More Hints at Early Origin of Stars, Galaxies

[bob b]

From creationsafaris

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:

Spitzer Clusters: JPL issued a press release stating that the Spitzer Space Telescope, on a “cosmic safari,” found evidence for clusters of galaxies 9 billion years old. In the standard dating scheme, this was when the universe was a “mere” 4.5 billion years old.

Swift GRBs: Astronomers reported in Nature1 the discovery, by the Swift satellite, of the earliest gamma-ray burst ever found. “This means that not only did stars form in this short period of time after the Big Bang,” they said, “but also that enough time had elapsed for them to evolve and collapse into black holes” (emphasis added in all quotes).

Ubiquitous Galaxies: A press release from the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics announced “Ubiquitous galaxies discovered in the Early Universe.” Observations in far-ultraviolet and near-infrared found galaxies at redshift z=6.7, assumed to be within 5% of the birth of the universe. Most of them were spirals, not irregulars as theory had predicted.

In the last of a 36-part series of lectures on 20th century science produced by The Teaching Company,2 Dr. Steven L. Goldman of Lehigh University listed this as one of the major challenges facing scientists in the 21st century.

 

[BillyBob]

The 'Standard Dating Scheme' puts the Universe at somewhere between 12 and 15 billion years old, not 4.5 billion.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your pretense.

 

[Mr Jack]

The 'Standard Dating Scheme' puts the Universe at somewhere between 12 and 15 billion years old, not 4.5 billion.

The current favoured value is 13.7 billion, I believe. That would place a galacy 9 billion years old as being 4.7 billion years after the big bang. I think that's what the article is saying.

 

[bob b]

The 'Standard Dating Scheme' puts the Universe at somewhere between 12 and 15 billion years old, not 4.5 billion.

It is only a coincidence that the mid-point of 12-15 is 13.5 and that subtracting 9 from this yields 4.5, the favored value for the age of the Earth (determined BTW by dating meteorites).

 

[Real Sorceror]

I want to ask you young worlders a question. Why does the Earth, and especially the universe, need to be young? G-d is immortal. He does not die and as far as we know he has always been. The universe could have started a trillion years ago and it does not matter. Also, what bible verse states the whole 6,000 years thing?

 

[bob b]

I want to ask you young worlders a question. Why does the Earth, and especially the universe, need to be young? G-d is immortal. He does not die and as far as we know he has always been. The universe could have started a trillion years ago and it does not matter. Also, what bible verse states the whole 6,000 years thing?

The main reason it needs to be young is that is how He created it, as verified by His word.

A second reason is that after the Fall, when mutations began to affect genomes deleteriously, humans would be extinct because of the accumulation of deleterious mutations. I think that this is becoming increasingly clear from the results of The Human Genome Project. Of course this obvious conclusion will be vigorously resisted because of its devastating effects on Darwinism, our modern "religion".

 

[Real Sorceror]

The main reason it needs to be young is that is how He created it, as verified by His word.

A second reason is that after the Fall, when mutations began to affect genomes deleteriously, humans would be extinct because of the accumulation of deleterious mutations. I think that this is becoming increasingly clear from the results of The Human Genome Project. Of course this obvious conclusion will be vigorously resisted because of its devastating effects on Darwinism, our modern "religion".

"Darwinism" is not a religion, for one. Its an earlier part of a scientific law. Under evolution's laws, humans with negative mutations would die more often and reproduce less. How does the Human Genome project show we have more neg mutations than our ancestors? Also you didnt answer which verses of the Bible specifically state that Earth is 6,000 years old.

 

[bob b]

"Darwinism" is not a religion, for one. Its an earlier part of a scientific law. Under evolution's laws, humans with negative mutations would die more often and reproduce less. How does the Human Genome project show we have more neg mutations than our ancestors? Also you didnt answer which verses of the Bible specifically state that Earth is 6,000 years old.

Let us take this in 3 stages:

Adam until the Flood:

3And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son(Seth)
6And Seth lived a hundred and five years, and begot Enosh.
9And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:
12And Cainan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalaleel:
15And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared:
18And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch:
21And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:
25And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech:
28And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son: (Noah)
32And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Noah was 600 when the Flood commenced.

130+105+90+70+65+162+187+182+600=1661

Can we agree that Genesis teaches that the Flood happened about 1661 years after Creation Week?

 

[Real Sorceror]

Can we agree that Genesis teaches that the Flood happened about 1661 years after Creation Week?

Sure, lets see where this goes.
As a side note, I never knew Noah lived 600+years, how the heck did he do that?

 

[noguru]

Sure, lets see where this goes.
As a side note, I never knew Noah lived 600+years, how the heck did he do that?

Because he was less perfect than Adam, but more perfect than us. Of course I am not quite sure of the definition of perfect.

 

[bob b]

Because he was less perfect than Adam, but more perfect than us. Of course I am not quite sure of the definition of perfect.

There was a fairly rapid decline in lifespans following the Flood. This would be consistent withe the concept that this event resulted in something happening to the Earth's magnetic field strength. Note that there is solid scientific evidence that the magnetic field has declined about 10% since records started to be kept some 140+ years ago. And there is one scientific theory that accumulation of cosmic ray damage over a person's lifetime contributes to reducing lifespan. Finally it is known that the magnetic field protects the Earth from damaging cosmic rays.

Ergo, the Genesis account of declining lifespans appears roughly consistent with a decline in the Earth's magnetic field (which has been measured).