Evidence for Young Earth Creationism?

[joinfree]

This year (2019AC) results, published in Physical Review (E), prove, that spiral Galaxies are not stable yet. Last year was expected the stability. Thus, the 180 degree reverse change in expectations favours the Universe being only 7500 years old. Is it an evidence for YE Creation?

Phys. Rev. E 99, 022125 (2019) - Long-lived transient structure in collisionless self-gravitating systems

Physics - Synopsis: Galactic Spirals May Form Spontaneously

 

[HitchSlap]

This year (2019AC) results, published in Physical Review (E), prove, that spiral Galaxies are not stable yet. Last year was expected the stability. Thus, the 180 degree reverse change in expectations favours the Universe being only 7500 years old. Is it an evidence for YE Creation?

Phys. Rev. E 99, 022125 (2019) - Long-lived transient structure in collisionless self-gravitating systems

You posted an abstract only, of a study designed to look at "the kinematical and dynamical properties of these complex velocity fields and we briefly discuss the possible relevance of these simple toy models to the observed structure of real galaxies, emphasizing the difference between dissipative and dissipationless disk formation."

This has nothing to do with YEC/ID (to be clear, nothing in science has to do with YEC/ID - it's simply an ideology), and is the reason why no one in science takes YEC'ers seriously.

 

[sfs]

This year (2019AC) results, published in Physical Review (E), prove, that spiral Galaxies are not stable yet. Last year was expected the stability. Thus, the 180 degree reverse change in expectations favours the Universe being only 7500 years old. Is it an evidence for YE Creation?

They don't prove anything of the sort. They show that spiral structures can be created during the initial gravitational collapse of a proto-galaxy, which is quite a different mechanism than has previously been suggested for their origin. They note that such structures can last a long time in their model, but caution against any comparison with real galaxies because theirs is a toy model designed only to explore possible physical processes.

 

[joinfree]

They don't prove anything of the sort. They show that spiral structures can be created during the initial gravitational collapse of a proto-galaxy, which is quite a different mechanism than has previously been suggested for their origin. They note that such structures can last a long time in their model, but caution against any comparison with real galaxies because theirs is a toy model designed only to explore possible physical processes.

The Russian Media site reports the detection of instability and references this paper. And the English site too:
Physics - Synopsis: Galactic Spirals May Form Spontaneously

 

[Pethesedzao]

This year (2019AC) results, published in Physical Review (E), prove, that spiral Galaxies are not stable yet. Last year was expected the stability. Thus, the 180 degree reverse change in expectations favours the Universe being only 7500 years old. Is it an evidence for YE Creation?

Phys. Rev. E 99, 022125 (2019) - Long-lived transient structure in collisionless self-gravitating systems

Physics - Synopsis: Galactic Spirals May Form Spontaneously

The Earth is around 7 thousand years of age

 

[sfs]

The Earth is around 7 thousand years of age

You're free to believe that, but you sure as heck aren't going to get any support from science for it.

 

[USincognito]

The Earth is around 7 thousand years of age

The evidence says otherwise.

 

[Pethesedzao]

This is why climate conditions are starting to break down and more earthquakes are taking place. The reason being is that the Earth is around 7 thousand years old and man's life is 3 score years and 10...

 

[USincognito]

This is why climate conditions are starting to break down and more earthquakes are taking place. The reason being is that the Earth is around 7 thousand years old and man's life is 3 score years and 10...

Climate Change is happening because atmopheric CO2 has increased from 320ppm to 405ppm in the last 70 years.

 

[essentialsaltes]

This year (2019AC) results, published in Physical Review (E), prove, that spiral Galaxies are not stable yet.

No, it says that spiral structures can form naturally with only gravitational interactions, and that these strcutures can last a long time. Structures "of which the lifetime can be large compared to the dynamical characteristic time". For a galaxy, the dynamical characteristic time is something like 100 million years.

The paper doesn't seem to directly bear on the age of the universe, but considering that it talks about lifetimes in hundreds of millions of years, there is no support for YEC here. Quite the opposite. Once again, YEC is slain by evidence.

 

[lasthero]

This is why climate conditions are starting to break down and more earthquakes are taking place.

Please present evidence for either of these statements.

 

[juvenissun]

This year (2019AC) results, published in Physical Review (E), prove, that spiral Galaxies are not stable yet. Last year was expected the stability. Thus, the 180 degree reverse change in expectations favours the Universe being only 7500 years old. Is it an evidence for YE Creation?

Phys. Rev. E 99, 022125 (2019) - Long-lived transient structure in collisionless self-gravitating systems

Physics - Synopsis: Galactic Spirals May Form Spontaneously

Any geological study without using the radiometric dating supports a young earth. Anyone of them.

 

[Shemjaza]

Any geological study without using the radiometric dating supports a young earth. Anyone of them.

That's actually completely false.

What about varves, sedimentary layers in mountains, fossils of totally different environments on top of each other?

 

[sfs]

What about varves, sedimentary layers in mountains, fossils of totally different environments on top of each other?

Geologists had concluded that the Earth was at least many millions of years old long before radiometric dating was developed.

 

[Shemjaza]

Geologists had concluded that the Earth was at least many millions of years old long before radiometric dating was developed.

I assume Juvenissun has a different way of looking at it, so it doesn't count... for no clear reason.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This year (2019AC) results, published in Physical Review (E), prove, that spiral Galaxies are not stable yet. Last year was expected the stability. Thus, the 180 degree reverse change in expectations favours the Universe being only 7500 years old. Is it an evidence for YE Creation?

Phys. Rev. E 99, 022125 (2019) - Long-lived transient structure in collisionless self-gravitating systems

Physics - Synopsis: Galactic Spirals May Form Spontaneously

The errors are plain to see....

"No current theory, however, fully explains how these galactic shapes form and evolve"

That's because they keep using the wrong physics for a universe 99.9% plasma.... while continuing to try to sledgehammer that theory as the dominating force. Despite it being but a secondary force, even right here on earth under gravity in every plasma laboratory.... let alone the micro-G of space where it is almost non-existent.

ALL their formation theories are incorrect because they keep trying to sledgehammer the wrong physics to the wrong state of matter.

Galaxy formation - The Plasma Universe theory (Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia)

Fairie Dust isn't needed to explain spiral shapes, just the correct physics......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This year (2019AC) results, published in Physical Review (E), prove, that spiral Galaxies are not stable yet. Last year was expected the stability. Thus, the 180 degree reverse change in expectations favours the Universe being only 7500 years old. Is it an evidence for YE Creation?

Phys. Rev. E 99, 022125 (2019) - Long-lived transient structure in collisionless self-gravitating systems

Physics - Synopsis: Galactic Spirals May Form Spontaneously

As to the age it appears this is because they refuse to follow their theory they claim to follow and apply time dilation in a universe that began accelerating faster than c and has only continued to increase....

like a decreasing flow of water in a pipe. They see the amount of water in the pool (parent and daughter isotopes) and today's rate, then calculate a constant rate backwards. Having to add time because they didn't account for an increasing rate backwards.

But like the twin they believe their clocks are not changing, even as they change before their very eyes and yet can't observe it.... Just as a clock at the pole ticks at a different rate than one at the equator. Yet a person at the pole calls his tick of time a second just as the person at the equator calls his tick of time is a second, even when neither is of the same duration.... One simply can not tell when his clocks change, even when they change before his very eyes.... but change they do regardless if one can observe it or not....

 

[juvenissun]

That's actually completely false.

What about varves, sedimentary layers in mountains, fossils of totally different environments on top of each other?

OK, how much time do you think they need?
Whatever you said, it will say that the earth is not old.

 

[46AND2]

That's actually completely false.

What about varves, sedimentary layers in mountains, fossils of totally different environments on top of each other?

Juve considers pretty much any date less than the 4.5 billion years as "young."

Additionally, he correctly, but unnecessarily, points out that the varves and ice cores, and tree rings do not indicate the age of the earth. Of course we know this, and only use those dates in these arguments to show that the earth is at least those ages, and therefore much older than the 6-10k years that YEC argue for.

He agrees that the earth is not less than 10k years old, and is likely at least millions and maybe billions of years old, but he won't put a figure on it, and calls all of it "young."

Basically, he just refuses to accept the scientific age of the earth because...reasons.

 

[Shemjaza]

OK, how much time do you think they need?
Whatever you said, it will say that the earth is not old.

Hundreds of millions years at the very least to allow for the size of sedimentary layers and Continental uplift.

If that is still what you classify as "young" then you are using language in a disingenuous way that will cause confusion and you should stop.

In context of the evolution creation discussion, "young Earth" is assumed to be on a similar order of magnitude to 6000 years.

Any other interpretation should be made explicitly clear, or misunderstanding (accidental or not) will occur.