Why stellar evolution theory is false

Martyrs44 · #1 30th June 2012, 03:22 PM

From a 242 slide Power Point presentation I put together and have publicly spoken on the subject, take a look at just one of the many phenomena about space that just can't add up to any kind of evolution of our universe over millions and/or billions of yrs.

Spiral galaxies that are as close as 2 million light yrs to 106 million light yrs. Do you see a problem here? Well, considering what astronomers tell us about the lifespan of a spiral galaxy there is a huge problem. Since, according to them it takes just a few complete turns of the spiral around the central core of the galaxy when it begins to spin out and dissipate and it usually takes 2 to 3 million yrs to make one complete turn then why are any of the older galaxies still spinning?

Here is my documenation for the above facts. I did not just arbitrarily fish this information out of my imagination:

Quote: Originally, astronomers had the idea that the arms of a spiral galaxy were material. However, if this were the case, then the arms would become more and more tightly wound, since the matter nearer to the center of the galaxy rotates faster than the matter at the edge of the galaxy. The arms would become indistinguishable from the rest of the galaxy after only a few orbits. This is called the winding problem. (Wikipedia)

So the galaxies closest to us are still reasonably in spiral formation but none of those that are further away than 5 to ten million light yrs should be spirals at all. Even more accurately, those that are determined to be the oldest should not have any observable spiral.

But by virtue of the Hubble space telescope the problem for evolutionists gets even worse:

Distances by the red shifts determined that these galaxies are to the tune of 9 billion light yrs or more away. But notice that many of them are spiral galaxies. This is much clearer when the photo is enlarged. But how can that be? Such stellar objects should have spun out long, long ago.

I do not dispute that these galaxies and/or quasars are millions/billions of light years away...........at present. But they were not that distant just after the creation by God. Let me explain;

We have this excellent illustration (from wikipedia) which can help the reader to conceptualize the matter very quickly;

This is meant to illustrate the 'big bang' in just part of a 3 dimensional reality that stretches in every direction. But since there was no 'big bang' nor even a 'big burp' I will use this to reveal what God did in the creation and why the distances NOW are not what they were then (Adam's time). I have no problem with the enlargement of the universe...but the evolutionist time frame is way, way off; the evidence being (among others) the illustrations and facts posted above.

What I am saying (& I am by no means alone in this, for even quite a few evolutionists feel much the same) is that the galaxies seen at the farthest regions of space (9 to 15 billion lt yrs. away) should have no spiral formation at all.

By the way, the evolutionists here on CF have argued that the 'big bang' was not an 'explosion' and certainly not a violent cataclysmic event. I documented that their comrades in stellar evolution who defined the term determined that it was an explosion of a very violent nature...as I was taught as a student of science in grammar school up through high school.

Here is that documentation:

Quote: "The cosmic explosion that marked the origin of the universe according to the big bang theory." (The Free Dictionary)

Quote: "a theory that deduces a cataclysmic birth of the universe (big bang) from the observed expansion of the universe." Dictionaryreference.com.

Quote: "The explosion of an extremely small, hot, and dense body of matter that, according to some cosmological theories, gave rise to the universe between 12 and 20 billion years ago. The American Heritage® Science Dictionary

Quote: "the cosmic explosion that marked the beginning of the universe according to the big bang theory" Mirriam Webster.

Quote: " The explosion of an extremely small, hot, and dense body of matter that, according to some cosmological theories, gave rise to the universe" Scienceyourdictionary.com

Quote: "Model of the origin of the universe, which holds that it emerged from a state of extremely high temperature and density in an explosive expansion 10 billion–15 billion years ago. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Copyright © 1994-2008 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

And from the Capitol of evolution in the world, Oxford University: "The cosmological theory that all the matter and energy in the universe originated from a state of enormous density and temperature that exploded at a finite moment in the past." The Oxford Dictionary of Physics, 5th edition, 2005.

So the skeptics here want us to believe that the origin of the universe was quiet, smooth, and even Steven...from a state of enormous density and temperature and pressure? Who are they trying to fool?

Because the TE's who read this documentation flippantly tossed aside this extensive evidence that the theory has long been taught as 'violent', 'cataclysmic' and chaotic and because they chose to promote a rather quiet, smooth, creation from a 'singularity' then I am not interested in debating them on the matter. They've made it clear that they don't care what kind of documentation we provide so I am not going to bother with them.

This was posted for my creationist friends and those who are interested in seeing the real truth about God's wonderful creation and just how strong our case is. I have much more. So those of your who have not sold your soul to neo-Darwinian or stellar evolution, then feel free to ask questions.

metherion · #2 30th June 2012, 03:53 PM

Your argument seems to be predicated on a few things:

One: that the winding problem is an undeniable truth with absolutely no possible workaround nor explanation that definitely happens to every galaxy, and that there is no method for spiral arms to reform. Now, it may be so, I don't know.

Two: That the light we're seeing is the way the galaxies still are today. This simply isn't true. If a galaxy is two million LY away, we see light from... two million years ago. If it is 15 million LY away, we see light from fifteen million years ago. If it is 9 billion LY away, we see light from 9 billion LY away. So, our 9 billion LY away galaxy that we see as spiral may have stopped being spiral 8.9 billion years ago. But we won't SEE that light for another .1 billion years (and .1 billion is 100 million. So we won't see it for another 100 million years). So, just because we SEE spiral galaxies now, it does not mean they are all still spirally after however many millions or billions of years.

Also, the Milky Way galaxy, our own galaxy, is a spiral galaxy. Yet our sun is 4.5 billion years old. This would tend to indicate :
1) Spiral galaxies can persist longer than we thought despite the winding problem because we don't fully understand it yet, or
2) Spiral arms can form over the lifetime of a galaxy, and we are living during one of those arm-y times, and the arms will probably collapse into something else in another few million years.

Also, yes: The Big Bang can be termed an explosion. It's another one of those cases of English words being weird.

Go to dictionary.com and look for 'explode' and you get:
Explode | Define Explode at Dictionary.com

verb (used without object)
1.
to expand with force and noise because of rapid chemical change or decomposition, as gunpowder or nitroglycerine ( opposed to implode).
2.
to burst, fly into pieces, or break up violently with a loud report, as a boiler from excessive pressure of steam.
3.
to burst forth violently or emotionally, especially with noise, laughter, violent speech, etc.: He exploded with rage when contradicted.
4.
Phonetics . (of plosives) to terminate the occlusive phase with a plosion. Compare implode ( def. 2 ) .
5.
Golf . to play an explosion shot on a golf ball.

Now, none of those work. There was no chemical change or decomposition, there was no breaking up into pieces, there was no breaking out of anything, and neither phonetics nor golf was around.

But, OTOH, go to wikipedia, and you get:

Explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An explosion is a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases.

This applies more. Spacetime DID rapidly increase in volume and there was an extreme release of energy with high temperatures, but it's not clear if matter existed as such yet for there to even be gasses.

Was it violent? Yes. Was there an expansion of spacetime? Yes. Were there high temperatures? Yes. Was there a lot of energy? Yes. Was it an EXPLOSION? Depends on your dictionary.

Oh: the Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with Darwin or biological evolution. It's astrophysics.

Metherion

Martyrs44 · #3 30th June 2012, 04:02 PM

But for anyone who thinks that the 'winding problem' of older spiral galaxies is not a problem, read the following from an evolutionist source:

Quote: "The origins and very natures of spiral arms has been a slippery problem. The initial and obvious theory is that the stars are simply arranged in a spiral pattern. Among the original pioneers of the field was Bertil Lindblad who worked on spiral structure steadily from 1927 through 1965 (Binney and Tremaine 94, hereafter BT94). Lindblad realized that the naive idea of stars arranged permanently in spirals was untenable due to the winding problem. Since galactic disks rotate differentially over most of their surface (as evidenced by the characteristic flat rotation curves observed spectroscopically), a radial line object (a spoke) will quickly become curved as the galaxy rotates. However, as the inner particles revolve faster than those at the edge, the spoke will quickly become wrapped around the galaxy in an increasingly tight spiral. Clearly this winding problem calls for more sophisticated solutions to the structure of spiral arms. Any material spiral arms would last a few galactic years (complete revolutions of the galaxy at some radius) at most.

The Origins of Spiral Arms

Oh, yes, it is a problem all right; a giant problem. In fact the better it becomes known and understood the more evolution will unravel in the minds of those who consider the implications.

Martyrs44 · #4 30th June 2012, 04:08 PM

They think we are all completely stupid, don't they?

"the Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with Darwin or biological evolution. It's astrophysics."

It's called 'stellar evolution' and that's what I called it from the outset...and(!) stellar evolution supposedly led eventually to 'biological evolution'. It's a stardust to man scenario, like it or not. Carl Sagan said so!

Quote: "The statement that we are all "star stuff," coined by the late astronomer Carl Sagan"

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/050921a.html

Plus: "Also, the Milky Way galaxy, our own galaxy, is a spiral galaxy. Yet our sun is 4.5 billion years old."

Who says? God didn't say that. The scriptures didn't say that. And there is no credible scientific evidence that our galaxy is 4.5 billion yrs old.

metherion · #5 30th June 2012, 07:15 PM

They think we are all completely stupid, don't they?

Actually, you’re the one implying that all those who accept astrophysics are stupid.

It's called 'stellar evolution' and that's what I called it from the outset...and(!) stellar evolution supposedly led eventually to 'biological evolution'. It's a stardust to man scenario, like it or not. Carl Sagan said so!

Quote: "The statement that we are all "star stuff," coined by the late astronomer Carl Sagan"

<edit>
Stellar evolution relates to how gravity and physics are involved in the formation of stars, solar systems, galaxies, nebulae, and other stellar phenomena.

Biological evolution has to do with how life changes and diversifies.

Aside from the word ‘evolution’ and that they take place in our universe, they don’t have anything in common. Stellar evolution doesn’t LEAD to biological evolution.

Carl Sagan’s quote about ‘star stuff’ is referring to the fact that all the elements but hydrogen are formed in stars through nuclear fusion. That’s now atomic physics/particle physics leading into chemistry instead of astrophysics. NONE OF THOSE are biological evolution. Biological evolution isn’t physics, it is biology.

Plus: "Also, the Milky Way galaxy, our own galaxy, is a spiral galaxy. Yet our sun is 4.5 billion years old."

Who says? God didn't say that. The scriptures didn't say that. And there is no credible scientific evidence that our galaxy is 4.5 billion yrs old.

Ah, the ‘no evidence’ canard. Actually, God DID say that through His acts of creation. He made the universe, and thus everything the universe says, God is saying.

And tell me, are you familiar with any of the evidence for the 4.5 billion year old solar system? You see, just saying ‘there is no evidence’ gets you nowhere. There is piles of it. You’ve said ‘there is no evidence, so if I post EVEN ONE THING you’re flat out wrong. You have to say WHY each individual piece is wrong and actually supports something else.

So, here’s one piece:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...l/ngeo941.html

Metherion

Martyrs44 · #6 30th June 2012, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by metherion

Actually, you’re the one implying that all those who accept astrophysics are stupid.

I quoted astrophysicists. But I guess they don't count because they disagree with his metherions genius.

Halton Arp, the Burbidges, Bell, Tift, Hoyle, Wickramasinghe, among others have placed very serious doubts about the big bang, the red shift accuracy and the problem of galaxial spiral anamolies.

<edit>

Biological evolution has to do with how life changes and diversifies.

Really? If only I had known him 45 yrs ago before I started all that research.

Carl Sagan’s quote about ‘star stuff’ is referring to the fact that all the elements but hydrogen are formed in stars through nuclear fusion.

Now we are informed that common colloquial expressions do not mean what they obviously mean...just because he says so.

That’s now atomic physics/particle physics leading into chemistry instead of astrophysics. NONE OF THOSE are biological evolution. Biological evolution isn’t physics, it is biology.

When did I ever say it was, folks?

Ah, the ‘no evidence’ canard. Actually, God DID say that through His acts of creation. He made the universe, and thus everything the universe says, God is saying.

"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:" Exodus 20:11

"...he made the stars also." Genesis 1:16

"For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast." Psalm 33:9.

THIS is what God said about it.

And tell me, are you familiar with any of the evidence for the 4.5 billion year old solar system? You see, just saying ‘there is no evidence’ gets you nowhere. There is piles of it. You’ve said ‘there is no evidence, so if I post EVEN ONE THING you’re flat out wrong. You have to say WHY each individual piece is wrong and actually supports something else.

Ladies and gentlemen, for over four decades I've looked at their 'evidence'. They haven't one scrap of convincing evidence that the solar system is anything close to that figure. But if they are right then Moses (& Jesus who confirmed his truthfulness) was wrong about the chronologies of early man and the family lineage of Jesus Christ as heir to the throne of David is not legal. What Christian therefore, wishes to toss out Jesus family lineage as found in Luke 3? It goes all the way back to Adam and it gives the ages of the patriarches. God isn't wrong...the evolutionists are wrong.

<edit>

jinx25 · #7 30th June 2012, 10:05 PM

yes that was interesting thank you

John Eddy

"I suspect that the Sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the Earth and Sun [4004 B.C.]. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that"

from 4.5 billion down to ~6000 in one sentence lol

Martyrs44 · #8 30th June 2012, 10:14 PM

Thanks, jinx.

Your quote from noted astronomer John Eddy. Neat quote, but don't hold your breath...the skeptics won't listen to him either. They don't listen to anyone of their ilk who differs with the 'status quo' (current accepted ideas) of evolution.

If you or any other of the brethren have any questions about it or as it pertains to NGC's 'answers' to my statements be sure and do so. I'll do my best.

God bless you.

jinx25 · #9 30th June 2012, 10:24 PM

Ok cool what is your career? I watched this 6 part series on youtube called "why einstein was wrong" i dont fully understand it but it was talking about things like you just posted-falsifying observations made against the mainstream model i think? It had things to do with that Halton Arp guy and how he got in trouble for asking questions/challenging the "big bang" model.

Here is Usshers Annals

http://ia700301.us.archive.org/30/it...rld/Annals.pdf

"It is not strange that the heathens who are totally ignorant of the Holy Bible, should despair of ever attaining the knowledge of the world's beginnings." lol

Also just random i heard this thing about Fred Hoyle ( i would like to read one of his books if you know any? ill look soon) from a man named Michael Denton who wrote a book called "evolution:a theory in crisis". He said Hoyle predicted the alpha triple process? and then went down to some atom smasher one day, and they confirmed his prediction and he went from being an atheist to a theist that day. I think thats were his quote comes from

"Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule." Of course you would . . . A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question"

metherion · #10 30th June 2012, 10:44 PM

I quoted astrophysicists. But I guess they don't count because they disagree with his metherions genius.

Halton Arp, the Burbidges, Bell, Tift, Hoyle, Wickramasinghe, among others have placed very serious doubts about the big bang, the red shift accuracy and the problem of galaxial spiral anamolies.

No, I’m sorry. You quoted wikipedia once, took two words from the late great Carl Sagan, and took the intro paragraph from a website without bothering to finish reading even the introduction (which is a quote mine). You see, the rest of the introduction reads:

In the 1950's it was thought that magnetic fields could be the mysterious generators of spiral structure. However, the mechanism for how this would work was never clearly developed. Furthermore, one would expect that, if magnetic fields were behind the density organizations, the energy density of the fields would be equivalent to that of the mass gravitational energy. Subsequent observations of field strength showed it falling short by a factor of five (BT94). It is known, however, that magnetic fields follow the path of spiral arms.
The first really robust theory was developed by C. C. Lin and Frank Shu in papers of 1964 and 1966. They proposed that spiral arms were the manifestations of spiral density waves in the gas and stars of a galaxy. This theory, or variations on it, seems to be the most resilient even today.
In §2 I will discuss some of the theoretical basis for density waves in rotating disks including resonances and traveling waves. The concept of wave amplification will be discussed from two different approaches. In §3 I will give an overview of some of the observational criteria which provide constraints for modeling and in §4 discuss some models for the generation of spiral density waves. Finally I will mention some of the competing theories of spiral structure generation.

So, he talks specifically about what theory current deals with it, who came up with it, and that it still works resiliently to today. That kinda contradicts what you were trying to tell us it said.

You’ve also given a list of names you claim support what you say. Got any publications from them that aren’t quote mined to back you up?

Now we are informed that common colloquial expressions do not mean what they obviously mean...just because he says so.

No, you are supposed to be informed that that is what he meant by... I dunno... not quoting TWO LONE WORDS from him but actually listening to what he said and talked about. But, you know, actually seeing all of what people have said is apparently a chore, as I showed above. More quote mining. I was HOPING to have found someone who wouldn’t do it.

When did I ever say it was, folks?

You specifically said

It's called 'stellar evolution' and that's what I called it from the outset...and(!) stellar evolution supposedly led eventually to 'biological evolution'.

I called you out on it, that stellar evolution leads to biological evolution. They aren’t even in the same field.
FURTHER EDIT:
I also noticed that just above, you said

Your quote from noted astronomer John Eddy. Neat quote, but don't hold your breath...the skeptics won't listen to him either. They don't listen to anyone of their ilk who differs with the 'status quo' (current accepted ideas) of evolution.

However, astronomy and evolution are ALSO totally different fields! So... you're conflating things right and left.

"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:" Exodus 20:11

"...he made the stars also." Genesis 1:16

"For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast." Psalm 33:9.

THIS is what God said about it.

No. That’s what MEN who were INSPIRED by God said about it when speaking for people at their time. The Bible is not God dictating to humanity. That’s the Koran (according to Islam).

Ladies and gentlemen, for over four decades I've looked at their 'evidence'. They haven't one scrap of convincing evidence that the solar system is anything close to that figure.

Uh huh. And what I posted, the article from the scientific journal Nature, counts as WHAT now?

But if they are right then Moses (& Jesus who confirmed his truthfulness) was wrong about the chronologies of early man and the family lineage of Jesus Christ as heir to the throne of David is not legal. What Christian therefore, wishes to toss out Jesus family lineage as found in Luke 3? It goes all the way back to Adam and it gives the ages of the patriarches. God isn't wrong...the evolutionists are wrong.

Genealogies have been discussed here at length before... so I won’t rehash that. However, is a genealogy wrong if it OMITS people?

And again, it’s not the words directly from God’s mouth. It’s what God inspired people to write. Even going by Verbal Plenary Inspiration, you don’t get divine dictation.

If you HAVE been researching, you’ve been researching in all the wrong places!

Metherion

Edited to add:
Here is the Carl Sagan quote:

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos

So, right there, in the full quote, it directly speaks about how the elements in us and our food came from inside stars. Nuclear fusion. Boom.