Another one in the race for the Nobel. Where do you get this nonsense? Got a cite to something other than a fundy site, like some real science? Thanks sooooo much.
How can we see distant stars in a young universe?
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
Another one in the race for the Nobel. Where do you get this nonsense? Got a cite to something other than a fundy site, like some real science? Thanks sooooo much.
I'm sorry, I have no cite to this, but I think this statement by bob b is incorrect. I think there appears to be a difference between early early galaxies and those which are younger.
mighty_duck
New member
ThePhy had an excellent thread on the subject a couple of years ago on the BEL subsection:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23951
It's a bit dated now, with new discoveries coming in, like this one last month.
In short, some of the youngest Galaxies are very different from their more mature cousins.
eveningsky339
New member
Bob, you do know about carbon dating, right? And you do know about red shift, right? And you do know about the speed of light (and all other electromagnetic radiation), right? And you do know that a scientist's job is to take these things into consideration and theorize about the best possible explanation.
I'm sure you are aware that most scientists believe the universe is ~13.7 billion years old, etc etc. The Old Universe theory is the most "compatible" with the evidence that scientists have observed, so I'll stick with them.
Oh, by the way, do you know how the Hebrew word for "day" (as used in Genesis) functions? It's really a lot different from ours, and I would be happy to explain it to you if you don't know already.
I'm sure you are aware that most scientists believe the universe is ~13.7 billion years old, etc etc. The Old Universe theory is the most "compatible" with the evidence that scientists have observed, so I'll stick with them.
Oh, by the way, do you know how the Hebrew word for "day" (as used in Genesis) functions? It's really a lot different from ours, and I would be happy to explain it to you if you don't know already.
He knows that, but only if he can squeeze it into his particular interpretation of Genesis is it "real science".
Infant Cosmos Was Already Elderly 07/08/2004
At first, they weren’t sure it was real or they were just seeing things. Now, it’s inescapable. As far back as cosmologists can see, there were already mature galaxies. That’s the thrust of two papers in the July 8 issue of Nature1,2 and a commentary on them by Keck Observatory astronomer Greg Wirth3, who says in the subtitle, “The discovery of massive, evolved galaxies at much greater distances than expected – and hence at earlier times in the history of the Universe – is a challenge to our understanding of how galaxies form.”
1 Karl Glazebrook et al., “A high abundance of massive galaxies 3-6 billion years after the Big Bang,” Nature 430, 181 - 184 (08 July 2004); doi:10.1038/nature02667.
2A. Cimatti et al., “Old galaxies in the young universe,” Nature 430, 184 - 187 (08 July 2004); doi:10.1038/nature02668.
3Gregory D. Wirth, “Old before their time,” Nature 430, 149 - 150 (08 July 2004); doi:10.1038/430149a.
Please note how clearly this supports a young universe ala bob b.
mighty_duck
New member
It was previously thought that all galaxies were the result of collisions of smaller galaxies, but the existence of larger galaxies earlier than expected disproved this notion. So not all galaxies are formed this way.
That still doesn't explain the existence of younger looking galaxies in the first billion years after the big bang.
I posted 3 references which say that they found young galaxies which appear to be mature. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
No, I don't. But I am a bit confused by your citation of a paper that suggested the galaxies in question were 3 to 6 billion years old. Not sure exactly how that fits into your cosmology.
It doesn't. The current practice is to estimate the distance using the Red Shift and to assume that the rate of expansion was essentially at the speed of light and is still continuing.
If the expansion is not still continuing then the rate of expansion is not calculable.
I happen to prefer a rapid expansion as implied by Genesis because this makes the so-called light travel time problem go away.
This of course is heresy in the view of atheists.
Mr Jack
New member
It really doesn't.
In fact, the word day functions almost identically. You can use day in English to mean an indeterminate period of time too. Don't believe? You would if you were born in my father's day.
Mr Jack
New member
Wrong.
I happen to prefer things that don't directly contradict the known facts.
No, it's simply contradicted by the facts. A point you continually ignore in the hope it'll go away, and instead repeat your lies. Yes, lies - repeating a known falsehood is lying.
Mr Jack
New member
What were the stars like, bob?
mighty_duck
New member
It is hard to argue that the genesis story appears to talk about days and not about periods. This is certainly how the a primitive people that recorded it would have understood it. That doesn't stop the modern literalists from ignoring how they would have understood "a firmament separating the waters above from the waters below" or "above the circle of the earth"
Impossible to say at those distances. They are fortunate with today's equipment to be able to resolve galaxies so far away. Perhaps when the Webb Telescope is up and running these areas can be explored in more detail.
BTW, if you want to say I am wrong about not being able to calculate the expansion rate without making assumptions that cannot be supported, you should offer some evidence or calculations.
The Red Shift can be evidence about how much expansion has occurred but not how long it took (the rate).
Please start a new thread instead of derailing this one. Thanks.
Mr Jack
New member
Wrong. Try again.
I am beginning to get annoyed with a person who just answers "wrong" without giving any reasons or support for saying it.
Before he tries again, maybe you could make an actual argument for the first time?