Both of the following are taken from Science News of June 21, 2003. And both should be of some amusement and encouragement to young earth creationists. First, there appear to be some very massive stars which are ‘unusually young’ very near the center of our Galaxy. “One of the stars lies as close to the galactic center as twice Pluto’s distance from the sun.” That seems far to us, but in galactic terms, that is a hair’s breadth. This discovery is presenting two major problems to standard astronomy: first, massive stars are short-lived (“they can last no more than ten million years”), and, second, “Under ordinary conditions, no star could be born so close to a supermassive black hole.” Were these stars formed farther out and then attracted in close? “Since massive stars last only a few million years, they should die out long before they complete the journey inward.” The possible solution is that star clusters were pulled into the region of the black hole, where they disrupted, thus releasing their stars. From this hypothesis, and from the idea that these star clusters must have had ‘galactic partners’ up to sixty times our sun’s mass, which might end up in an orbit around the black hole when the stars disrupted, these star clusters might be able to travel fast enough to allow their members, young and massive, to be in the region of the black hole. OR, the stars aren’t REALLY old, claims their discoverer – they just look that way… The article closes with this quote: “Whatever the solution to the mystery of the massive stars in the galaxy’s middle, the answer ‘is bound to be a new and incredibly interesting twist on how star formation and movement can take pace in the extreme environment surrounding a supermassive black hole.” The second stellar riddle is posed by something called Complex H – a gas cloud “about 108,000 light-years from the Milky Way’s core, [which] stretches 33,000 light-years across, and contains 6 million suns’ worth of hydrogen gas.” What’s wrong with this? It’s circling the Milky Way. In a direction opposite to our galaxy’s rotation. My comments: The ages of stars are generally determined by the color of the stars and the amount of elements other than hydrogen and helium in them. These other elements are all referred to as “metals” by astronomers. So what we are seeing near the center of our galaxy are stars of high metal content and mass and the astronomers can’t figure how they got there. If the universe is young, however, we do not have a problem with them being there. If these ‘metals’ were formed as part of the creation process instead of being manufactured in stars (as is currently thought), then there is no reason at all why a high metal content should not be found wherever our Creator decided to put it! As far as the gas cloud goes, if it is a satellite of our Milky Way and is ‘only’ 108,000 light years away, and if it has been there as long as they think it has, then why hasn’t it been pulled in and disrupted? Its high velocity is showing it is moving VERY quickly, but it still stands apart on its own although, as the article states, its movement is tied to that of our galaxy. The outermost layers are being torn apart by our galaxy, according to the article. So it might, also, be rather young. An evolutionary idea might be that it was traveling at high speeds through space, got ‘caught’ by the Milky Way, and then, as we are seeing now, started to be disrupted. The problem here is that the article states its movement is tied to that of the Milky Way. That means it has been in the area long enough for that to happen. So it is not a newcomer, astronomically speaking. Yet it is only just now being disrupted, yet it is traveling in a retrograde orbit. These facts are very hard to reconcile in a long-ages scheme of things.