to that of other
stars. The theorists cannot explain this.
10 - There are
high-velocity stars that are traveling far too fast
to accommodate the evolutionary theories of matter and stellar origins.
11 - If
the Big Bang theory were true, all stars would move the same direction,
but stars, clusters, and galaxies are moving in various directions
opposite to one another. (More about the expanding universe
12 - 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.
13 - 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.
"As IBM’s Philip E. Seiden, put it: ‘The standard Big Bang model does not give rise to
lumpiness. That model assumes the universe started out as a globally
smooth, homogeneous expanding gas. If you apply the laws of physics to
this model, you get a universe that is uniform, a cosmic vastness of
evenly distributed atoms with no organization of any kind.’ No
galaxies, no stars, no planets, no nothing. Needless to say, the night
sky, dazzling in its lumps, clumps, and clusters, says otherwise. How
then did the lumps get there? No one can say."—*Ben Patrusky,
"Why is the Cosmos ‘Lumpy’?" Science 81, June 1981, p. 96.
14 - 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
"inhomogenities," or "lumps" such as stars and
15 - The universe is
full of super clusters.
These are the biggest "lumps" of all. It has recently been
discovered that the galaxies are grouped into galaxy clusters, and these
into still larger super clusters. 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.
"The main efforts of
investigators have been in papering over holes in the Big Bang theory,
to build up an idea that has become ever more complex and cumbersome . .
I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the
Big Bang theory. When a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory,
experience shows that the theory rarely recovers."—*Sir Fred
Hoyle, "The Big Bang Theory under Attack," Science Digest, May
1984, p. 84.
16 - Solar collapse, not
nuclear fusion has been found to be the cause of solar energy. But that
would undercut the entire theory of the Big Bang.
We will briefly summarize the data here. You will find it discussed more
fully (along with additional quotations) in the chapter, Origin of
the Stars, in our 3-volume set on our website. It is also partially
referred to in "6 - Solar Collapse" in the Age of
the Earth chapter in this paperback.
There is evidence that our
sun "shines," not by hydrogen explosions, but by solar
collapse. Yet stellar evolution is keyed to the fact that stars are
fueled by (shine because of) hydrogen explosions (nuclear fusion).
The amount of mass/energy our sun would have to lose daily amounts to 4
million tons [3.6 million mt] a second. The problem is the fusion
process should produce lots of sub-atomic particles called neutrinos,
and each square inch of earth’s surface should be hit each
second by a trillion neutrinos. Scientists have neutrino detectors
in place and have searched for them since the mid-1970s, but hardly
any arrive from the sun. This fact alone would appear to disprove
the hydrogen theory of solar energy (cf. *J.H. Bahcall, Astronomical
Journal, 76:283, 1971). *Corliss, the world leader in tracking down
scientific anomalies, considers the "missing neutrinos" to be
"one of the most significant anomalies in astronomy" (*W.R.
Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos, 1987, p. 40). It was not until the
1930s that the nuclear theory of starlight was developed by *Hans Bethe
and *Carl von Weizsacker. Yet it remains a theory. In contrast, there is
strong evidence pointing to solar collapse as the true cause of solar
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 Lord
Kelvin. If each star is slowly
contracting, great amounts of energy would be constantly released. But
evolutionists cannot accept this possibility, because it would mean the
universe (and the earth) is much younger. 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 a year
is all that would be necessary to produce our sun’s actual energy
release. This is a radius shirnkage of only .009 feet [.27 cm] per hour.
Some scientists have found
evidence of solar collapse. One
major study was done by *John A. Eddy and *Aram Boornazian (*New
Scientist, March 3, 1983, p. 592). The basis for this is an analysis
of solar transit measurements, made at the Royal Greenwich Observatory
since 1836 and the U.S. Naval Observatory since 1846. It was 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. A separate report by *Ronald Gilliland confirmed
the *Eddy and *Boornazian report (*op. cit., p. 593).
"The sun has been
contracting about 0.0% per century . . corresponding to a shrinkage rate
of about 5 feet per hour [15.24 dm]."—*G.B. Lublihn, Physics
Today, Vol. 32, No. 17, 1979.
The above findings would
indicate that our sun’s output of radiant energy is generated by this
shrinkage and not by hydrogen explosions (thermonuclear fusion) deep
within it. If hydrogen was the solar fuel, we should be receiving a
very large quantity of neutrinos; yet almost none are detected.
Jupiter is also apparently
contracting, because it is giving off more heat than it receives from
the sun. A surface contraction
of just one centimeter per year would account for the measured heat flow
from Jupiter. A similar situation exists for Saturn.
"Jupiter . . radiates
twice as much energy as it absorbs from the sun through a contraction
and cooling process."—*Star Date radio broadcast, November 8,
"Saturn emits 50% more
heat than it absorbs from the sun."— *Science Frontiers, No.
73, January-February 1991.
These facts are known; but,
in order to defend evolutionary theory, the decision has been made to
stick with solar fusion as the cause of solar energy and sunshine.
startled, and laymen amazed, when in 1979 Jack Eddy, of the High
Altitude Observatory in Boulder, Colorado, claimed that the sun was
shrinking at such a rate that, if the decline did not reverse, our local
star would disappear within a hundred million years."—*John
Gribbin, "The Curious Case of the Shrinking Sun," New
Scientist, March 3, 1983.
however, indicates that the terrestrial crust [our earth’s rock
strata] has an age of several billion years, and it is surely to be
expected that the sun is at least as old as the earth . . We must
conclude that . . another source must be responsible for most of the
energy output of a star."—*Eva Novotny, Introduction to
Stellar Atmospheres and Interiors (1973), p. 248.
Summarizing solar collapse:
The evidence that hydrogen explosions
(thermonuclear fusion) is the cause of solar energy (sunshine) would be
a great abundance of neutrino radiation. But that evidence is missing.
The evidence that solar collapse (gradual shrinkage) is the cause has
been definitely found. Evolutionists reject solar collapse as the cause,
(1) since it would mean our sun and the universe could not be more than
a few million years old; (2) thus, their strata theories would be wrong
and (3) the Big Bang theory would be gutted.
Is there no evidence that
supports the Big Bang theory? Evolutionists are able to point to only
TWO. Here they are:
BACKGROUND RADIATION NOT EVIDENCE OF THE BIG
fact—There is a faint amount of heat radiating throughout outer space.
It is called background radiation. Since
it comes uniformly from all directions, it is believed to exist
throughout the universe. It is a very small amount of "heat":
in fact, only 2.73o K
above absolute zero (-270o C
or -454o F).
radiation (also called microwave
radiation), first discovered in 1965, is said to be the single, best
evidence that the Big Bang occurred. It is said to be the leftover
remains, the last remnant, from the Big Bang explosion.
Scientists said that
background radiation would prove the theory in four ways:
It would come from only one direction—the Big Bang source. (2) It
would have the right radiational strength to match the Big Bang
mathematical theory. (3) It would emit the proper spectrum. (4) It would
not be a smooth radiation.
But we find that, if this
is the best evidence that the theorists can produce for their
speculation, it surely is weak.
1 - It is omnidirectional. Background
radiation comes from every direction instead of one.
Big Bang theory requires that it come from only one direction—from
where the Big Bang occurred. Since its discovery, scientists have been
unable to match its directional radiation (its isotropy) with the
Big Bang predictions. Its omnidirectionality tells where the
background radiation is coming from: "Background radiation"
is actually a slight amount of heat given off by stars throughout the
universe. Would they not be expected to emit a very faint amount
of heat into outer space?
2 - The radiation does
not fit the theory, for it is too weak. It should be far more
powerful than it is. *Fred
Hoyle, a leading 20th-century astrophysicist, said it should have been
3 - Background radiation
lacks the proper spectrum.
It does not have the ideal "black body" (total light
absorption) capacity which would agree with the *Max Planck calculation.
This radiation does not fit the theoretical 2.7K black body spectrum
required for the Big Bang theory.
4 - The
spectrum should be far hotter than it is. The heat emitted by
the radiation should have a far higher temperature. The radiation
should emit a 100 º
K black body radiationoK black
body radiation spectrum, which is far greater
than the 2.73° K
spectrum it now has.
5 - Background radiation is too smooth.
theory requires that it be much more irregular and "lumpy"
(with "density fluctuations") in order for it to explain how
stars could be formed from the Big Bang explosion. In recent years, some
slight variations in smoothness have been detected, but this is still
not enough to fit the theory.
"It seems difficult to believe that, whereas
visible matter is conspicuously clumpy and clustered on all scales, the
invisible intergalactic gas is uniform and homogeneous."—*G.
de Vaucouleurs, "The Case for a Hierarchical Cosmology,"
Science 167, p. 1203.
"The problem was to reconcile the apparent evenness
of the early expansion, as indicated by the steady background radiation,
with the observed large-scale structures [stars, planets, etc.]. A
perfectly smooth cosmic explosion would have produced only an
increasingly rarified [ever thinner] gas cloud."—*Peter Pocock
and *Pat Daniels, Galaxies (1988), p. 117.
6 - All of the above points (omnidirectionality, very
slight amount of heat, general smoothness, with radiative fluctuations
in strength) is what we would expect from radiational heat from the
multiplied billions of stars throughout the universe.
be understandable for all those stars to emit a slight amount of
uniform, omnidirectional radiative heat. And we would expect the
radiational heat emitted by the stars should, at great distances, show
very slight fluctuations. Does not each one send forth both heat and
occasional gigantic solar flares into space? If you do not believe stars
emit heat into space, then you do not believe the sun keeps you warm.
REDSHIFT NOT EVIDENCE OF
THE BIG BANG
OR AN EXPANDING
The fact—Relatively white light
can be split by a triangular prism of glass into all the colors
of the rainbow. Using a spectrometer, this can be done to
starlight. Dark, vertical bands mark the spectrum at various
points. Analyzing these dark bands, the type of elements in each star
can be ascertained. Spectral type is a star’s classification—
based on its spectrum, surface temperature, and mass. A spectrogram
is a photograph of a star’s spectrum. Spectroscopy is the study
is on one end of a spectrum and has a
higher frequency and shorter wavelength than visible blue light. Infrared
is the other end of the visible spectrum (astronomers call it "red").
Every star is redshifted to some extent (that is,
the entire spectrum of that star is moved toward the red end). The
farther a star or galaxy is from us, the more its light is shifted. This
displacement is called the redshift.
The theory—The "Big Bangers" (as
scientists call them) theorize that this redshift shows that the
universe is expanding outward from the source of the Big Bang explosion.
They base this on the hypothesis that the "speed theory" of
the redshift is the only cause of the redshift. This means that
if light is traveling toward us, the wavelength is slightly compressed
or shortened. This would cause the light to be blueshifted. If it
is moving away from us, the wavelength is stretched out, which causes a
"This redshift, observed in the spectral lines of
distant galaxies and interpreted as a Doppler [speed] effect, is the key
to cosmology."—*Carl Sagan, Cosmos, p. 252.
What causes the redshift? It is quite obvious that the
distance of the star from us has something to do with the redshift. Here
are FOUR scientific explanations for the redshift, each of which
are accepted by various scientists:, each of which are accepted by
• The Speed redshift
the Doppler theory of redshift): This would occur if the
star were moving away from us. Evolutionists say all the stars
are moving away from us, and there is no other cause for the recorded
redshifts. But there are three other possibilities:
• Gravitational redshifts: The pull
of gravity on light rays would cause a loss of energy in the beam of
In 1915, *Albert Einstein predicted that gravity could
bend light—and that it would cause a redshift. This was later proved
to be true. As light travels toward us from distant stars, it passes
other stars, which slightly slows the beam, causing its spectrum to
shift toward the red.
"Einstein’s views of gravity led to the
prediction that light emitted by a source possessing a very strong
gravitational field should be displaced toward the red (the Einstein
shift)."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, 1984,
Yet, in order to bolster their Big Bang and expanding
universe theories, evolutionists ignore gravitational and second-order
• Second-order Doppler shift:
light source moving at right angles to an observer will always be
redshifted. This would occur if the universe were moving slowly
in a vast circle around a common center. We know that every body in the
universe is orbiting and, at the same time, moving in some direction
with its orbital body. Much of that movement is at right angles to us.
• Energy-loss shift:
waves could themselves directly lose energy as they travel across long
distances. This would nicely explain why the farthest stars from
us have the most dramatic redshifts. This is also called the tired-light
Big Bang theorists maintain that the speed redshift is
the ONLY cause of the redshift,—because they can then say that the
universe is expanding outward as a result of the Big Bang.
But the evidence reveals that the speed redshift
theory—as the ONLY cause of the redshift—is wrong:
1 - Nearly all the stars and galaxies are redshifted.
This fact agrees with the gravitational-loss, second-order Doppler,
and energy-loss redshifts. But, if only the speed theory is
accepted as the cause of this,—nearly all the universe is moving away from
us—our planet! A true expanding universe theory would mean
that everything was moving outward from a common center somewhere else,
not from our planet. If the Big Bang really occurred, the universe
would be rushing outward from where the explosion occurred,—not from
our planet! Example: A bomb explodes in outer space, hurling
shrapnel in every direction. Some pieces would be flying in our
direction while others traveled in other directions. This differential
could be measured. Some pieces would be flying toward us; others
sideways, and others away from us. If there was a Big Bang, we could
locate its origin by measuring redshifts. But, instead, we only find
evidence that everything in space is redshifted; that is, everything is
supposedly moving away from us. This point disproves both the Big
Bang and the expanding universe theory.
here are five spectra, taken by
spectrometer photographs of distant objects in the universe.
The figures are in accordance with the speed theory of red
The top one is
from a stellar object which, according to
the speed theory, is 78 million miles distant and Is moving
away from us at a speed of 1,200 kilometers per second.
The second one
Is thought to be 1 billion light-years
distant and rushing away at 15,000 kps.
The third is
listed at 1.4 billion-light years and 23,000 kps.
The fourth is estimated at 2.5 billion light years and 59,000
kilometers per second. The bottom spectrum is thought to be
located at a distance 3.96 billion light-years from us and
rushing away at a speed of 61,000 kilometers per second.
2 - The closest stars and galaxies are the least
redshifted, and some of the closest stars actually seem to be moving
toward us. The farther that starlight has to travel before reaching
us, the more those two types of shifts would slow it.
3 - There is evidence that photons (light particles)
do slow down.
This would be nicely explained by gravitational
and energy-loss redshifts.
4 - Quasars strongly disprove the speed theory of
They are unknown objects which show
drastically shifted spectrums toward the red. Yet, if the speed
theory is accepted as the cause of those shifts, they would be at
impossibly great distances from us. Some have redshifts of 200
and 300 percent! This would equal distances up to 12 billion light-years
and recession (moving away from us) speeds exceeding 90 percent of the
speed of light! Many astronomers renounced the speed theory when they
learned this. Then came the discovery of quasars with redshifts of
300-400 percent. Ultimately, they found three quasars which,
according to the speed theory, are moving faster than the speed of
light! One of these is eight times faster than the speed of light!
In a desperate attempt to save their theory, the evolutionists
recalculated the "Hubble constant," which is the formula for
the speed of light. But they are unable to change it. Now they really
have a quandary on their hands! As *Vincent A. Ettari wrote, "An
increase of 100 percent in the Hubble constant would decrease the
computed age of the universe by 50 percent."—And the
evolutionists cannot accept that!
- Light has weight. Some suggest that light
and gravity could not affect one another. But *Einstein was right: Light
can be pulled by gravity because it has weight. Because light has
weight, it can be pulled by matter and push it! Because light has
weight, stars it passes pull on it, slightly redshifting it.
set of fine scales is arranged so that one scale is kept dark, and light
is allowed to fall on the other, the lighted scale will sink slowly.
Light has ‘weight.’ The pressure of light on the Earth’s surface
is calculated as two pounds per square mile [90 kg per 2.6 km2]."—*Isaac
Asimov, Asimov’s Book of Facts (1979), p. 330.
6 - No one has ever seen a blue-shifted stellar light
This nicely agrees with the alternate redshift
theories (gravitational, second-order Doppler, and energy-loss) of
redshift. Even nearby stars, which we think are moving toward us, are
very slightly redshifted. But, if the speed theory is
the only cause of redshifts, every star in the universe is actually
moving away from us! Why should we be the center of this
On pages 67-68 of his book, Asimov’s New Guide to
Science, *Isaac Asimov, a confirmed evolutionist, lists 10 reasons
why quasars do not agree with the speed theory of light. We quote that
lengthy section on our website.
You have just completed
Big Bang and Stellar Evolution Part 1
Continue — Go
to the next Chapter in this series,
Big Bang and Stellar Evolution Part 2