• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Why stellar evolution theory is false

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
988
59
✟64,806.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Martyrs wrote:


This is a bare assertion until you provide a reason to think it is correct. Specifically, can you show data from experts that the first galaxies appear to be mature? Here is a statement from experts about the fact that the most ancient galaxies do in fact appear young, as expected.


Using its near-infrared vision to peer 9 billion years back in time, NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has uncovered an extraordinary population of tiny, young galaxies that are brimming with star formation. The galaxies are typically a hundred times less massive than the Milky Way galaxy, yet they churn out stars at such a furious pace that their stellar content would double in just 10 million years. By comparison, the Milky Way would take a thousand times longer to double its population.
​
A Resource for Research on the Most Distant Galaxies



Papias
 
Upvote 0

Martyrs44

Newbie
Jun 26, 2012
336
6
✟23,051.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private

I logged out a couple days ago but after returning for a look-see to see how my companions were doing I was enabled to read this nonsense from papias. So for Jinx and perhaps others who would like to see how I respond:

This is a bare assertion until you provide a reason to think it is correct
Click to expand...

That came from the Hubble scientists themselves.

Can I document that the evolutionist predictions about deep space objects should appear much different than those much closer? Of course.




The predications are and have been that the youngest galaxies are the
This is how things should have looked from youngest (upper left)120 million yrs ago to oldest.(lower right)13.7 billion yrs.BUT...only the one on the lower right has been observed by astronomers. The others are guesswork. The predictions are and have been that the youngest galaxies are the ones farthest out and that they would be in a much more powdered and undefined manner than the later spiral galaxies.

But secondly, I posted in the OP that everything from the closest spirals (Andromeda at 2.5 million light yrs out) to the youngest we can see...9 billion to 15 billion light years...all are in the same stages of development; that despite the fact that if stellar evolution theory were true then they should be in varying stages of development from infancy to maturity.

Below is Andromeda: 2.5 million light years out.


Yet the Hubble Deep Field reveals the same degree of maturity and complexity over 9 billion light years out.



So if evolution were true about distance and age then most of the galaxies visible to us should have spun out, but no matter how you cut it they should not all be in the same degree of maturity. No way. This was and is called the 'winding problem', something that the TE's on this website denied was a problem to begin with even though it was evolutionist astronomers that pointed it out and I documented that also.

"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​

Papias & company apparently imagine that those spiral galaxies came out of their giant fax machine(singularity?) in that spiral condition at the moment of the 'Big Burp! Right.​

If any of you (except papias, gluadys, metherion, assyrian, etc) have questions feel free to ask. I won't log out until I can see all the questions are answered.​

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
988
59
✟64,806.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
martyrs wrote:

OK, then please show me where they said that the galaxies all appear to be mature and no different than those much closer to us. I've given a reference and quote that shows that they did not appear "mature and no different".

Your posted information only shows their different shapes. Since none of us are experts (well, except maybe metherion), you and I can't look at those and have any idea if they look "mature" or not.

So if you are going to support your claim, you need to show that those Hubble scientists think all the galaxies from 9 to 15 billion light years out look mature to those scientists.

​

This is how things should have looked from youngest (upper left)120 million yrs ago to oldest.(lower right)13.7 billion yrs.BUT...only the one on the lower right has been observed by astronomers.
Click to expand...



You have mistaken overall universe models for individual galaxies. You don't understand that a model at the size scale you gave cannot be compared to any of the very different size scale picutres you gave, and you have not supported, from any scientist, your claim.




None of us can tell which of those are in early or late stages. And we are still waiting for support for your idea that scientists haven't found old galaxies that are in the young stages. As shown previously, I have given evidence that scientists, when finding old galaxies, have confirmed that they look young.



Yet the Hubble Deep Field reveals the same degree of maturity and complexity over 9 billion light years out.
Click to expand...

False. My reference used data from the hubble deep field, showing that the galaxies looked young. I've yet to see anything comparable from scientists from you.

Papias & company apparently imagine that those spiral galaxies came out of their giant fax machine(singularity?) in that spiral condition at the moment of the 'Big Burp! Right.
Click to expand...



​
No, because the actual observations show that that the older galaxies appear young.

If any of you (except papias, gluadys, metherion, assyrian, etc) have questions feel free to ask. I won't log out until I can see all the questions are answered.
Click to expand...

You've responded to my posts up to now, why would I think that you won't continue to do so? I wonder if I'm really on "ignore".

Papias
​
 
Upvote 0

Martyrs44

Newbie
Jun 26, 2012
336
6
✟23,051.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Jinx, if you or another honest poster pose the same questions I will answer for I've got the documentation right in front of me on split screen. But I will not dignify that individual with an answer because no matter what is given as evidence he won't accept any argument against his belief in evoluiton, sources and/or documentation provided or not. I did that very thing in my previous post but he isn't telling the truth & he doesn't care (proof being he ignored both my two secular sources that verified my position or pooh-poohed the same). So why should I bother with him?

It might be best if you contact me by PM. Then we won't have to be pestered by him.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A Brilliant Perspective of Creation vs Evolution
Replies
13
Views
927
Creation & Theistic Evolution
The Barbarian
We Are Improbable, But Here We Are
Replies
0
Views
158
One Bread, One Body - Catholic
Michie
Why John E1 4:18 is such an important verse...
Replies
0
Views
177
Creative Writing
67_Reasons
Police Believe CDC Shooter Thought COVID Vaccine Made Him Sick: Report (fired hundreds of rounds, killed cop)
Replies
11
Views
895
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
ThatRobGuy
The Falsifiability Criterion
Replies
135
Views
4K
Creation & Evolution
The Barbarian
Menu
Log in
Register