Research Team Finds More Galaxies In Deep Space

In the vast far reaching elements of space hasn’t been quite revealing for those who believe in natural processes.  New observational discoveries were found in deep space that alluded previous instruments such as the XMN-Newton telescope. The latest discovery has revealed from one of the furthest locations in space which are not partial but rather fully formed mature galaxies that resemble the ones closer to earth.

One blogger states, “I’m afraid you again show a complete ignorance of this topic, and your last two paragraphs are highly inappropriate. The universe is still old (just look at globular clusters, for example) …”

Let’s look at 60 galaxies, called CLG J02182-05102 which was recently observed. These galaxies are clustered together that was never predicted by a natural process model. “Before now, Papovich says, such a finding would be considered by many astronomers to be highly unlikely, considering the time frame in which they were found.”


Hyper big bang or multi-universe theory going to try and rescue this one?  These theories demonstrate a lack of ability when it comes to explaining even the most basic parts in the Universe!  It’s going get even more exciting and intriguing when scientists look deeper in space by using spectroscopy with the Hubble Telescope later this year!

Could more mature galaxies be found way out there in deep space? There is a high degree of certainty. The amount is unknown but most likely there are more mature galaxies that far out or even farther out in space. This of course will cause an increase of modifications to the original naturalistic models as a result of failed predictions.

So what exactly is the public gaining in knowledge (other than naturalistic models changing quicker and more often than ever before) with learning from these original modified theories of naturalism that cannot explain basic structures in the Universe?

The bottom print in Texas A&M News & Service boosts that they are making significant contributions to the storehouse of knowledge. From a historical viewpoint there are no significant gains whatsoever in knowledge from nationalistic origins but rather significant contributions are coming from new technology that expands observations conducted in the present such as deep space!

Also…

“It seems that they somehow had a premonition they would end up in these big clusters, so that’s another thing we want to find out.”

A premonition, what? There is nothing based on the occult about it! This seems strange, a scientist who believes in naturalism would have use such a religious illustration but obviously it was within his comfort level. Can you imagine if he mentioned God in his research?  He most likely be removed from his job, shunned by co-workers. His statement alludes to intelligence (but not to say he believes in it) for how can a non-thinking items have a “premonition?”

This has intelligent design implications all over the place namely, God! Deep space is intriguing as mankind can observe things so far away from earth like never before and especially when these observations are verifying a creationist model!

Advertisements

15 thoughts on “Research Team Finds More Galaxies In Deep Space

  1. Sure, this is my research topic, and I’ve seen this paper. I’m afraid that again you have no clue what you are talking about.

    But I’m not taking the bait before YOU have finally answered the four outstanding questions:

    (1) Blog readership numbers

    (2) Your qualifications to discuss any scientific subject, in response to the challenge to Olorin.

    (3) A substantive review of Signature in the Cell, promised for August 2009.

    (4) outstanding question from Upson Downes on mitochondrial Eve

    First things first, Michael. I’m happy to help you understand the work of Papovich (who I obviously know), and my own (which is very similar), but you first have to do your bit and answer the questions above.

  2. In the vast far reaching elements of space hasn’t been quite revealing for those who believe in natural processes.

    What in the “elements of space” hasn’t been quite revealing? Please rewrite sentence.

    New observational discoveries were found in deep space that alluded previous instruments such as the XMN-Newton telescope.

    “alluded”? Did you mean “illuded”? I honestly thought that intelligent design must be getting quite ridiculous if they’re thinking that stuff in deep space somehow indicated the concept or existence of the XMN-Newton telescope.

    The latest discovery has revealed from one of the furthest locations in space which are not partial but rather fully formed mature galaxies that resemble the ones closer to earth.

    Whatawhat? I can’t even begin to parse what you were trying to say with that “sentence”.

  3. Monimonika, I think Michael meant “eluded.” In time, you may become accustomed to Michael’s poor grammar, improper use of words,[1] and run-on sentence style.

    Actually, there is a clue in these literary land mines. They indicate those posts where Michael writes a lot of the material himself, rather than plagiarizing it from his source—the one who actually has access to Science, Nature, and PNAS.[2]

    Do not, however, attempt to differentiater on the basis of falsehoods, misdirection, and logical fallacies. Both Michael and his source engage in those tactics.

    We know that the source is lying. Until Michael yields up his qualifications in science, however, there is still a non-zero probablity that he is merely colossally ignorant of his subject

    ============

    [1] These are more than mere cupertinos. Michael really doesn’t know he’s fished up a word that means something else than what he had (probably) intended).

    [2] We once asked Michael what picture was on the cover of an issue of Science from which he had quoted extensively from a research paper. He couldn’t say.

  4. Eelco: :”But I’m not taking the bait before YOU have finally answered the four outstanding questions:”

    Please do kick the slats out from under Michael’s contention.

    Remember, we’re not trying to convince Michael. We’re trying to demonstrate to his remaining readers that he is ignorant, uncritical, fatuous, and mendacious.

    He may ignore hard evidence. but he can’t refute it. He doesn’t even try. So, the record remains for those who drop by in the future.

  5. @Olorin:

    But it is pretty hard to do that, because – as Monimonika already showed – it is very difficult to decipher what Michael is actually writing here.

    Something about ‘mature galaxies’, which of course should be expected exist at 4 billion years after the Big Bang, if we also see them at 13.4 billion years after. But I do not know what he means by ‘mature’.

    Michael: “Let’s look at 60 galaxies, called CLG J02182-05102”

    Whoah. He wants us to look at 60 galaxies, all with the same name ! That’s a novelty. Stupid astronomers, how can you tell one from the other ?

  6. Socrates Puppette:
    Monimonika, I think Michael meant “eluded.” In time, you may become accustomed to Michael’s poor grammar, improper use of words,[1] and run-on sentence style.

    Ah! That was the word I was trying to think of, but instead came up with “illuded”. *shame*

    In my defense, I did look up both “alluded” and “illuded” to make sure there were no other obscure definitions. “Illuded” fit somewhat with what I was going for.

  7. This post seems to exhibit a severe attack of dyslogorrhea.

    At least in “one of the furthest locations” we surmise that Michael actually meant “farthest.’

    But “The bottom print in Texas A&M News & Service”?? What meaning do you suppose Michael aimed his warped arrow at?

    ‘From a historical viewpoint there are no significant gains whatsoever in knowledge from nationalistic origins….” Do we suppose that Michael thinks that no country in the world can produce gains in knowledge?

    “A premonition, what? There is nothing based on the occult about it! ” Michael seems to have missed most of the meanings of ‘premonition.’ “[F]or how can a non-thinking items have a ‘premonition?'” Of course,, Michael completely misread the subject of the sentence that he refers to.

    .

    No wonder Eelco throws up his hands and wonders what the Hubble that Michael is talking about.

    But the evidence does indicate that he wrote this post hisself.

  8. Eelco, Michael’s ignorance is showing again. The entire cluster of galaxies is given the name CLG J02182-05102, not each of the individual galaxies. Here is the link to the Texas A&M news story. (This link is broken in Michael’s post.).

    The gravamen of Michael’s complaint seems to be neither more nor less than a supposed paradox of “mature” galaxies found at a “young” age of the universe. Don’t make it too complicated.

    To Michael, “young” has only one meaning—less than about 10,000 years old. So he imagines that what the Texas A&M researchers said was that these galaxies, which ‘everyone knows’ take, oh, at least a bazillion years to form, were found at an age of the universe less than 10,000 years. This is what “young” means to Michael.

    Again, don’t make it more compolycated than Michael can manage. The refutation then parses out as—

    “Hey, Misha, the scientists found galaxies formed when the universe was four billion years old. THAT’S STILL 400,000 TIMES AS OLD AS YOUR CREATION. If you’re going to accept this scientific report and flog it for creationism, then YOU STILL HAVE TO OVERCOME THE FOUR BILLION YEARS.”

    .

    Here’s yet another little quiz for Michael’s understanding of elementary astronomy. Michael, what does the name “CLG J02182-05102” mean? What form of name is it?

  9. @Olorin:
    Indeed, the letters CLG sort of gives it away what sort of object this name refers to. I was resorting to naked sarcasm in my last post … no other reply is justified, in my humble opinion.

    Myself, I’m involved in a large survey with Spitzer called ‘SERVS’, where we expect to find even more clusters like this, with possibly (but we cannot tell yet !) even more ‘mature’ galaxies.

    I’m not surprised about the Papovich results, but I’ll only tell why AFTER Michael has answered the four outstanding questions.

  10. Eelco, thanks for the update.

    However, if you think you are punishing Michael by withholding your explanation, you are sadly misttook :-)

    Creationists have no curiosity. In fact, they prefer ignorance. At best, new knowledge can only confirm what they already believe without the knowledge. It is far more likely, however, that the new knowledge will contradict their belief, and thus endanger them.

    One does not weaken the mosquitoes of creationism by withholding the bug spray of knowledge.

  11. @Olorin:

    “However, if you think you are punishing Michael by withholding your explanation, you are sadly misttook :-)”

    No, I was not expecting that to be the case !

    “One does not weaken the mosquitoes of creationism by withholding the bug spray of knowledge.”

    That’s a nice one.

  12. Don’t hold yer breath, Tim. Both alternatives are unappealing. If Michael deals from ignorance, then he shouldn’t be making all those stupid claims. If Michael does understand the material, then he’s lying. He seems to be wedged.

  13. Hey, Tim, about the source of the flippant remark about mosquitoes…. (Comment on May 25, 2010 at 10:01 am Olorin)

  14. Michael

    Could more mature galaxies be found way out there in deep space? There is a high degree of certainty. The amount is unknown but most likely there are more mature galaxies that far out or even farther out in space.

    Upon what evidence do you base this prediction? Oh., I see. Because you imagine that finding more mature galaxies at an age of 4 BILLION years would confirm that the universe was created less than 10 THOUSAND years ago.

    Inconsistency? What inconsistency? Reason #17(a) that people laugh at creationists.

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