We will examine the failures of the big bang theory as a viable option in a 5 part series of articles. This is delivered with the understanding that the Big Bang’s shortcomings could be made into a longer series, or even a semester long class, but this will hopefully highlight what you must believe in for it to occur. We will specifically look at how it fails in each of its stages.
Click here for part 1.
Click here for part 2.
Part three must now begin with the assumptions that an initial singularity explosion has taken place, and created outward racing particles. And as illustrated in part 2 of our series, we must assume that these outward racing particles have somehow violated the laws of physics, and have begun to change direction and swirl into gas clouds, so that they may develop into stars. These clouds must grow in density in the vacuum of space, but simultaneously must be hurling through space to account for the vast expansion needed to explain seemingly infinite galaxies. We have learned that both of these prior situations are impossible based on reason and logic, regardless of the time variable, and furthermore require faith in something akin to the opposite of natural law. But in order to follow the process of the Big Bang theory, and consider what comes next, we will assume these steps somehow have taken place.
1. At this stage, there are a couple things to note:
a. Gas in outerspace is so rare, that it is more of a vacuum than any laboratory vacuum on earth.
b. There is no gas on the periodic table that clumps together! So, neither helium nor hydrogen would clump together. Gas always expands, pushes apart. Always.
c. This means the gas from the big bang would have been even less likely to clump together in outer-space. It is the universe’s great vacuum, and as such, provides the worst possible environment for gas clouds to gain any sort of density at all.
I can say with certainty, that the idea of gas pushing itself together in outer space to form a star is science fiction. It is like fog forming itself into tight patterns, except exceedingly more problematic. As an experiment, place a drop of food coloring in water. stir it up (or wait a minute, as it will disperse on its own), to simulate the entropy of an outward explosion. Now wait, and stare at that glass of water, and time how long it takes for the food coloring dye to clump back together into a tight ball or drop again.
When that happens, try and imagine the same experiment in a vacuum… with air. You will then have some idea of how probable star formation is.
An existing star does have gravity, and can pull in other gases. However, forming one is the difficulty, not the fact that it exists. Natural processes cannot do this. Gas cannot build up enough mutual gravity to bring it together in any amount, much less those vast amounts needed for star formation. For perspective, keep in mind scientists think first generation stars were 800 to 1000 times larger than our sun.
2. Careful analysis reveals there is not enough matter within a gas cloud to produce a star. Again, me must respect how utterly massive stars are. Mass is key here, and clouds verses stars are like apples and oranges.
3. A more complex notion is that there isn’t enough time proposed. Evolutionists often scrutinize the creationist timeline as an impossibility, which never bothered us seeing as how our model includes the creator of the heavens and the earth, the only logical explanation for what we see. But they don’t often publicly admit that their model contains its own time crunch, which calls into question everything about how to date the stars. We have stars that based on a 400% red shift and a calculated distance from earth, should be approximately 15 billion years old. The theory calls for stars to form after the first 5 billion years. This means that the singularity and first explosion must have happened 5 billion before this, or our methods for dating stars is far off the mark. This is problematic in a 15 billion year timetable. This issue, in conjunction with the need for random chance to cause order, is why the age of the universe continues to grow, as if the magic element of time will eventually solve the puzzle. The math is wrong, or the technique for dating is wrong.
This is not the only evolutionist time crunch problem. 1st generation stars are supposed to be big, burn bright, and die fast, creating new stars and new elements when going supernova. This theory is the supposed catalyst for chemical evolution, where we try to convince the world that the rest of the elements on the periodic table were formed from these supernova explosions from only hydrogen and helium. But we see supposed 1st generation stars still today. Evolutionists tout it as proof they were right about their existence, however, we must ask if they should be there at all?
But they are made new all the time, right? Good question, and I will answer by reminding or teaching the reader that we have never witnessed a star form. They do try to teach how it happens, again because they must push a theory. Consider these quotes: “The silent embarrassment of modern astrophysics is that we do not know how even a single one of these stars managed to form.”—*Martin Harwit, “Books Reviews,” Science, March 1986, pp. 1201-1202.
“There is no reasonable astronomical scenario in which mineral grains in space gas clouds can condense.”—*Fred Hoyle and *Chandra Wickramasinghe, “Where Microbes Boldly Went,” in New Scientist (1981), pp. 412-413.
“Basically there does not appear to be enough matter in any of the hydrogen clouds in the Milky Way that would allow them to contract [into stars] and be stable. Apparently our attempt to explain the first stages in star evolution has failed.”—*Garrit Verschuur, Starscapes (1973), p. 102.
4. Observation of gas clouds in space show them expanding. Gas clouds in space expand. They do not contract. With not enough matter, and expansion as a factor, this is not a recipe for success. Hence the devastating and truthful quotes above about the science of cosmology.
We will discuss more on stars later, but any one of these points would discredit the idea of stellar evolution. I will summarize the problem this way: The core of a star, in this case the first star, must generate a temperature to 10 million Kelvin degrees, to create nuclear fusion, at which point it can become stable. So, from nothing a group of sub atomic particles must explode out, then coalesce, despite a tenancy to repel, and somehow clump to gain such heat and density as to generate nuclear fusion, so it can supernova, and create more stars as well as all elements in the periodic table. Tell me again how this is science and not faith?