Galaxy Rotation Problem and YEC

[juvenissun]

How does God participate in the making of a cheese sandwich?

He allows your hand still be functional.

 

[gluadys]

I think the point she was trying to make is that the TE view seems to make God unecessary to explain anything that occurs in our world. If everything has a natural explanation, where is the supernatural? It turns into Anthony Flew's death by 1000 qualifications.

What does it matter where the supernatural is since God works through the natural as surely as through the supernatural? It is this fencing of God into supernatural works only that TEs object to.

After all, the supernatural is no more a proof of God than the natural. Did the Pharisees believe in Jesus because he healed people? Not at all. God chooses his own signs and the sign he has given us is the created world. Is a rainbow still a sign of God's covenant if we understand the physics behind it?

Creationists, it seems to me, answer in the negative. It seems axiomatic to them that scientific explanation drives God out of the universe.

Your parable is a fine illustration. It assumes throughout that the gardener is not present in the garden all along. Why would he need to get through a fence?

 

[Assyrian]

Its only unstable in an old universe model. If I don't eat, I am at risk of starving, but I don't constantly need to be eating to remain "stable". The galaxies can easily last thousands of years without blowing apart.

That is the problem. They aren't going to blow apart in the distant future, they are blowing apart now, and at phenomenal velocities.

To take your parallel about eating, it is like you have been abducted by aliens who look at your metabolism, the way you burn carbohydrates producing CO[sub]2[/sub] and water, the way you keep excreting waste products (what do you think the probes are for?) They propose without any evidence that such a thing exists, that there is a source that replaces the carbohydrates being used up and the material being expelled past their probes which for reasons know only to their unworldly intelligences the label 'darq phood'. Would your aliens be mistaken?

Dark matter was a result of scientists confusion as to how the galaxies were staying together. In the words of the scientists themselves, the galaxies should have fallen apart. Therefore, in order for the universe to be in the state its in now, AND be billions of years old, dark matter had to be made up. This is not a "creationist" argument at all. That is how dark matter came about in the minds of scientists.

If you know what the scientists said, was the question of galaxies holding together part of the general discussion, or was it the basis of their calculation?

Perhaps you shouldn't over read into what people say. I have no idea why you think I believe galaxies are flying apart.

Because that is what you describe.

They should have flown apart under an old universe model, but under a young universe, there is no problem.

If the universe was young the galaxxies would still be flying apart. Don't forget too, a young universe is only part of the creationist view. They also claim Adam and Eve, all the animals, plants and bacteria were created immortal, and they were meant to live with God forever in this perfect world. The creationist model need galaxies that will hold together for billions of years too, it is just their billions of years were in the future when God created man and animals immortal.

Maybe you should look into why scientists came up with dark matter.

Dark matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The first person to provide evidence and infer the presence of dark matter was Swiss astrophysicist Fritz Zwicky, of the California Institute of Technology in 1933.[8] He applied the virial theorem to the Coma cluster of galaxies and obtained evidence of unseen mass. Zwicky estimated the cluster's total mass based on the motions of galaxies near its edge and compared that estimate to one based on the number of galaxies and total brightness of the cluster. He found that there was about 400 times more estimated mass than was visually observable. The gravity of the visible galaxies in the cluster would be far too small for such fast orbits, so something extra was required. This is known as the "missing mass problem". Based on these conclusions, Zwicky inferred that there must be some non-visible form of matter which would provide enough of the mass and gravity to hold the cluster together.

As far as I can tell the virial theorem is about velocities, not age. Apparently Zwicky proposed back in the 30s that mass of galaxies could be confirmed by gravitational lensing.

Let me expand on the ball example I gave.

Pretend God created a new universe that was just a hill, a ball, and 2 people. When created, the ball is already halfway down the hill in motion toward the people standing at the bottom. God says to the people, "I created that ball halfway up the hill." but one of the people says, "Well if we apply the laws of physics to it, we can see that the ball actually came from the top of the hill. The speed it was going and the direction it was coming from indicates that it wasn't made halfway up the hill, but actually it came from the top of the hill. Sorry God."

Now the second person says, "Well wait a second. If we run tests on the ball, we see that it only has enough dirt on it to have come from halfway down. Since we know the rate the ball would pick up dirt, it can't have come from the top. God must have been right when he said he made it only halfway down."

First person replies, "There must be an invisible dark barrier that kept the ball from picking up dirt."

The problem with you comparison is that the ball is pretty easy to pick up and examine and the path easy to study. What creations have done is look at science at the very limits of our ability to observe, that we cannot being into a lab and shove under microscope but can only make distant observations. The creationist look for some puzzle that cannot be answered across the vast distances in the inky dark of space, and say Ahah! that was God. The answer is he made it that way.

I think you just broke my irony meter.

I was a creationist myself, I know they can spin a great line of rhetoric but the evidence simply isn't there to support their claims.

So until a better theory comes along, we should all hold to these theories on faith. You believe the best explanation is convoluted, unfalsifiable hypothesis on dark matter and bouncing membranes.

Don't think I mentioned membranes. No, science holds them simply as the best explanation we have until they are confirmed or a better explanation comes along, in the meantime they keep looking for evidence that can support or contradict dark matter or modified gravity.

I believe the best explanation is God and what he has revealed to us in the scriptures. One of these sides is static, the other constantly changing because its never quite right.

The bible doesn't change, but interpretation certainly do and it wouldn't be the first time a literal interpretation was shown to be wrong when we learned more about science. There was a time when everyone thought the bible said the sun went round the earth. But in the end the church went with science, because science is testable and we can be mistaken in our interpretation of scripture. At lest the geocentrists based their ideas about the sun going round the earth on scripture, the bible says nothing about the stability of galaxies. You simply want it to be true because it would be evidence for a young earth, but even if creation were recent it wouldn't mean galaxies had to be unstable.

Much better to stick with the science we have tested and know, like the age of earth and the universe, rather than abandon them for some baseless Creationist claim to have the answer for things we don't know yet.

 

[Bushido216]

He allows your hand still be functional.

You're not who I asked.

 

[juvenissun]

You're not who I asked.

OK, sorry.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

That is the problem. They aren't going to blow apart in the distant future, they are blowing apart now, and at phenomenal velocities.

To take your parallel about eating, it is like you have been abducted by aliens who look at your metabolism, the way you burn carbohydrates producing CO[sub]2[/sub] and water, the way you keep excreting waste products (what do you think the probes are for?) They propose without any evidence that such a thing exists, that there is a source that replaces the carbohydrates being used up and the material being expelled past their probes which for reasons know only to their unworldly intelligences the label 'darq phood'. Would your aliens be mistaken?

If you know what the scientists said, was the question of galaxies holding together part of the general discussion, or was it the basis of their calculation?


Because that is what you describe.

If the universe was young the galaxxies would still be flying apart. Don't forget too, a young universe is only part of the creationist view. They also claim Adam and Eve, all the animals, plants and bacteria were created immortal, and they were meant to live with God forever in this perfect world. The creationist model need galaxies that will hold together for billions of years too, it is just their billions of years were in the future when God created man and animals immortal.

Dark matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The first person to provide evidence and infer the presence of dark matter was Swiss astrophysicist Fritz Zwicky, of the California Institute of Technology in 1933.[8] He applied the virial theorem to the Coma cluster of galaxies and obtained evidence of unseen mass. Zwicky estimated the cluster's total mass based on the motions of galaxies near its edge and compared that estimate to one based on the number of galaxies and total brightness of the cluster. He found that there was about 400 times more estimated mass than was visually observable. The gravity of the visible galaxies in the cluster would be far too small for such fast orbits, so something extra was required. This is known as the "missing mass problem". Based on these conclusions, Zwicky inferred that there must be some non-visible form of matter which would provide enough of the mass and gravity to hold the cluster together.

As far as I can tell the virial theorem is about velocities, not age. Apparently Zwicky proposed back in the 30s that mass of galaxies could be confirmed by gravitational lensing.

The problem with you comparison is that the ball is pretty easy to pick up and examine and the path easy to study. What creations have done is look at science at the very limits of our ability to observe, that we cannot being into a lab and shove under microscope but can only make distant observations. The creationist look for some puzzle that cannot be answered across the vast distances in the inky dark of space, and say Ahah! that was God. The answer is he made it that way.


I was a creationist myself, I know they can spin a great line of rhetoric but the evidence simply isn't there to support their claims.

Don't think I mentioned membranes. No, science holds them simply as the best explanation we have until they are confirmed or a better explanation comes along, in the meantime they keep looking for evidence that can support or contradict dark matter or modified gravity.

The bible doesn't change, but interpretation certainly do and it wouldn't be the first time a literal interpretation was shown to be wrong when we learned more about science. There was a time when everyone thought the bible said the sun went round the earth. But in the end the church went with science, because science is testable and we can be mistaken in our interpretation of scripture. At lest the geocentrists based their ideas about the sun going round the earth on scripture, the bible says nothing about the stability of galaxies. You simply want it to be true because it would be evidence for a young earth, but even if creation were recent it wouldn't mean galaxies had to be unstable.

Much better to stick with the science we have tested and know, like the age of earth and the universe, rather than abandon them for some baseless Creationist claim to have the answer for things we don't know yet.

I think you missed my point. I wasn't denying that the scientists don't have good reason for making up dark matter, I'm just saying that in a YEC model, its not necessary. We can stick to what we can observe, and not grasp for air to see if its solid.

 

[Assyrian]

I think you missed my point. I wasn't denying that the scientists don't have good reason for making up dark matter, I'm just saying that in a YEC model, its not necessary. We can stick to what we can observe, and not grasp for air to see if its solid.

But you said yourself, you haven't observed galaxies being unstable and falling apart, you simply assume they are and that there hasn't been enough time to see them flying apart. On the other hand when dark matter was proposed to explain the rotation of the galaxies back in the 30's, it was predicted that the extra mass would produce another effect, gravitational lensing, which as we have seen they later found. Now there is debate about the reason for the lensing, it fits modified gravitational models too, but that doesn't affect our discussion, because regardless of the source of the extra gravity, dark matter or modified gravitation, gravitational lensing has confirmed there is a stronger force of gravity operating in galaxies than is explained by visible matter and traditional Newtonian gravitational formula and this stronger force of gravity explains the rotation rates of the galaxies.

And of course we are expected to abandon all we do know about the age of the universe, on the basis of a creationist claim that the galaxies are falling apart but there hasn't had enough time to see any evidence.

I love your sig

 

[Yekcidmij]

I love your sig

Yoda said it first!

YouTube - "Do or Do not. There is no try." Yoda teaches Luke Skywalker the force

 

[Assyrian]

No problem. It wasn't Dumbledore either

 

[Cute Tink]

.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Well to put it very simply we can use brightness measurements to estimate the distances of celestial objects, comparing their dimness to their actual brightness as determined by their spectrum, and we find that most are more than a few thousands years distant given the finite speed of light. In other words, the objects are too far away for their light to have reached us in just a short time. Also, the universe may be accelerating in it's expansion, and it's geometry is relatively flat. These characteristics are best explained by a cosmological model that describes a universe composed mostly of dark energy and dark matter.

I find it funny that you are willing to point out a distance starlight problem that Big Bangers can not explain themselves.

A simple answer to this problem from a Young Earther perspective is time dilation. See "
It has long been established that gravity affects the rate at which time flows in any particular location in the universe. A graphic example of this phenomenon is the GPS satellite navigation system which is becoming a standard feature in many motor vehicles today. "

How can distant starlight reach us in just 6,000 years?

 

[hamashiachagape]

It's not an assumption, it's a conclusion made from data.

Yek this is a debateable matter . This would depend on the interpretation of data, and I think quite conclusively, the way that gravity affects the speed of light, and the way we can manipulate it in labs today..its not too far off to state that light was moving faster in the past than it is today. I think the data really supports a Young Earth conclusion.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Presumably he wanted it to be spiral patterns because that is the way he created them, he just didn't create them with enough mass to hold together. Which is odd, if you think Adam was supposed to live forever in the perfect universe God created.

Where does God say that he created things to be perfect? Secondly please further explain how point A attaches to point B here.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Do you actually have any evidence galaxies are falling apart? Because apart form the fact we can tell how old they are, they look pretty stable when we study them. You are assuming, on the basis of no information whatsoever, that there isn't any dark matter, modified gravitation, or any other force holding them together, simply because you want to think they are unstable and would not last more than a few thousand years. Scientists realise space is pretty dark itself and that there is a lot we don't see out there, they prefer to have a good look for dark matter before concluding it does not exist.


The universe is our biggest lab for studying physics, it seems silly to spend money on particle accelerators but ignore evidence of possible exotic matter we see with our telescopes. What makes you think we won't be able to find important applications for new discoveries and understandings of the fundamental nature of matter and the universe? Hospitals are already using the anti matter version of electrons, positrons, in PET scanners. And we are just beginning to discover what matter is made of.

On the issue of "dark matter" i have to go with Dr. Hartnett on that one:
Has ‘dark matter’ really been proven?

Clarifying the clamour of claims from colliding clusters

by John Hartnett
8 September 2006

Recently, a paper claimed that direct empirical proof of the existence of ‘dark matter’ has been finally found.1 This has been dutifully repeated in the more popular media. 2 It is claimed that this demolishes the criticisms of ‘dark matter sceptics’ (myself among them) who claim that the whole dark matter scenario is the result of incorrect physics being applied to the dynamics of astronomical bodies.
What was found?

Source: NASA / CXC / CIA / STSci / Magellan / Univ. of Ariz. / ESO.

Clowe, Bradac and co-authors claimed that the Bullet cluster (1E0657-558) at a redshift of 0.296 is a unique merger of two clusters, and that new analysis just accepted for publication in Astrophysical Journal Letters has ‘…enable[d] a direct detection of dark matter,…’
This topic has been in the news and on several websites over the past few days. The arguments all hinge on Clowe, Bradac et al.’s interpretation of the gravitational lensing evidence. That is, whether the correct physics has been applied to these visible arcs seen in and around galaxies in the two Bullet sub-clusters. The usual interpretation is that it is gravitational lensing,3 and a reconstruction allows one to correctly locate the dark matter.4
Is it really dark matter?

They claim ‘direct proof’. That seems to be stretching things a bit, to put it mildly, given the many assumptions and interpretations necessarily involved (see this explanation of some of the logic of proof in general). In this case they were out to disprove some alternate gravity theories that purport to explain the anomalies which cause others to postulate ‘dark matter’. Those theories made predictions, and according to the analysis being discussed here, the researchers have found data that contradicts those theories. However, a recent paper claims that this is mistaken, namely that at least one of those same theories can explain the ‘lensing’ that is observed in this cluster.5
Even if we were to grant them the disproof, though, it is not a proof nevertheless. Let’s be clear here: “dark matter” is not an explanation for what we see; it’s an admission that no one has an explanation. Perhaps a more accurate headline would have been, ‘Scientists have proved that they haven’t got a clue what the universe is made of’, rather than, ‘Dark matter revealed’.6 Because it isn’t revealed. But if you give a name to an admission of gross ignorance—‘dark matter’, ‘dark energy’—then you may eventually believe you have explained something!
The main problem I see hinges on where the x-ray-emitting gas is. The shock heating from the collision of the clusters might well bias the mass calculations for the normal matter. The determination of the mass from x-ray emission is linked to the assumption of hydrostatic equilibrium,7 and the equation used to calculate the location of the mass is the collisionless Boltzmann equation. But by the authors’ own admission, the system is not in equilibrium. Also, they claim one cluster passed through another,8 so the x-ray gases are heated to hundreds of millions of degrees, hardly collisionless. That is why it was named the Bullet cluster. There is a clear picture9 of the x-ray emission shaped like a bow shock wave. The article says:

‘The cluster is also known as the bullet cluster, because it contains a spectacular bullet-shaped cloud of hundred-million-degree gas. The X-ray image shows the bullet shape is due to a wind produced by the high-speed collision of a smaller cluster with a larger one.’​

… if you give a name to an admission of gross ignorance—
‘dark matter’, ‘dark energy’—then you may eventually believe you have explained something!

They argue that the separate methods (gravitational lensing, and x-ray emissions) allow the authors to separate where the normal matter is from where the dark matter is. But still, many assumptions have been applied which may be wrong. So I suggest that the location of the mass is still in question.
Claims of ‘direct proof’ of dark matter have been made before, and have fizzled.10 Considering that we live in a part of the galaxy that is meant to be dominated with the stuff and is allegedly six or seven times more concentrated than normal matter, i.e. all around us, what is it? Some claim it comprises heavy neutrinos. If standard neutrinos, there would need to be about 10 billion times the amount of the normal matter made from protons and neutrons. Hence the need to look for a massive neutrino. But there are supposed to only be about 20 particles per cubic centimetre! It seems more than prudent to adopt a ‘wait and see’ approach on this alleged ‘proof’.
Another question that might be asked is: if gravitational lensing is correct in the Bullet cluster, why don’t we see it in the CMB?11 After all, cosmic microwave radiation is supposed to come from the background of all the galaxies (supposedly containing putative dark matter) in the visible universe and therefore should be lensed by foreground galaxies—but it isn’t.
I believe we need to apply Occam’s razor.12 We should be wary of claiming the existence of anything where ad hoc assumptions are introduced to the norm, resulting in a complex system of more components than are really necessary. I suggest that dark matter, dark energy, inflation, etc are such items, ones on which history will ultimately pass unfavourable judgement.
Dark matter—vital for big bang believers

But why all the fuss? A lot has to do with ‘big bang belief’. It seems that dark matter is necessary to prop-up the failing paradigm of the Friedmann cosmologies commonly believed by many to describe not only the structure but also the true (‘big bang’) beginning of the universe. The many well-qualified critics of the big bang have rightly lambasted dark matter and dark energy as ‘hypothetical entities’ or ‘fudge factors’ (see Secular scientists blast the big bang, which cites An Open Letter to the Scientific Community published in New Scientist). However, to get the theory to work, a universe comprising 22% dark matter is an absolute must. Therefore it has become now an all-out battle to prove that the dark matter sceptics (like me), who dispute the existence of the stuff, are wrong.

Has ‘dark matter’ really been proven?

 

[hamashiachagape]

And to avoid the "no True Scientist" fallacy..why..I've linked you to his name. So you can really see what his credentials are all about.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Actually, if you read the conversations going on here, it is creationists who come out pretty deistic. TEs believe God operate not only through miracles, but also through natural processes. These creationists seem to have rejected the historical understanding of God working through providence as well as through miracle, and see God operating purely deistically almost all the time, apart from the occasional supernatural intervention. But I think you would be better off discussing these ideas with the people you disagree with, rather than making up names to call them. Incidentally, where I come from TD is an Irish Member of Parliment.

Creation Scientists agree that God operates in the realm of natural Science as well. For example, he created the physical principles of the universe. Not sure where you were going with this argument.

We disagree that things naturally occur on their own without divine intervention in fact. We also disagree that Science is operating in a motion that is necessary for Evolution to occur. Instead of upwards mutations, we see in the few beneficial mutations that we observe as well....a decrease of genetic information that leads to a decrease of function. This is tantamount to a refutation of the process of Evolution, which needs upward mutations in order to operate.

 

[hamashiachagape]

What does it matter where the supernatural is since God works through the natural as surely as through the supernatural? It is this fencing of God into supernatural works only that TEs object to.

After all, the supernatural is no more a proof of God than the natural. Did the Pharisees believe in Jesus because he healed people? Not at all. God chooses his own signs and the sign he has given us is the created world. Is a rainbow still a sign of God's covenant if we understand the physics behind it?

Creationists, it seems to me, answer in the negative. It seems axiomatic to them that scientific explanation drives God out of the universe.

Your parable is a fine illustration. It assumes throughout that the gardener is not present in the garden all along. Why would he need to get through a fence?

So you disagree with Yeshua when he declares that in the beginning he made them male and female? No, instead what we need is for a punctuated equilibrium process to somehow develop over time (with no evidential support at all), or a gradualistic evolutionary process (also with no evidential support at all) to develop humans from an ape ancestry. This is against what the Bible declares.

And its not just axiomatic to us. It was also axiomatic to Will Provine and many other Scientists (Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers included) to give up their beliefs in God due to the General Theory of Evolution. Keep that in mind when looking at how the majority of the Scientific community who agrees with Evolution is in fact Atheistic.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Yek this is a debateable matter . This would depend on the interpretation of data, and I think quite conclusively, the way that gravity affects the speed of light, and the way we can manipulate it in labs today..its not too far off to state that light was moving faster in the past than it is today. I think the data really supports a Young Earth conclusion.

It's still a conclusion, not an assumption. You may say that the conclusion is wrong, but that doesn't change it into an assumption.

Oh, and gravity (or a mass) effects the path that a photon will follow, it doesn't effect the speed of the photon.

 

[gluadys]

So you disagree with Yeshua when he declares that in the beginning he made them male and female?

I hope you don't try to make a living reading minds. If this is a sample, you are not very good at it.


I have no idea how your post relates to mine. You haven't touched on a single point.

 

[philadiddle]

This would depend on the interpretation of data, and I think quite conclusively, the way that gravity affects the speed of light, and the way we can manipulate it in labs today..its not too far off to state that light was moving faster in the past than it is today. I think the data really supports a Young Earth conclusion.

I don't think you understand the consequences in physics for the speed of light to have been moving faster. See here:

YouTube - Lesson 7/16: Astronomy and Physics