How Old Do Evolutionists Say the Universe Is? 2
Let=92s suppose that the universe is 13.7 b.y. old. That is not enough
time for stars containing heavy chemical elements to form and then
transmit their light to Earth. A big bang would have produced only
hydrogen, helium, and lithium=97the three lightest chemical elements.
Light from the most distant stars and galaxies shows that they contain
much heavier chemical elements such as carbon, iron, and lead=97elements
that could not have been in the first generation of stars to form
after the big bang. Evolutionists, therefore, believe that the hundred
or so heavier chemical elements (97% of all chemical elements) were
produced either deep inside stars or when some stars exploded as
supernovas. Much later, a second generation of stars supposedly formed
with the heavy elements from that exploded debris.
In other words, a big bang would produce only the three lightest
chemical elements. Therefore, big bang advocates have struggled to
explain the origin of the heavier chemical elements (carbon, oxygen,
iron, lead etc.). To squeeze enough hydrogen nuclei together to form
some heavier elements would require the high temperatures inside
stars. Theoretically, to form elements heavier than iron requires
something much hotter=97a supernova.
So, if a big bang happened, there would not be enough time afterward
to:
a. Form the first generation of stars out of hydrogen, helium, and
lithium.
b. Have many of those stars quickly (4) pass through their complete
life cycles then finally explode as supernovas to produce the heavier
chemical elements.
c. Recollect, somehow, enough of that exploded debris to form the
second generation of stars. (Some were quasars thought to be powered
by black holes, billions of times more massive than our Sun!
d. Transmit the light from these heavy elements to Earth, immense
distances away.
4. For this to happen quickly, evolutionists must assume that the
first stars were giants, more than a hundred times larger than the
Sun. (Theoretically, more massive stars would burn faster.) Thus,
textbooks confidently say that the first stars were giants.
No one knows that the first stars were giants. It=92s a required
assumption if stars evolved. In fact, characteristics of the light we
should see from the first generation of evolved stars is missing. [See
Piero Madau, =93Trouble at First Light,=94 Nature, Vol. 440, 20 April
2006, pp. 1002=961003.]
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ119.html#wp1573636
|
