Population III Stars and the Big Bang Model
© 2007 Creation Research Society. All Rights Reserved.
This article first appeared in the September/October 2007 issue of
Creation Matters, a newsletter published by the
Creation Research Society
he Big Bang model requires the existence of Population III stars. What are Population III stars? According to the physics of the Big Bang, the only elements the Big Bang could have produced are hydrogen, helium, and possibly a trace of lithium, but no other metals. Anything atomically heavier than hydrogen and helium is considered a metal including, for example, oxygen. (Note: In this context astronomers use the term metal differently, not the way the term is used in chemistry). Therefore, the first stars of the universe could have been made only from hydrogen and helium, and these stars are known as Population III stars.
The stars we observe throughout the universe today all contain metals, such as Population I stars, which are metal-rich, and Population II stars that are metal-poor. Population I stars contain approximately 2-3% metals, they are found in the spiral arms or in the disks of galaxies. Population II stars, containing only 0.1% metal content in their light spectra, are observed around a galaxy halo, in globular clusters, and in the central bulge of a galaxy.
These designations became apparent from the stars' locations in the galaxy, space motion, and metal makeup. Stars produce the heavier elements by using successive stages of nuclear synthesis within their cores. According to the evolutionary theory of chemical enrichment, or how stars produce the heavier elements, those elements are spewed back into space through eruptions such as supernova explosions. In this way, later generations of stars that form are contaminated with heavier elements. Thus, according to evolutionary theory, the later that a star forms, the more metals that it ought to contain.
This means that if the Big Bang model were true, somewhere in the universe we should see stars without the spectral lines produced by metals. Moreover, because Population III stars are predecessors of all the observed Population I and II stars, vast numbers of them should have been identified long ago. But no such stars have ever been discovered; even the light from the most distant galaxies have metal lines in their spectra. Population III stars are essential for the Big Bang model, yet they have not been observed. Therefore, the Big Bang is not a plausible scientific model if something the theory requires is nonexistent.
Mainstream scientists who promote the Big Bang model try to refute the situation with the missing Population III stars with a "heads I win, tails you lose" argument. If evolutionary astronomers were to find a single Population III star, they would claim that proves the model, even though they need massive numbers of Population III stars to account for all that we see. Moreover, the fact that no one has found a Population III star is explained by their arguing that Population III stars must have been exceptionally massive and therefore burned up quickly. With this "must have been" explanation, the Big Bang model is confirmed in the minds of evolutionists. So how can they lose? The evidence will be made to fit evolutionist theory whatever the evidence may be.
While evolutionary astronomers will admit that the Population III stars are missing, they engage in special pleading to deal with the fact that Population III stars have never been found. How convenient: all the Population III stars are so massive that they burn up and disappear before even one can be detected. In other words, how can anyone say Population III stars are super massive if no one has seen one to know? Big Bang proponents need to be reminded that science is based on testable evidence, not hypothetical conjecture! If no evidence exits for Population III stars, postulating any reason for their non-existence is unscientific.
Their reasoning is contradictory to what we see in the universe, because over 90% of observable stars are LOW MASS! Do astronomers have a "testable mechanism" for why the universe would exhibit this sudden change? In other words, we have another just-so story: the alleged cosmic explosion makes all the first stars "super massive" to the extent that they burn up quickly (therefore no one can find any of them), and then the universe gives rise to small, dwarf type stars, such as our sun, which comprise the vast majority of all stars. In addition, when we gaze across the universe, looking back in time close to when the Big Bang supposedly occurred, the light which we see exhibits metal spectra! Here, we should at least find some light that would be free of metal spectra; but alas, metals were apparently present at the beginning of time. And when all else fails, we are now being told that Population II stars are polluted Population III stars, but what testable, provable mechanism can be found to show how this would happen?
Unfortunately, the proponents of the Big Bang accept by faith the essential requirements of their theory in spite of the observations, which clearly do not fit the model.
Home | Feedback | Links | Back to Top
© TrueOrigin Archive. All Rights Reserved.
powered by Lone Star Web Works