Arches Cluster Baffles Astronomers As It Falsifies Models

Located 25,000 light-years away in the direction of Sagittarius, containing a huge assortment of young stars which are pretty massive in size. So what is suprising to astronomers about this observed phenomena?

Last month, Space.com reported…

“A dense cluster of young stars situated near the supermassive black hole at the heart of the Milky Way is surprisingly normal, with stars of high and low masses roughly in the same proportions as clusters in more tranquil parts of the galactic neighborhood.”

Yes, stars behaving unnaturally near a blackhole is at the core of what is baffling astronomers about the Arches Cluster! It falsifies their belief on star and galaxy formation. Secular Astronomers believe stars are formed by a naturally created gravitational attraction between naturally created dust particles in debris-filled space.

The dust cloud may vary, if it moves faster, according to secular astronomers, the less time it takes for the birth of a star. If it’s sparse, it may take hundreds of  millions years longer for a birth of a star.

It is interesting to note how space.com calls the Arches Cluster an “exception” to the rule of Universal Law. “With the extreme conditions in the Arches Cluster, one might indeed imagine that stars won’t form in the same way as in our quiet solar neighborhood.”

But there own study shows these stars follow the same pattern of mass distribution we see in other parts of the the galaxy!  There is definitely something wrong with the naturalistic hypothesis on star development.

Other observations with baby stars found happened to be in the most one of the unlikely places, in the galactic core which contains “fierce stellar winds, black holes and shock waves all make it a tough place!”

As Christians it comes to no surprise of discovering stars that are acting unnaturally, because it was designed by a very intelligent designer, namely God who created this finely tuned Universe in a precise way like a painter leaves his signture on his work.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Arches Cluster Baffles Astronomers As It Falsifies Models

  1. Please explain how this has anything to do with an intelligent designer. What does a supposed mystery have anything to do with proof of a god?

  2. Oh dear, another astronomy news item, this time from my colleagues, which you completely fail to represent well.

    “Located 25,000 light-years away in the direction of Sagittarius, containing a huge assortment of young stars which are pretty massive in size.”

    No, it just the normal range in masses. That’s the whole point of the press release, that there is nothing special about this cluster, even though it is somewhat close to the centre of the galaxy, where a massive black hole resides. But not *that* close to the centre !!
    So it actually does not matter at all whether there is a black hole there or not, as the tidal forces that can trigger instabilities in gas clouds to form stars are still the same. One has to get *really* close to the central black hole to see a difference.

    I think this press release, like many other science press releases, tries hard to make something from a study that found nothing special (i.e. a normal Initial Mass Function).

  3. “As Christians it comes to no surprise of discovering stars that are acting unnaturally, because it was designed by a very intelligent designer, namely God who created this finely tuned Universe in a precise way like a painter leaves his signture on his work.”

    So…please refresh my memory as to exactly how the creation model predicted this particular star configuration over at the Sagittarius neighborhood.

    And, next time, please make your predictions isn advance of the observations.

  4. The title of this blog constitutes false advertising. Over several months, I have read many posts without finding a single “new discovery” about creationism. No observations of a new species being created out of nothing. No reports of a half-kitten, half-snake hatched from a bird egg. No experiment that produced a new bacterium from random slime in a test tube. No fossil of a created species, such as J.B.S. Haldane’s famous rabbit in a pre-Cambrian bed. No predictions made before a ‘confirming’ observation, rather than afterward.

    “Comments” about creationism are similarly missing. Nothing concerning the creation process. How it might have occurred—at the genomic level, the morphological level, or at some other stage. Nothing as to how the creation model might advance the state of human knowledge, or provide any practical applications. Nothing as to how we might duplicate the creation process—which, you must admit, would be extremely valuable and highly productive.

    Why don’t you give the blog an accurate name—for example, “Cherry-Picked Discoveries & Comments about Science That I Found Third-Hand in a Creationist Screed”? You could keep the painting in the header, though. It’s relaxing.

  5. Olorin – Two things. First, you can’t guess the mind of God, so if God doesn’t want to produce something to prove creationism, he doesn’t have to. See, there’s always an out. ;-)

    Second, Michael seems to get many of his articles from the Institute for Creation Research (without any citation, of course). For example, this post was made 4 days after ICR’s very similar article on this cluster. And, ICR I believe is generally considered to be a first-hand creationist site.

  6. It is Michael’s post that is third-hand. First-hand is the primary scientific source. Second-hand is the popular-press hash job on the science. Third-hand is the creationist caricature of the press hash job. We could say that Michael’s post is fourth-hand, but he usually merely parrots the creationist caricature. And, as you noted, without attribution, which amount to theft. However, another creationist belief is that the eighth (ninth, too) commandment does not apply to them.

    Re “there is always an out.” An instructive example is the concept of good design: (1) Finding functions for junk DNA proves design, because good designs would never include useless parts. (2) Broken genes and vestigial organs do not disprove design, because designs need not be good designs. Since their logic says “If A, then B,” and “If ~A, then B,” what are we to make of B?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s