Featured picture: theoretical population III star formation from the infant universe; they don’t exist anywhere today!
It has not been so long ago that astronomers created and accepted the concept of star evolution as an established fact. Main sequence stars were placed on a graph based upon luminosity, composition, color and calculated radius. It was thought by many to be a glimpse of reality. It was theorized that the life and death of a star could be determined from these parameters
and from this, the evolution of star formation could be addressed. Current theory says that population I stars are the product of populations II stars which are the product of population III stars. Population III stars are supposed to be the first stars ever formed and were composed almost entirely of hydrogen gas. These supposedly died giving rise, through remnant gases and heavier elements formed from their death, population II stars. Please note, no population III stars exist anywhere in the universe. The theoretical collapse of the early universe’s hydrogen gas into the formation of a star is not possible without invoking properties of dark matter. Gas simply does not collapse on itself in the laboratory; it certainly cannot collapse in the vacuum of space.
Galactic formation and evolution were also developed based upon similar observations but there are so many anomalies in galactic structure the basic thesis for galactic formation required dark matter, dark energy and an incredible number of galactic collisions to account for the current visible and spectrophotometric structure of galaxies. It was thought to be a glimpse of reality. No one has a
credible theory of galactic formation. Instead, books have been written on why galaxies should not exist. What does this tell you about human evolutionary materialistic concepts? They don’t have answers, do they?
It was thought that if the universe is really 14 billion years old then the light coming from distant sources should reveal the past sequence of galactic formation as the Hubble telescope examined deeper and deeper (farther and farther) into space. It was thought to be a glimpse of reality. While there are many articles that boast of finding infant galaxies forming in the distant past of the universe (representing activity occurring billions of years ago) the interpretation is typically seen through rose-colored glasses; some unexpected phenomenon seems to always obscure the expectations of seeing a young universe from the distant sources of light. The most distant galaxies, which should be young since the light being captured was supposedly sent out billions of years ago, are fully mature.
Recently, astronomers believe they have “caught a glimpse of the farthest, most ancient galaxy to date, a star factory that was bustling with activity a mere 700 million years after the big bang.” (Science Magazine: 23 October 2013). Another glimpse of reality? The galaxy appears so old in terms of metallic composition that instead of claiming that the big bang is wrong or that our suppositions on the light coming from distances of billions of light years away are inaccurate the researchers have decided that stars must have formed at a rate 100 times greater than they are assumed to have formed. The galaxy named z8_GND_5296 is so bright and so rich in heavy metals, which require star death by supernova explosions that in order to preserve the current paradigm, it has been decided that the galaxy must have seen enormous numbers of star deaths by the time the universe was only 700 million years old. The galaxy of stars has died multiple times to give the appearance of great age.
The sad reality is that if any of these findings are credible they are proof positive that the universe cannot be dated by starlight. The universe cannot be proven to be 13.8 billion years old either. There must be other explanations for the observations. If not these findings should lead to a
re-writing of the known laws of the universe. I am not saying this evidence is useful to the design argument – yet! But this is a perfect example of “if it doesn’t fit, make it fit”. How useful is it to explain concrete phenomena as exceptions to the paradigm when the exceptions demand that the paradigm shift? Are we able to get a glimpse of reality?
Hubble didn’t like the facts he discovered either; we are the apparent center of the universe. He didn’t like his glimpse of reality. So he decided that his religious preference of atheism should prevail over the facts of science and announced that the universe is unbounded, without a center, without direction; a ridiculous notion if the universe is the product of a big explosion!! Yet, his religion prevailed and cosmologists and astronomers have been struggling with this model ever since. This is not science. It is the very
antithesis of science. It is anti-science. Hubble and others like him have established a new scientific method that I will call the 4Fs method. It works like this: when “facts fail, force fiction”. The truth will never be achieved by this method; only the propagation of myth. Even now what we teach as science is more mythology… the study of myths and they make no sense.
This is the inevitable game that must be played when big kids (materialistic scientists) suppress the truth (Rom. 1:18) and turn aside to fables (2 Tim. 4:4).
There are better theories. Some much more reasonable and believable. Their only problem is that they hint that something intelligent and very much like the biblical description of creation gets in the way of human ego. Egos that find it horrifying that the biblical account has more to offer than they like. Real science cannot be done until these kinds of prejudices are turned away from academic study and we are allowed to see clearly, “a glimpse of reality.”