BX442: Boom! With an exclamation point

[Martyrs44]

BX442 from the AOL front page headline, today:

I couldn't possibly have asked for greater confirmation of my position refuting the so called stellar evolution position. Read it carefully.

Quote: Astronomers have discovered the universe's most ancient spiral galaxy yet, a cosmic structure that dates back roughly 10.7 billion years, a new study reveals.

The galactic find, discovered by researchers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope, comes as something of a surprise. Other galaxies from such early epochs are clumpy and irregular, not strikingly symmetrical like the newfound spiral, which broadly resembles our own Milky Way.

"The fact that this galaxy exists is astounding," study lead author David Law, of the University of Toronto, said in a statement. "Current wisdom holds that such ‘grand-design’ spiral galaxies simply didn’t exist at such an early time in the history of the universe."

Scanning ancient galaxies

Law and his colleagues used Hubble to snap photos and study the properties of about 300 distant galaxies. The newfound galaxy, which goes by the name BX442, was the only spiral in the bunch, researchers said.
BX442's light has taken about 10.7 billion years to reach us, meaning astronomers are now seeing it as it looked just 3 billion years after the Big Bang that created the universe.

Today, spiral galaxies like our own Milky Way are common throughout the cosmos. But that wasn't the case long ago, when galaxy collisions were much more common, gas raining in from the intergalactic medium fed more dramatic star formation and black holes grew faster than they do now, researchers said.(Note: Really?)

"The vast majority of old galaxies look like train wrecks," said co-author Alice Shapley of UCLA. "Our first thought was, why is this one so different, and so beautiful?"

All spiral galaxies have only a lifespan (in spiral condition) of two or three turns at the most before they break-up & dissipate. It takes only a few million yrs to make just one complete turn. So do the math. Even at the most liberal concession of time for evolution...none of them should be spiral after 10 to 15 million years. Yet...

They still can't agree on the numbers but nonetheless, what that papias, the Assyrian, gluadys & company said in fierce opposition to what I stated so clearly in my thread on stellar evolution posts #1,2, 17, 35, 37, 73, 83 was wrong.

But as proof that I was telling the truth about my Hubble Deep Field source that papias challenged me on:

Close-up of Galaxies from Hubble Ultra Deep Field

Gravetapping: Hubble Space Images: Deep Space

Those galaxies are about 8 to 9 billion light years out according to the red shift desert chart(Note; there should be NO spiral galaxies there.

He/they are going to have to bite the bullet on this one. Their evolutionary comrades in baloney theory confirmed what I said.

Now back to civilization. Bye.

 

[KimberlyAA]

Thanks for sharing. One wonders how they even formulate these "rough" dates for galaxies when they are clearly not as uniform as thought.

 

[samaus12345]

All spiral galaxies have only a lifespan (in spiral condition) of two or three turns at the most before they break-up & dissipate

So they say this themselves (big bang supporters)? how much time is that? just a few million or?

 

[Trogool]

BX442 from the AOL front page headline, today:

I couldn't possibly have asked for greater confirmation of my position refuting the so called stellar evolution position. Read it carefully.

Assyrian, gluadys & company said in fierce opposition to what I stated so clearly in my p3, 83 was wrong.

But as proof that I was telling the truth about my Hubble Deep Field source that papias challenged me on:

Close-up of Galaxies from Hubble Ultra Deep Field

Gravetapping: Hubble Space Images: Deep Space

Those galaxies are about 8 to 9 billion light years out according to the red shift desert chart(Note; there should be NO spiral galaxies there.



He/they are going to have to bite the bullet on this one. Their evolutionary comrades in baloney theory confirmed what I said.
But watch how they respond to this friends: they will do what they always do: nit-pick, whine, complain about me, and backpeddle furiously.

Now back to civilization. Bye.

Tl;dr, but about your first bit. You get your science from AOL? Seriously?

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[florida2]

Stellar evolution is about the processes that go in inside a start and its development during its lifetime. It has nothing to do with the formation of galaxies.

I'm guessing you just don't like anything with 'evolution' in its name.

Secondly, what exactly are you trying to prove by attempting to challenge ideas about galactic formation (seemingly on the basis of one galaxy)? What's your alternative theory?

 

[Philonephius]

Martyrs44,

Why do you think the most distant galaxies are typically the most primitive, e.g. lacking spiral morphology? If the universe is only 6,000 years old, it is logical to assume that everything would be more or less uniform. It is not. While it goes without saying that the galaxy you mention surprised astronomers, it seems to be the exception, not the rule. Furthermore, it is probable that its existence can be explained by gravitational influence from a companion galaxy, which appears to be colliding with it:

"The reason this one does exist may be the companion dwarf galaxy that appears to be merging with it. Computer simulations by co-author Charlotte Christensen of the University of Arizona suggest that such a merger could produce the spiral pattern observed. The calculations also suggest, however, that the merger would be rapid and that the spiral would disappear after a relatively brief 100 million years. Apparently, astronomers just happen to be looking at BX442 at the right time."

Hubble Space Telescope spots 10-billion-year-old spiral galaxy, oldest ever seen. - Los Angeles Times

Lastly, I would also point out that the galaxy you mention lacks the bulge observed in mature spiral galaxies. That galaxy looks young compared to nearby galaxies such as Andromeda.

All spiral galaxies have only a lifespan (in spiral condition) of two or three turns at the most before they break-up & dissipate. It takes only a few million yrs to make just one complete turn. So do the math.

Uh, cite? (Not Answers in Genesis, please).

He/they are going to have to bite the bullet on this one. Their evolutionary comrades in baloney theory confirmed what I said.

Yet another YEC that fails to recognize the difference between astronomy and biology. What do you say to creationists who accept the BBT, such as Hugh Ross?

 

[Philonephius]

YECs never actually make any discoveries of their own. They simply wait for grownup scientists to collect the data, select the pieces they like, buffet-style, and then proceed to warp the data to suit their purposes while ignoring the fact that even if the point they are making were correct (which, it never is), it would be contradicted by overwhelming evidence from virtually every other branch of science, including geology, paleontology, and biology. It is such a depressing worldview - one that I am thankful to have left behind.

 

[Papias]

Martys44, that galaxy (BX442) is simply the result of a collision, resulting in a short lived spiral galaxy that happens to look like the spiral galaxies that form later by density waves. That's consistent with current models of the 13.7 billion year universe, and certainly does nothing to support your creationist canard "winding (non-) problem" you present in the earlier thread.

From your OP, it simply looks like you misunderstood (or were misled about) the situation of BX442, and so you think that this is somehow relevant.

For instance, that's probably why you wrote this:

Those galaxies are about 8 to 9 billion light years out according to the red shift desert chart(Note; there should be NO spiral galaxies there.

Which is simply false, because spiral galaxies can form by different ways, as BX442 shows. An actual astronomer describes that here:

On the other hand, direct collisions between two gas rich disk galaxies may result in a spiral disk galaxy with a big central bulge. This particular scenario likely played out early on in the history of galaxy formation (i.e., 10 billion years ago or so).
Important properties of galaxies

All spiral galaxies have only a lifespan (in spiral condition) of two or three turns at the most before they break-up & dissipate. It takes only a few million yrs to make just one complete turn. So do the math. Even at the most liberal concession of time for evolution...none of them should be spiral after 10 to 15 million years. Yet...

They still can't agree on the numbers but nonetheless, what that papias, the Assyrian, gluadys & company said in fierce opposition to what I stated so clearly in my thread on stellar evolution posts #1,2, 17, 35, 37, 73, 83 was wrong.

Really? All last only a few million years? Do you have a source for that, or did you just make it up?

I guess, as others have pointed out, that it's not clear that this helps your position.

In His name-

Papias

 

[Martyrs44]

Martyrs44,

Why do you think the most distant galaxies are typically the most primitive, e.g. lacking spiral morphology? If the universe is only 6,000 years old, it is logical to assume that everything would be more or less uniform. It is not. While it goes without saying that the galaxy you mention surprised astronomers, it seems to be the exception, not the rule. Furthermore, it is probable that its existence can be explained by gravitational influence from a companion galaxy, which appears to be colliding with it:

"The reason this one does exist may be the companion dwarf galaxy that appears to be merging with it. Computer simulations by co-author Charlotte Christensen of the University of Arizona suggest that such a merger could produce the spiral pattern observed. The calculations also suggest, however, that the merger would be rapid and that the spiral would disappear after a relatively brief 100 million years. Apparently, astronomers just happen to be looking at BX442 at the right time."

Hubble Space Telescope spots 10-billion-year-old spiral galaxy, oldest ever seen. - Los Angeles Times

I thought this thread was dead & the matter was settled. I had no intention of returning but I want other readers to see just how strong this matter favors special creation and that it reveals yet another glaring weakness in evolution theory. But I will answer one last time to the critics who are offended at the idea of a young universe and move on.

He said, "The reason this one does exist may be the companion dwarf galaxy that appears to be merging with it."

Oh, that's some 'science' there isn't it? Since the best photo we have of BX442 is a blurred composite as seen below.

So where is the other galaxy? it takes a healthy imagination to add another galaxy to this obviously spiral system. The truth is that the critics, knowing what a devasting thing it is to find spiral galaxies so far out in the visible universe are grasping at straws to justify denying the obvious.

Lastly, I would also point out that the galaxy you mention lacks the bulge observed in mature spiral galaxies. That galaxy looks young compared to nearby galaxies such as Andromeda.

Bulge? What bulge? The vantage point Hubble gave does not give us any indication of a bulge. It appears we are seeing it from the top down...like looking straight down on a dime upon a table top. If a 'bulge' were visible then we would not be able to see the far side of the spiral arms. it would look something like this:

But we can see them in the Hubble composite photo above.

But there are quite a few astronomers that have seen that this is a huge problem for stellar evolution. Ex:

From The Daily Galaxy:

Mysteries of "The Redshift Desert" --Why Do Galaxies in the Early Universe Appear Old?




These highly developed galaxies, whose star-forming youth is in fact long gone, just shouldn't be there, but are."

That statement is far more honest than what the critics on this thread are saying. But, they choose to live in denial.

Uh, cite? (Not Answers in Genesis, please).

I will dismiss such a useless statement for my documentation above did not come from Answers in Genesis in the first place. Nonetheless they are far more credible than Hugh Ross. I have no trust in nor take any credibility in him for He is at variance with scripture on the age of the earth AND the universe as a whole. The Bible teaches that all the stars were created on the fourth day. God did not lie nor did He deceive us in the matter. Genesis 1:14-16. So even though present measurements of the distance of stars/galaxies might be correct, they were not nearly that far away in the time of Adam. God created an expanding universe which explains why there seems to be such great distances by our present, (21st century) calculations.

Yet another YEC that fails to recognize the difference between astronomy and biology. What do you say to creationists who accept the BBT, such as Hugh Ross?

Wrong again. He should have read my other thread on this matter:

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html
(From the Harvard College Observatory)

Evolution is all part & parcel of the so-called 'molecules-to-man' hogwash and each category falls under the title 'cosmological evolution'.

Other critics on this thread have insisted that my documentation that there are many spiral galaxies in the 'Redshift Desert' some 8 to 11 billion light yrs out is wrong. The fact that they so strongly object to this is indicative of the fact that they understand that there SHOULD NOT be spiral galaxies that far out. They should have spun out long, long ago. But here is the proof that this is indeed the truth (& again, my source here is not from creationists):

The evolutionists at Science News (July 18th)quoting Astronomy & Space got it right:

"Earliest Spiral Galaxy An artist's rendering shows galaxy BX442 and its companion dwarf galaxy, upper left. Dunlap Institute for Astronomy & Astrophysics/Joe Bergeron Astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope have stumbled on a rare and surprising find: A very distant spiral galaxy, swirling billions of light years away, which formed at a time when such spiral galaxies were thought to be nonexistent. Researchers say it's an astounding discovery - partly because it raises some questions about prevailing theories of galaxy formation."

You said it. The documentation I gave here is bottom line. No matter how far out one looks through the telescope he/she finds spiral galaxies. That fact alone speaks so strongly against evolution and/or the so-called long ages of evolutionary time frame that the readers of this thread should feel compelled to toss out such a theory...or at least consider doing so as I once did.

P.S. Wikipedia says: "spiral arms contain a great many young, blue stars (due to the high mass density and the high rate of star formation), which make the arms so remarkable." There is another big problem they haven't figured out. But have faith, sports fans...the evolutionist drones will speculate & speculate until you readers THINK they have the answers. Google 'blue stars'.

 

[Philonephius]

Oh, that's some 'science' there isn't it? Since the best photo we have of BX442 is a blurred composite as seen below.

Scientists frequently rely on terms such as "probably" and "perhaps" because, unlike YECs, they generally error on the side of caution -- even when the probability is 99.999%. You're only further demonstrating your ignorance.

So where is the other galaxy?

See attached image. The companion is very close, and computer simulations have demonstrated that its gravitational effect explains the spiral morphology of its parent. Care to offer an alternative theory?

What bulge? The vantage point Hubble gave does not give us any indication of a bulge.

Bulges are obvious from a top-down view as well. My point was that the galaxy appears to lack the prominent bulge associated with mature spiral galaxies.

I will dismiss such a useless statement for my documentation above did not come from Answers in Genesis in the first place. Nonetheless they are far more credible than Hugh Ross. I have no trust in nor take any credibility in him for He is at variance with scripture on the age of the earth AND the universe as a whole. The Bible teaches that all the stars were created on the fourth day. God did not lie nor did He deceive us in the matter. Genesis 1:14-16. So even though present measurements of the distance of stars/galaxies might be correct, they were not nearly that far away in the time of Adam. God created an expanding universe which explains why there seems to be such great distances by our present, (21st century) calculations.

So you have no source to back up your claim that spiral galaxies last only a few million years? Only insults?

Wrong again. He should have read my other thread on this matter:

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchais...cs/splash.html
(From the Harvard College Observatory)

Stellar and biological evolution are two entirely different subjects in two separate branches of science. Generally, the term "evolutionist" refers to one that accepts the theory of biological evolution. It would be better to use the term "Big Bang Theory proponents" or something along those lines if you want to get your point across clearly.

Evolution is all part & parcel of the so-called 'molecules-to-man' hogwash and each category falls under the title 'cosmological evolution'.

Biological evolution has nothing to with stellar evolution. But then, you clearly know nothing about either subject.

You said it. The documentation I gave here is bottom line. No matter how far out one looks through the telescope he/she finds spiral galaxies. That fact alone speaks so strongly against evolution and/or the so-called long ages of evolutionary time frame that the readers of this thread should feel compelled to toss out such a theory...or at least consider doing so as I once did.

Astronomers have offered an explanation for its existence. You simply do not like their explanation. However, you also seem unwilling to offer an alternative theory.

There is another big problem they haven't figured out.

Ah, well good thing those PhD astronomers have you to correct them!

 

[Martyrs44]

Scientists frequently rely on terms such as "probably" and "perhaps" because, unlike YECs, they generally error on the side of caution -- even when the probability is 99.999%. You're only further demonstrating your ignorance.

See attached image. The companion is very close, and computer simulations have demonstrated that its gravitational effect explains the spiral morphology of its parent. Care to offer an alternative theory?

Bulges are obvious from a top-down view as well. My point was that the galaxy appears to lack the prominent bulge associated with mature spiral galaxies.

So you have no source to back up your claim that spiral galaxies last only a few million years? Only insults?

Stellar and biological evolution are two entirely different subjects in two separate branches of science. Generally, the term "evolutionist" refers to one that accepts the theory of biological evolution. It would be better to use the term "Big Bang Theory proponents" or something along those lines if you want to get your point across clearly.

Biological evolution has nothing to with stellar evolution. But then, you clearly know nothing about either subject.

Astronomers have offered an explanation for its existence. You simply do not like their explanation. However, you also seem unwilling to offer an alternative theory.

Ah, well good thing those PhD astronomers have you to correct them!

There is no companion. Like your evolutionist allies, you have a healthy imagination. That is merely an extension of the outer arm. The very reason they say 'perhaps' about such things is because they are not sure. But perhaps (pun intended) they should have consulted with you before they wrote the article since you are absolutely sure.

Concerning the bulges, you have a lot to learn about astronomy. The evolutionist astronomers who made the statements I quoted are being much more honest in their conclusions. They are the ones who called it 'mature' i.e. 'old'. But because of your personal prejudices in this matter you aren't getting it...that is, why this matter has been in the news to begin with.

"So you have no source to back up your claim that spiral galaxies last only a few million years? Only insults?"

What insults? You sure are being touchy, young fellow.

Were you too lazy to take a look at my previous thread "Why Stellar Evolution Theory is False"? I documented it there in more than one place:

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)

Quote: ""it looks like a spiral pattern, what's wrong with that? It happens too fast. It happens in a few rotation periods (say, half a billion years). The age of the Universe is something like 10-15 billion years -- if spirals made their arms this way, they should all be so tightly wrapped we wouldn't see them as spiral arms anymore!"

http://burro.cwru.edu/Academics/Astr...al/spiral.html

Here again are evolutionists that are honest enough to admit the problem, but you won't do that and neither will your equally unwilling companions on this thread who agree with you.

It's called 'the winding problem' but it's clear that you are totally unaware of this problem that has been around a long time: Spiral galaxy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The fact is that there should be NO spiral galaxies in the 'Red Desert' area or anything close to it.

You said, "Biological evolution has nothing to with stellar evolution. But then, you clearly know nothing about either subject."

Now who is making the insults? For you to know: I am a 61 yr old retired general science teacher with 26 yrs teaching experience, including biology, physics, and astronomy.

You aren't telling the truth and I documented the fact that all branches of evolution are merely arms of the same cosmological evolution theory. It begins with the so-called Big Bang and ends with living organisms in the present. But you deliberately ignored my source (Harvard College Observatory) in order to maintain the lie you believe in. Do you think that was an isolated source?

How about NASA & Carl Sagan? Do they qualify? The truth is that this has been known for well over a hundred years. Proof:

"Thus were the general outlines of the idea of cosmic evolution spread to the popu-lace, not only by these forerunners of Carl Sagan, but (as historian Bernard Lightman has shown) by a variety of Victorian popularizers of science."

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20100003010_2010003036.pdf

Like I said, you have a lot to learn. But you would do yourself a huge favor by just believing scripture and the chronologies of time God inspired Moses to give us...chronologies which give an approximate age of 6,000 yrs for the earth. There are several more reasons of a scientific nature that reveal this truth but I would have to start a new thread to discuss them. That, I won't do here.

One other thing...quote: "This information confirmed that BX442 is indeed a rotating spiral, and not two disk-shaped galaxies that happened to line up in their image."

Oldest spiral galaxy in universe discovered - Technology & science - Space - Space.com - NBCNews.com

Case closed. You've heard your last from me.

Best wishes.

P.S. You did not refer to scripture. But that's because you have no scripture to support your view. Genesis 1:14-16 stands true and always will.

 

[florida2]

Quote: ""it looks like a spiral pattern, what's wrong with that? It happens too fast. It happens in a few rotation periods (say, half a billion years). The age of the Universe is something like 10-15 billion years -- if spirals made their arms this way, they should all be so tightly wrapped we wouldn't see them as spiral arms anymore!"

If those galaxies are billions of light years away, we're seeing them as they were billions of years ago. In the meantime, they may well have gone through the process you describe. Galaxies are always forming and changing so you would expect to see different types of galaxies at any period, though I imagine you'll say I misunderstand your position.

Another point, do you take all of the Old Testament literally, as you do Genesis?

 

[Calminian]

...Another point, do you take all of the Old Testament literally, as you do Genesis?

Oy, there's that term again. The young v. old earth debate is not about literal v. figurative. There are no pure literalists, as is evidenced by the fact that no theologians believe Jesus was a loaf of bread.

The question is, do we let the bible indicated when it is and when it is not being literal, or do we let modern theories dictate it.

 

[florida2]

Oy, there's that term again. The young v. old earth debate is not about literal v. figurative. There are no pure literalists, as is evidenced by the fact that no theologians believe Jesus was a loaf of bread.

The question is, do we let the bible indicated when it is and when it is not being literal, or do we let modern theories dictate it.

If you are a young Earth creationist, you are taking the Genesis account literally. Why should you take that literally and other parts not? Where do you draw this arbitrary line?

 

[Papias]

Cal wrote:

The question is, do we let the bible indicated when it is and when it is not being literal, or do we let modern theories dictate it.

Right, and there is plenty in Genesis to indicate that it is not literal. Genesis contains poetic elements, puns, and more to make it clear that the Holy Spirit does not want us to read it literally. It's a matter of listening to the Holy Spirit.

Papias

 

[busterdog]

Evolutionist rhetoric does not evolve.

 

[Calminian]

If you are a young Earth creationist, you are taking the Genesis account literally. Why should you take that literally and other parts not? Where do you draw this arbitrary line?

That's the whole point. We don't draw the line, we allow scripture to draw it. Scripture uses the term day is several ways, and its meaning is determined by usage. We do that same in english.

In my grandfather's day, he walked to school and back every day, and always made it home before the day's end.​

It's crystal clear what the term "day" means in each usage in that one sentence. Same is true in scripture. Now I suppose someone could take that sentence and make an argument for other definitions of the word in each case, but it would be silly.

 

[Calminian]

Cal wrote:


Right, and there is plenty in Genesis to indicate that it is not literal. Genesis contains poetic elements, puns, and more to make it clear that the Holy Spirit does not want us to read it literally. It's a matter of listening to the Holy Spirit.

Papias

Funny, you're not listing a single example. Scared?

 

[Papias]

Cal wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

...there is plenty in Genesis to indicate that it is not literal. Genesis contains poetic elements, puns, and more to make it clear that the Holy Spirit does not want us to read it literally. It's a matter of listening to the Holy Spirit.

Papias

Funny, you're not listing a single example. Scared?
​

No, I didn't think examples were needed, because I thought you were plenty aware of the poetic elements, puns, etc, in Genesis, because I think you are pretty familar with your chosen Bible. It's just like if I stated that the constitution contained amendments, I wouldn't feel the need to cite examples.

But, it sounds like you disagree and would like examples.

An example of a pun is the name "Adam", which is like the Hebrew word for dirt. Thus, God takes dirt, forms it into a person, and names him "Mr. Dirt". etc.

The many poetic elements have been pointed out by Protestant, Catholic and Jewish scholars. Just a few include:

G. d'Eichthal, a Catholic, first undertook in his "Texte prim. du premier recit de la Creation" (1875) to show that Genesis, i, was a poem. The same contention was urged by Bishop Clifford ("Dublin Review", 1882), and C. A. Briggs ventures on resolving this narrative into a five-tone measure.

From: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Hebrew Poetry of the Old Testament

Protestants Bruce Waltke and Robert Alter have pointed out poetic elements as well. For instance, Bruce Waltke, in his book "Genesis", gives his view of whether Genesis chaps 1, 2 and 3 are myth, poetry, science or history by saying they are "all of the above".

Reading Gen 1 shows clearly parallel structure (1-3 parallels 4-6), another poetic element. Here is a Jewish source that says that "It is now generally conceded that parallelism is the fundamental law, not only of the poetical, but even of the rhetorical and therefore of higher style in general in the Old Testament. " PARALLELISM IN HEBREW POETRY - JewishEncyclopedia.com


So there's a few. Cal, had you really not heard that Genesis contained poetic elements until now? Or did you already know? Thanks-

Papias

 

[busterdog]

That's the whole point. We don't draw the line, we allow scripture to draw it. Scripture uses the term day is several ways, and its meaning is determined by usage. We do that same in english.

In my grandfather's day, he walked to school and back every day, and always made it home before the day's end.​

It's crystal clear what the term "day" means in each usage in that one sentence. Same is true in scripture. Now I suppose someone could take that sentence and make an argument for other definitions of the word in each case, but it would be silly.

sYou're doing a good job. Tough crowd though.