Name (required):

  Expression ^{(Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)}

  E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:
><font color=blue><b><center><br> >How Old Do Evolutionists Say the Universe Is? 2 ></font></b></center> >Let’s suppose that the universe is 13.7 b.y. old. That >is not enough time for stars <i>containing heavy >chemical elements </i>to form and then transmit their >light to Earth. A big bang would have produced only >hydrogen, helium, and lithium—the 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—elements 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—a 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, ><i>billions of times more massive than our Sun! </i> >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’s 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, “Trouble at First Light,” <i> Nature, ></i>Vol. 440, 20 April 2006, pp. 1002–1003.] > ><a rel=nofollow target=_blank >href="http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ119. >html#wp1573636">http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo >ok/FAQ119.html#wp1573636</a>

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.