Newly Discovered Galaxies Surprise Scientists

Nothing makes sense in light of evolution. In 1995, Hubble revealed one of the most amazing sights in one of the deepest regions of space than was previously unknown to man. These galaxies are way too mature for big bang models that predict a chronological order of structure concerning different stages of galaxies development as one looks deeper into space. A new discovery has revealed even more mature galaxies found in very deep space.

These newly discovered galaxies are not only way too mature for the big bang theory, but also are very active says scientists quoted in science daily

“We have found a relatively large number of very massive, highly luminous galaxies that existed almost 12 billion years ago when the universe was still very young, about 1.5 billion years old. These results appear to disagree with the latest predictions from models of galaxy formation and evolution.”


“The newly identified galaxies were five to ten times more massive than our own Milky Way. They were among a sample studied at redshift 3≤z<4, when the universe was between 1.5 and 2 billion years old.”

Indeed, these mature galaxies being observed today are falsifying big bang models. This might make multi-universes more popular, but the big bang theory holds no creditable scientific value. Where is the light and where is the sense?  Could this mean a shift into more anti-realism by trying to explain this with multi-universes?  These are not the type of surprises that should be found for a theory that is believed to be correct.

Other observational problems have existed for awhile with the big bang such as “Population III”  which are supposed to be the first stars ever created but it has never been observed and secular scientists seek only to discover one to claim verification of the theory when they need to find several of  these types of stars to validate a prediction which comes from the big bang theory. Could scientists discover even more mature galaxies in very deep space? Yes, which would be awesome!

So we find no organized structure of development predicted by the big bang, we find massive galaxies that are way too mature, no “Population III” stars have been observed but many would be required to validate and detecting radiation that is too smooth. The theory is dead, the only ones who think  keeping it alive are going by blind faith. Observations are indicating a designed universe that is young, not billions of years old!

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Newly Discovered Galaxies Surprise Scientists

  1. I have no idea what galaxies have to do with biological evolution (which is what your first sentence is about, I guess), but galaxies also have little to do with Big Bang cosmology.

    The theory of galaxy formation and evolution (which is my active field of research, for about 25 years now) does depend somewhat on the background cosmology, but uncertainties within the galaxy formation model are far, far larger than this dependence on cosmological parameters.

    So this is yet another nonsense post, and you again have no clue what you are talking about. Your comments on population III stars are also complete gobbledicook.

    BTW: my own particular galaxy formation model does not have much of a problem with these newly discovered galaxies … it is not that big a deal.

  2. Oh, and by the way, these galaxies are not mature at all. They are just like noisy kids in their puberty: highly star forming, merging, interacting with other galaxies, etc. etc.

    Not mature at all. Just massive (but certainly not TOO massive: only 5 times the mass of our galaxies which is a fairly modest one), and not young either (a billion years is not young).

    Easy question: why would they observe the most massive ones ?

  3. Michael: “… no “Population III” stars have been observed but many would be required to validate and detecting radiation that is too smooth”

    So what on earth are you trying to say here ?? Which smooth radiation ??

  4. So, the contest is between Eelco, with 25 years experience in the study of galaxy formation, and Michael, with… Well, we don’t really know, because Michael, having issued a challenge to Eelco and Olorin on scientific qualifications, has for nine months now refused to set forth his own background in any field whatever. So far, the evidence seems to point toward a black hole of ignorance that annihilates all knowledge that comes near it.

    Especially in this case, as Eelco has pointed out. Even a dilettante such as I can immediately discern that many of the statements Michael makes in this post are complete non-sequiturs from the Science Daily article. For example, “This might make multi-universes more popular” is a howling non-sequitur from anything in the article. Huh?

    Michael proclaims the falsification of Big-Bang models, yet researcher Danilo Marchesini explicitly states :”The existence of these galaxies so early in the history of the universe, as well as their properties, can provide very important clues on how galaxies formed and evolved shortly after the Big Bang.”

    Yet another failure of basic reading comprehension by our blog host. Michael’s supernovae of alexia should not surprise us anymore.

  5. Michael,

    You start out by saying, “Nothing makes sense in light of evolution.” — And yet, evolution is not even the issue when you talk about galaxies and the big bang. It makes me wonder if you got your feathers ruffled when I pointed out you did not even understand Theodosius Dobzhansky’s famous quote.

    You then say “These newly discovered galaxies are not only way too mature for the big bang theory, but also are very active says scientists quoted in science daily…”

    — *sighs* Michael, a closer reading of the article shows that it is not refuting the Big Bang. The fact that the article says that the newly discovered galaxies are estimated to have formed 1.5 Billion years AFTER the big bang PROVES that they are NOT “too mature” for the Big Bang. . . Give me a Galaxy that is 20 Billion years old, THEN lets talk. (The Big Bang is estimated to have happened 13.7 Billion years ago.)

    Besides, even if these galaxies were “too mature” for the present estimated age of the Big Bang, ALL THAT WOULD MEAN is that we simply would mean that the Big Bang was BEFORE the estimated point….THAT WOULD MAKE THE UNIVERSE OLDER!!!! With that in mind…WHY ARE YOU EVEN HAPPY ABOUT THAT, SINCE YOU THINK THE UNIVERSE IS ONLY 6,000 YEARS OLD?!?!?!

    And again, the article from Science Daily isn’t even talking about models of the Big Bang being falsified. What it mentions is “These results appear to disagree with the latest predictions from models of galaxy formation and evolution,” — It is talking about models of how galaxies form…NOT THE BIG BANG!!! And your own quote has a very important qualifier…ALL it says is it “APPEARS to contradict,” . . NOT THAT IT DOES. Perhaps it does, but even if it did, the Big Bang would still be unscathed.

    I suspect you got excited by the word “evolution” being in the quote. If you did…GREAT!! You got excited by symantics. Galaxy evolution is NOT RELATED to biological evolution that Charles Darwin proposed. His theory is untouched and unaffected by these finds.

  6. –And Michael, 12 Billion year old galaxies are not news. They have been observed long before this.

  7. Eelco,

    After 25 years of research, how did the original stars form by themselves? Hot gas clouds which glow because they are so hot would disperse rather than collapse. Supernovas are invoked as one of the possible causes as it has never been observed (a star being born) but it’s not origin rather galaxy formation requires stars to exist already which makes your whole theory based on blind faith. The comparison to kids in their puberty is not a good analogy. Adults are producing more offspring than kids in their puberty. The stars who are adults who are extremely active on the other hand, massive galaxies closer to us (supposedly much younger) are not forming stars at all.

    Doesn’t the big bang model predict density irregularities which should be observed today? Hot and cold spots in the radiation, slight changes in temps. A tiny amount of variation has been detected with upgrades in technology but the finding is not enough for a large-scale structure of the universe. This is what I mean by radiation being “smooth”.

  8. Michael, you are still talking gobbledicook.

    “Hot gas clouds which glow because they are so hot would disperse rather than collapse.”

    No, some cool and collapse. Those that collapse form stars.

    And of course you do not *need* to form stars first before you form a galaxy, although that is what should happen.

    Michael: “The comparison to kids in their puberty is not a good analogy. Adults are producing more offspring than kids in their puberty.”

    Galaxies producing offspring ? Que ? And I was not talking about offspring, but about luminosity.

    Michael: “The stars who are adults who are extremely active on the other hand, massive galaxies closer to us (supposedly much younger) are not forming stars at all.”

    Stars are not galaxies. Massive galaxies closer to us are of course older, not younger.

    Michael: “This is what I mean by radiation being “smooth”.”

    Ah, you are talking about the CMB – which obviously has nothing to do with population III stars.

    Michael, you again show a complete ignorance in this topic. I do not mind the ignorance, but you cannot base any conclusions on ignorance.

  9. Quoth Michael: “After 25 years of research, how did the original stars form by themselves?”

    They formed by themselves in exactly the same way that they formed before the 25 years of research.

    One of Mitchael’s unshakable beliefs is that nothing can happen until someone—or some One—figures out how to do it.

    This was illustrated several posts ago when he noted with amazement that cells employ “advanced” physical effects, that humans have only recently discovered. Apparently he believes that the simpler stuff we found out about centuries ago would also have been easier for God to figure out.

    So, once again, Michael: Matter and energy act the way they do because that’s what they do. Matter and energy do not act in accordance with physical laws—Physical laws act in accordance with matter and energy. You have it exactly backward.

    So, galaxies form by themselves because that’s how galaxies form. They need not wait until we figure out how they can do it..

  10. “Newly Discovered Galaxies Surprise Scientists”

    The reason that some observations can surprise scientists is that science can expect—that is, predict—certain observations.

    Creationism, on the other hand, cannot ever be surprised, because its paradigm does not allow it to expect anything: Everything is as it is for no other reason that that God has willed it that way.

    .

    What this means is that science can move forward, while creationism cannot. When one can formulate theories that expect certain observations, one can perform research to test the predictions. If the expectations are fulfilled, the theory is enabled to predict other observations. If not, we look for another theory—thus, this also counts as progress.

    Creationism cannot build observations into a testable theory, because, by definition, God’s will is unknowable and his capabilities are unlimited by any law. Thus, even if special creation were correct, it would be of no value whatever.

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