In a previous article, I described how a key feature of the biblically predicted big bang creation model is its deduction that the firstborn stars will initially be comprised of just three elements: 76 percent hydrogen, 24 percent helium, and a trace amount of lithium. The failure of astronomers to detect such metal-free stars is often cited, especially by young-earth creationists, as proof that the big bang creation model has been invalidated.

As I explained in my previous article, in the context of the big bang creation model, pristine firstborn stars must be at least 13.4 billion light-years away. Currently, no operating telescope possesses the power to image individual stars at this vast distance. I then described the discovery of three very old stars that are so extremely lacking in metals that astronomers established that they must be firstborn stars. Over the course of their 13-billion-year-plus history, these formerly metal-free stars have had their atmospheres very lightly polluted by the interstellar medium, which aligns with big bang creation model predictions.

Now, a different team of astronomers has revealed further observational evidence for firstborn stars that shows them exhibiting characteristics consistent with the big bang creation model. In a recent issue of the Astrophysical Journal, a team of nine European astronomers reported on their spectroscopic measurements on a faint, very distant Lyman-alpha emitter.¹ Lyman-alpha emitters are very young, typically low-mass galaxies that are aggressively forming massive stars. The high formation rate of massive stars results in the emission of a strong Lyman-alpha spectral line (1215.67 angstroms) that, because of the great distances of Lyman-alpha emitters, is redshifted into the visible part of the spectrum.

The team targeted the Lyman-alpha emitter known as Cosmos Redshift 7 (CR7). Its redshift of 6.604 places it 12.96 billion light-years away. Using spectral instruments on the Keck telescopes and the Very Large Telescope, the team determined that CR7 possessed two distinct stellar populations. The spectra on the two populations were consistent with one being made of Pop III stars (firstborn stars) and the other of Pop II stars (second-generation stars). Using the Hubble Space Telescope, the team demonstrated that the two populations in CR7 were spatially separated from one another. The team concluded that the spatial separation in the two populations was “consistent with theoretical predictions of a Pop III wave, with Pop III star formation migrating away from the original sites of star formation.”²

This second, independent confirmation of the existence of firstborn stars—manifesting the characteristics predicted in the big bang creation model—should satisfy big bang critics who have insisted that astronomers’ failure to detect such stars falsifies all big bang models. The truth is that big bang creation models have passed every achievable test that has been thrown at them. These recent discoveries of Pop III stars count as one more trial that big bang models have overcome. That the Bible predicted the essential features of big bang cosmology thousands of years before any astronomer even hinted that the universe might possess such features firmly establishes the predictive power of the Bible and consequently its divine inspiration, inerrancy, and authority.

Resources

• For more information on the Bible’s description of the big bang creation model, please read chapter 13 of my book A Matter of Days.

The big bang creation model—which the Bible uniquely described thousands of years before any astronomer did—predicts a hierarchy in star formation. Since the big bang creation event results in the universe’s ordinary matter being composed of 76 percent hydrogen, 24 percent helium, and a trace amount of lithium, the firstborn stars, at least initially, will be composed of these three elements.

Are Firstborn Stars a Myth?

A remaining challenge to the biblically predicted big bang creation model is that astronomers have yet to detect a star that is completely devoid of elements heavier than lithium. A few atheists and all young-earth creationist scientists have pointed to this lack of evidence to assert that the big bang model has failed. For example, in his book Refuting Compromise Jonathan Sarfati writes, “The total absence of these stars counts as a falsified prediction of big bang cosmology.”¹

Astronomers respond to this alleged failure by explaining that the big bang creation model predicts that firstborn stars would be undetectable. In big bang creation models, the first stars would have formed more than 13.4 billion years ago. This means that if we want to observe them in their initial state, we must measure the spectra of individual stars more than 13.4 billion light-years away. Presently, no telescope exists with the power to measure the spectra of individual stars at that distance.

Predicting the Attributes of Firstborn Stars

All stars larger than several times the Sun’s mass explode at the end of their nuclear burning and, thus, salt the interstellar medium with their ashes. The more massive the star the faster it burns up its nuclear fuel and the sooner it explodes. Thus, the largest of the first generation stars relatively quickly pollute the interstellar medium. The second generation of stars incorporates these ashes when they form. These second generation stars compose the majority of stars in the universe. About 2 percent of their composition is comprised of elements heavier than hydrogen, helium, and lithium. Third-generation stars incorporate the ashes of exploded second-generation stars. About 3 percent of the composition of third-generation stars is comprised of elements heavier than hydrogen, helium, and lithium.

Astronomers refer to third-generation stars as Population I (Pop I) stars, second-generation stars as Population II (Pop II) stars, and first-generation stars as Population III (Pop III) stars. The Sun is a Pop I star. In big bang cosmology, life is only possible on a planet orbiting a Pop I star.

Some big bang creation models predict that all Pop III stars will be supergiant stars and will accordingly go through their entire burning phase in just a few million years or less. In these models all the still-shining Pop III stars are more than 13.4 billion light-years away and are consequently inaccessible with current telescope technology. However, many other big bang creation models predict that at least a few Pop III stars will not be supergiants. These stars with much lower masses can burn for billions of years. Therefore, they may be close enough that astronomers can detect them and measure their spectra.

However, these old Pop III stars will not be in their initial pristine state. Over their several-billion-year burning history their stellar atmospheres will have accreted a small quantity of heavy elements from the interstellar medium. This medium will be polluted by the ashes of exploded supergiant Pop III and supergiant Pop II stars. Yet, for low-mass Pop III stars that reside in regions of space where the density of stars is sparse, the pollution level will be so extremely low that there will be no doubt that astronomers are observing an old Pop III star (a.k.a. a Pop III survivor) rather than any kind of Pop II star.

Astronomers Locate Three Firstborn Stars

After a long and diligent search, astronomers have discovered three of these Pop III survivors. The one most deficient in heavy elements is SMSS J031300.36-670839.³(SM0313). Roughly 75 percent the Sun’s mass, SM0313 is 13.6 billion years old, making it the oldest known star with an accurate age determination.² Compared to the Sun, it has less than 30 millionth the density of iron.3 While iron was undetectable in the spectrum of SM0313, astronomers were able to detect calcium. SM0313 possesses 18.2 million times less calcium per unit mass compared to the Sun.⁴ This measure permitted a calculation of its iron abundance, which is 38 million times less iron per unit mass than the Sun.

The other two Pop III survivors, HE 1327-2326 and HE 0107-5240, respectively possess 500,000 and 250,000 times less iron per unit mass than the Sun.⁵ The astronomers focused on iron and calcium abundances since lighter elements, such as carbon and magnesium, are influenced by binary mass transfer and heavier elements are much too rare.

A team of Japanese astronomers placed these iron and calcium abundance measures into a cosmological context by developing a detailed theoretical model. They investigated the change of iron abundance on the surface of Pop III survivors through accretion from the interstellar medium in the framework of hierarchical star formation.⁶Their calculations showed that Pop III survivors can accumulate up to 1/100,000th as much iron per unit mass as the Sun. It would be impossible for any Pop II star to possess so little iron. On this basis they concluded that any star possessing more than 100,000 times less iron per unit mass than the Sun must be a Pop III survivor.

Rather than big bang cosmology being refuted by the supposed lack of Pop III stars, it is now vindicated. The observational measurements and theoretical calculations described here establish that Pop III stars really do exist. When the James Webb Space Telescope and ground-based telescopes with mirror diameters exceeding 100 feet become operational, there will be a high probability of astronomers detecting not only many more Pop III survivors but also newborn Pop III stars in their initial pristine state.

Resources

• For more information on the Bible’s description of the big bang creation model, please read chapter 13 of my book, A Matter of Days.

Christians have long debated the extent of the flood recorded in Genesis 6–9. Typically, old-earth creationists (OEC) suggest it was a local flood, whereas young-earth creationists (YEC) argue for a global flood. Reasons to Believe holds to the position of a universal flood (one that God used to destroy all of humanity) that was not global in geographic extent. Since humanity had not yet spread to cover Earth, the flood did not need to cover the entire globe.

So which interpretation is correct? One interesting aspect of the answer relates to a more specific question: Does Earth have enough water to cover the whole planet?

The total amount of water on Earth is less than a quarter of what would be required to cover the entire planet. This claim may seem unrealistic until one realizes that Earth is actually quite water poor. Although 71 percent of the planet’s surface is covered by oceans, only about 0.1 percent of Earth’s volume is water. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the volume of all the water on Earth, including salt and fresh water, icecaps, groundwater, and atmospheric water, amounts to 332,500,000 cubic miles. Earth’s average radius is 3,959 miles. The volume of a sphere is given by the formula 4/3πr3 where r is the sphere’s radius. Earth’s volume is then about 259,900,000,000 cubic miles. The volume of atmospheric water is a little over 3,000 cubic miles, negligible in this calculation. A sphere containing all of Earth’s water would be about 860 miles in diameter, approximately the distance between Salt Lake City, Utah, and Topeka, Kansas, (for a cool graphic, see here). Or suppose Earth’s surface was completely smooth and all of Earth’s water was in a spherical shell covering the planet’s surface. That shell would be approximately 1.7 miles thick. So, is this enough to cover the Earth’s mountainous terrain?

Mount Everest, the highest mountain on Earth, is 29,029 feet (or about 5.5 miles) above sea level. The average elevation of all the continental landmasses is 2,755 feet (about 0.52 miles).¹ From this information, we can make a first-order approximation that the volume of water needed to cover Mount Everest, including all the water presently on Earth, is about 1,400,000,000 cubic miles. Therefore, the volume of water currently on Earth is only about 24 percent of the volume needed to cover Mount Everest.

But are the elevation of Mount Everest and the general topography of Earth the same as they were in the days of the flood? Mount Everest is thought to be rising about 4 millimeters per year (although some geologists believe it may actually be shrinking). If this rate of rising was constant over the last few thousand years, Mount Everest would have been about 125 feet lower 10,000 years ago and 500 feet lower 40,000 years ago, which would make almost no difference in the calculations above. Plate tectonic activity is thought to move Earth’s continental plates on the order of 1–10 centimeters per year. Again, over a 40,000-year period this would amount to between 0.2 and 2.5 miles, which is not enough to change continental configurations significantly. Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude that Earth’s topography and the elevation of Mount Everest have been relatively constant for the last 40,000 years.

Many of those holding to a global flood model argue that Earth’s mountains were much smaller and its oceans much shallower in pre-flood times and suggest that the flood itself resulted in massive uplifting of the mountains and carving out of the oceans (see here and here for two examples). There are two reasons to doubt this theory. First, the tectonic forces required to cause such massive mountain- and ocean-building events in a single year would have been so violent and caused such turbulence in the waters that the ark would likely have been torn apart or capsized. Instead, Genesis 7:17–20 speaks of the waters increasing and rising greatly but makes no mention of violent or turbulent motions in the seas. Similarly, Genesis 8:1–5 tells us the waters receded, once again without mention of violence or turbulence. The 17 most violent earthquakes in the world since 1900 caused massive tidal waves, huge numbers of deaths, and almost incalculable property damage, according to theU.S. Geological Survey. Yet the net effect on the world’s topography was negligible. Second, if a global flood occurred within the last 10,000 years, it would have left substantial geologic evidence. The U.S. Geological Survey² lists the world’s largest floods during the last 15,000 years or so, and the evidence indicates that none were global in scope.

In order to reconcile a global flood view with the current scientific evidence, one must accept a number of difficult-to-believe claims. Either (1) the global topography was similar to today’s, but the water used to cover the globe no longer resides on Earth (or is hidden from our discovery); or (2) the water on Earth today was sufficient to cover the globe, but tectonic forces completely altered the topography of the globe (in a way not detectable to us). Without limiting what God can do, it seems more prudent to recognize that the Bible describes a flood that judged all humanity but did not cover the entire globe.

Resources

• RTB’s website contains a number of articles on the flood. We specifically recommend “The Waters of the Flood,” “Noah’s Flood: A Bird’s-Eye View,” and RTB’s flood resource page.
• For more information on RTB’s flood model, check out these resources from Hugh Ross: Navigating Genesis: A Scientist’s Journey through Genesis 1–11 and In the Days of Noah: A Deeper Look at the Genesis Flood.