More Hints at Early Origin of Stars, Galaxies (Not an April Fool's)

Creation-Evolution Headlines ^ | 3/31/06 | Creation-Evolution Headlines Staff

[Quark2005]

Mature galaxies where they shouldn't be means nothing.

Did you even read the source science article that "Creation-Evolution Headlines" so blatantly distorts? We're talking about spiral galaxies about halfway between us and the event horizon. This in no way at all causes any problems for a Big Bang Model, but it does give us new information about early star formation and galaxy evolution we previously didn't have. These galaxies are not identical to nearby, newer galaxies.

You have to actually understand the implications of a theory before you begin to go about trying to discredit it. I don't why 'creation scientists' go so far out of their way to deceive people like this - especially when one can so easily get the truth just by reading the referenced source.

[VadeRetro]

I knew when I said it some data lawyer would pounce. Although the anisotropies are real and very important to understanding the early universe, the smoothness of that background is its outstanding characteristic. Even the "big" inhomogeneities are very tiny.

[js1138]

Better to be eaten by alligators than pecked to death by lawyers.

[Elsie]

Aren't fact-checkers wonderful!

[Elsie]

UCLA wants a chance with lawyers.....

[Elsie]

Lovely welcome page:


Nature is the term in which we comprehend all things that are representable in terms of time and space, and subjected to the relations of cause and effect. Nature is the existence that we look for perpetually in something antecedent.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Don't look at me. It's a graduate level course. I didn't take any of those.

On the other hand, the anti-evo side does seem to be investigating the data we've pointed out to them.

I've already declared victory over this and moved on. ;)

[<1/1,000,000th%]

La La La La, Mature galaxies where they shouldn't be means nothing. La La La La...

At this point, none of the cosmological theories detail where stars and galaxies should be.

So it's not logical to think that this data creates a problem for a theory that makes no predictions about it.

And is that Kylie Minogue you're singing? Did you know she was naked under the robe she wore in the beginning of that video?

My wife keeps me abreast of all the cultural news. ;)

[stuntdouble7]

Every theory and explanation thereof regarding evolution has only continued in existence because of fact cover-ups and faulty reasonings. Everything from radio active-metric C-14 dating to fossils to you name it has been manipulated to the max so that there theories can stand a chance. They use dating methods that are specially catered toward giving them the analysis that backs up there evolutionary theories. The most accurate dating methods all point toward the earth being no more than 10,000 years old, yet these accurate methods are passed over by evolutionists for other radioactive methods none of witch have greater than 50% accuracy, yet these are the evolutionist’s favorites because they keep there theories alive. Evolution should be renamed “Fabrication”.

Here are a few other problems with the earth being billions or even millions of years old:
--The earth loses 1/1000 of a second in rotation per day. Rounding, this is slightly over 1 second every 3 years. If, according to evolution theory, that assumes the earth has been behaving the same way for billions of years, and knowing a 24-hr day is composed of (24x60x60) or 86,400 seconds, about 260,000 years ago we all were living on an earth with a rotational period of 1 second.
--. If according to evolutionary theory that the earth is billions of years old, and the mechanics of the earth operate today just as they have for billions of years, given the known, measured rate of decay of the earth's magnetic field, that if we calculate backwards 10,000 years, we come up with a field so strong that life on the planet would not have been possible.
--. If the planet is billions of years old, and is proven by the fossil record, why are human skulls, jewelry, shoes, skeletons found in untouched layers of rock previously dated to be hundreds of millions of years old? If these layers were laid down over millions of years, like the geologic column theory says they were, how are vertical fossils of trees found in these layers? Trees do not live millions of years, and they would have decayed away.
--From its constant burning, the sun is shrinking at a rate of approximately 164 feet per a day. Do the math. At this rate, the sun would have been several times the size of the entire solar system just to have existed a million years ago, never mind a billion.

[balrog666]

Go back to elementary school or at least learn to spell.