Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [CreationTalk] Spiral Galaxies support Creation

Expand Messages
  • Chuck
    From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Victor McAllister Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 5:49 PM To: creationtalk
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 13, 2013
    • 0 Attachment

      From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Victor McAllister
      Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 5:49 PM
      To: creationtalk
      Subject: [CreationTalk] Spiral Galaxies support Creation

      > How did the arms of spiral galaxies form? About 70% of nearby

      >
      galaxies have a central bulge or a bar from which flat, spiral arms
      >
      emerge.

      Ok so far.

      > Scientists claim that stars accreted from gas that aggregated into galaxies.

      Evolutionary Scientists claim this not all scientists.  Young Earth Creation scientists make NO SUCH CLAIM. Stop clumping creationists in with evolutionists as thou we do not exist.

      > Allegedly, density waves caused the spiral arms. Density waves

      >
      are supposed to be like a traffic jam around an on-ramp. Cars
      >
      slow and bunch together due to the merging traffic. The traffic
      >
      jam stays in place but cars return to normal speed after passing
      >
      the traffic jam. Scientists claim stars orbit the core of a galaxy in
      >
      a direction opposite to the sweep of the spiral arms. After passing
      >
      the star jam, they return to their normal orbital speed. In this theory,
      >
      the spiral arms are NOT roads along which the stars are traveling
      >
      outward.

      The Density Wave model is just one of at least three theories for produce spiral arms. All three of which are based on the observed fact (not claim) that stars orbit the galactic center in the opposite direction of the spiral. The Density Wave model is just the most popular among evolutionists partly because it works well with their theory of star formation.

      The simplest is that spiral arms are material structures. This idea is still popular with Young Earth Creationists because it is incompatible with Galaxies being billions of years old.

      The third is called Gravitationally aligned orbits. This model basically contends that the stare orbit the Galaxy in elliptical orbits that are aligned by gravity producing the spiral arms.
      http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/465/2111/3425
      http://rqgravity.net/SpiralStructure

      > Scientists claim stars orbit the core of a galaxy in

      >
      a direction opposite to the sweep of the spiral arms.size=2 color=navy face=Arial>

      It is not a claim but an observational fact. When analyzing the light spectra from galaxies besides the galactic redshift the spectra also show Doppler shift patters indicating the velocity and direction of stars orbiting the galactic center and these measurements show that the stars orbit the opposite direction of the spiral arm sweep. This is not a claim; it is not speculation is what is actually observed by looking at the light from galaxies. You are simply claiming something contrary to reality.

      > Scientific theories often rely on untested assumptions.

      >
      Consequently, they adjust reality mathematically to fitcolor=navy>
      >
      the assumption. Observations just take what is visible as it is.

      The Doppler shift is not an untested assumption but a well tested established fact. Light Doppler shift are used to measure speed all the time with great accuracy. This is NOT adjusting reality mathematically to fit the assumption but what reality is. YOU VICTOR are the one trying to adjust reality to fit your assumptions by deliberately ignoring this data.

      > The universe is so vast that we can see (with telescopes)

      >
      cosmic history at many ranges in billions of galaxies.color=navy>

      So you are following the traditions of men (evolutionists) that assumes that galaxies evolved through time such that galaxies at grater distances represent earlier stages of galaxy development. Furthermore the distances to most of these galaxies determined by galactic red-shift, so you are following another tradition of men (evolutionists) that assumes that galactic red-shift is always related to distance. This also makes your entire argument circular since the distances to the galaxies are measured by the same property (galactic red-shift) you are claiming as evidence for intrinsic change.

      > The four left frames show early galaxies from the

      >
      Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF) as they looked long ago.color=navy>
      >
      The fifth (right) frame is a local spiral that takes up tens of
      >
      thousands of times more viewing area than the dim, distantcolor=navy>
      >
      galaxies.

      I am not going waste my time nor that of the others on the list with a detailed refutation of you description these images but I will offer a few observations of my own. However you hypercritically following the traditions of men (evolutionists) in assuming that this sequence represents galactic history. What you have here are five different galaxies at different red-shifts the first is ejecting clearly some material but only one non spiral steam. The also seems to be ejecting material and while there are two of them they are not consistent observed spiral galaxies. The third has one stream of ejected material, not two that doe have a slight spiral effect but there is only one. The forth probably is a barbed spiral galaxy and the fifth is spiral galaxy. There is nothing is the sequence that suggests it represent any kind of history of Galaxy development.

      > We observe (at many ranges) how early galaxies were often

      >
      formless, made of matter that shone at tiny fractions of thecolor=navy>
      >
      frequencies emitted by modern matter.
      size=2 color=navy face=Arial>

      There you repeatedly claim the matter in distant galaxies shines at “tiny fractions of the frequencies emitted by modern matter.”  However in making this claim you are following to you what you call the first law. The reason why you have to follow your so called first law is this in looking at galactic spectra no one is measuring frequencies but wave lengths. A spectra is obtained by splitting light by outing it through a prism. Prisms split light based on wave lengths not frequency. To get the frequency you have to divide the observed wave lengths by the speed of light. You are repeatedly claiming that galaxies shine a specific percentages of modern matter such as from your post 48% ,63%, 83%. 56% and 41% which are clearly based on the inverse of the degree of redshift. To do this you have assume the speed of light is constant in violation of you own creed and the by following your so called first law.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.