Big Bang?

"One might expect Population III stars [stars with only hydrogen and
helium and no heavier elements] to have the same sort of distribution
of masses as stars forming today, in which case some should be small
enough (smaller than 0.8 the mass of the Sun) still to be burning
their nuclear fuel. The problem is that, despite extensive searches,
nobody has ever found a zero-metallicity star." Bernard Carr, "Where
Is Population III?" Nature, Vol. 326, 30 April 1987, p. 829.

"Are there any stars older than Population II [i. e., Population III
stars]? There should be, if our ideas about the early history of the
universe [i. e., the big bang theory] are correct. ... There is no
statistically significant evidence for Population III objects
[stars]." Leif J. Robinson, "Where Is Population III?" Sky and
Telescope, July 1982, p. 20.

Stephen P. Maran, "Stellar Old-Timers: Where Are the Oldest Stars in
Our Galaxy?" Natural History, February 1987, pp. 80-85.

"Astronomers have never seen a pure Population III star, despite years
of combing our Milky Way galaxy." Robert Irion, "The Quest for
Population III," Science, Vol. 295, 4 January 2002, p. 66.

Supposedly, Population II stars, stars having slight amounts of some
heavy elements, evolved after Population III stars. Predicted
characteristics of Population II stars have never been observed.

Spectral studies of ancient [Population II] stars in the Milky Way
haven't turned up anything so distinctive [as the chemical elements
that should be present], [Timothy] Beers notes, but the search
continues. Ibid., p. 67.

http://www.creationscience.com/