Fitting Contradictions Is Bad For Science

We are blessed to be living in a day in age where technology is able to see many parts of the universe which previous generations were unable to see. The better the technology, the worse off evolutionary theories become often times adding more complexity than answering questions or meeting model expectations, lets use Galaxy Evolution as an example…

“Dwarf galaxies that orbit the Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxies defy the accepted model of galaxy formation, and recent attempts to wedge them into the model are flawed, reports an international team of astrophysicists.”

“David Merritt, professor of astrophysics at Rochester Institute of Technology, co-authored “Co-orbiting satellite galaxy structures are still in conflict with the distribution of primordial dwarf galaxies,” to be published in an upcoming issue of Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.” 

This observation poses a contradiction for evolutionary scientists in the fundamental formation of galaxies according to their supposed evolution. The model predicts structures to be in clumps situated in random positions but in reality, the structures are positioned orderly around their parent galaxies. The reason for this is…it’s part of intelligent process rather than a mindless one.

So what happens when contradictions like this are discovered? Usually, they go into rescue mode by attempting to discount the observation in order to preserve the prevailing model. Three papers were published to do that very task. But it was rebuked by 14 other astronomers from six different countries.

“The standard cosmological model is the frame of reference for many generations of scientists, some of whom are beginning to question its ability to accurately reproduce what is observed in the nearby universe. Merritt counts himself among the small and growing group that is questioning the accepted paradigm. Scientific progress embraces challenges to upheld theories and models for a reason, Merritt notes.

“When you have a clear contradiction like this, you ought to focus on it,” Merritt said. “This is how progress in science is made.”

Is it really scientific progress devoting one’s work to the fundamental flaws with theories which are not agreeing with real-time observations? When you are driving your car and you make a wrong turn that leads you to the wrong street, will you still find your desired destination using the wrong road? Some roads are tweaked (road construction) and you are required to take a different route or drive on the other side of the road. This is different than having a fundamental flaw in the direction which you are going.

Perhaps these scientists should discontinue driving on the wrong road and try a different one!

3 thoughts on “Fitting Contradictions Is Bad For Science

  1. Evolution has nothing to do with galaxies. Evolution is a biological theory that is only concerned with life. It explains how species change over time and nothing more. If you want to understand how galaxies work, then you need to look at physics. And scientists aren’t concerned with making the universe fit their models. They are interested in understanding the universe better. If their hypothesizes don’t work, they find new ones. They don’t try to find reasons why their hypothesizes must be right.

  2. hello hessian,

    You say, “Evolution has nothing to do with galaxies. Evolution is a biological theory that is only concerned with life.”

    I believe your referring to the term that I used namely, “galaxy evolution”…Your response is scripted. If this is all you got, it’s really nothing. I want to show people how to blow your argument right out of the water and through out the universe like a sling shot…lol For example, and this is just one out of many, Southern California, you know where that place is, it has a center, and do you know what it is called? Take a guess! It’s called, “The Southern California Center for Galaxy Evolution” which can be located at this link…Click here

    Those universities also use the term “Galaxy Evolution” and also define it as the study of the formation of galaxies. If you want to know what terms mean I suggest you look them up first rather than repeating scripted arguments. Argument destroyed!

    Have a nice day :)

  3. If you want to destroy someones argument, try addressing it. All your doing is showing how ignorant you are. They aren’t saying galaxies evolve (other than in the sense that they change over time), they are simply using a common phrase to catch peoples attention. I’d say it as poorly done, since too many people know little about science as it is.
    Now, rather than acting like children, if you want to debate something, why don’t you bring forward your best arguments? I merely pointed that out to you because it is a misuse of terms. No, it’s not scripted. It comes from having studied science and bothering to do research. Though if all you’ve got is poo-flinging and “yay, I win,” then there won’t be much of a debate.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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