Several articles this month showed further evidence for a growing realization in astronomy: stars and galaxies were already mature at the beginning of the universe (see, for instance, 09/21/2005 entry). Some recent examples:
Posted on 04/01/2006 7:13:30 PM PST by bondserv
More Hints at Early Origin of Stars, Galaxies 03/31/2006
Several articles this month showed further evidence for a growing realization in astronomy: stars and galaxies were already mature at the beginning of the universe (see, for instance, 09/21/2005 entry). Some recent examples:
A second area in astrophysics that can be construed as a cloud on the horizon is that recent observations in the years 2002-2003 suggest that – not just suggest, recent observations tell astronomers that when the universe was less than 3 billion years old, there were already galactic clusters [03/12/2003]. Not only were there galaxies... but here we have, astronomers have discovered, a modest galactic cluster (I believe that it has something like 30 some-odd galaxies in it) that goes back to less than 3 billion years after the big bang. That’s much too much structure to have after only two and a half or 2.7 billion years of expansion. So that is another problem that astrophysics needs to come to grips with.Goldman compared these challenges to a couple of mysteries at the beginning of the 20th century that Lord Kelvin described as “small clouds on the horizon” – (1) the inability to explain the blackbody radiation spectrum and (2) the lack of deviations of the speed of light through the ether as found by the Michelson-Morley experiment. These two small clouds became cloudbursts a few years later when they led directly to quantum theory and relativity – theories that dramatically overhauled our conceptions of space, time and the universe.
It’s not a small problem, either, because the extent of the structure that we can discover in the universe has implications for whether big bang and inflation are really capable of providing a model of the universe. So it’s a small – it may seem like a small problem to non-specialists, but within astrophysics it’s a significant challenge.
And then there’s the question of whether we are in fact reading the microwave background radiation correctly. [03/20/2006] Because all of this theory is empirically supported by interpreting extremely minute ripples in the microwave background radiation. And from those ripples, ripples in temperature, temperature inequalities on the order of ten thousandths of a degree Kelvin are – that’s the basis for trying to explain why there is as much structure as there is in the universe. If we’re misinterpreting the microwave background radiation data, then really we have a whole new picture of the universe that might emerge. So, that’s one set of clouds that one can anticipate that over the next decade we will potentially be seeing significant modifications in our conceptualization of the universe and its origin, and maybe even of its fate.
Goldman suggested later in the lecture one possible new conception of the universe that might emerge in the years ahead: that the universe might be viewed as “some kind of information structure.” Sound like intelligent design? Sound like instant creation? He asked, “and how will we understand that philosophically and physically?” Easy: in the beginning was the Word. Consider creation: an idea ahead of its time.
Ping-Bang!
Does this mean that you believe that the Earth is more than 6000 years old?
Another scientific certainty down the tubes!
Structure? What structure? Design? What design? Intelligence? What intelligence? Do you not know science has emprically determined that none of these exist, or at least that all of them are beyond the realm of science?
Why is it we always see creationists citing consumer products, popularized accounts, news magazine articles -- or in this case introductory-undergraduate-level video cassettes? Can the creationists at least understand why they're not taken seriously?
Like National Geographic?
It means that things were created in a mature state from a scientific perspective, which makes modern dating methods insignificant.
From a scientific perspective, Evolutionary theory is nullified.
Again, how old is a freshly created chunk of matter?
Exactly. I'm not saying National Geographic articles are necessarily wrong, but they're from a popular magazine. If you think you can base serious criticism of evolution (if there is such a thing) on seeming contradictions in a magazine you might find at your local barbershop, you're crazy.
This is really interesting.
I would be more concerned if I joined the consensus of Liberal Academia.
In other words, God made the universe look old, just to trick us. I suppose He created and hid fossils and created background radiation and all that, just to fool us silly, gullible humans.
Well, maybe your God is a trickster, but mine isn't.
Again, how old is a freshly created chunk of matter?
Huh?
4.5 billion years is not a mature state?
From a scientific perspective, Evolutionary theory is nullified.
Aw, gee, is the Earth somehow not 4.5 billion years old now?
I must have missed that in the article...
Again, how old is a freshly created chunk of matter?
Uh, gee, freshly created? Would that be "fresh", Alex?
And how old is the Grand Canyon now? Is it more than a million years? Or a couple of weeks? Did an anonymous god create it all Last Thursday?
You don't have to join the consensus, but you at least have to know what scientists are talking about if you want to be able to seriously criticize their work.
I knew it! Creationists are the servants of Loki!
That explains much.
How long will it take for man to stop blaming his silliness on God and accept the idea that maybe the joker in the deck is man and his inability to make right choices ?
Trickster? Try thinking outside of the box. Consider for a moment that we know nothing about creating matter out of nothing.
During the process what kinds of atomic processes are involved? How does relativity play into the formula?
A being that is not constrained by time; exactly as a goat herder from 3,000 years before Einstein described, can paint light across the universe with a stroke of the finger as a painter does on a canvas. Open minded people are always aware how little they understand. It's the elitists who seem to forget the concept of humility!
Isa 57:15 For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name [is] Holy; I dwell in the high and holy [place], with him also [that is] of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.