PDA

View Full Version : Were galaxies created fully formed?



bob b
March 14th, 2006, 10:26 AM
Astonomers have been finding fully formed galaxies as they are able to look further and further back in time. Is it possible that galaxies did not "evolve" but instead were created fully formed at the very beginning? (Horrors, perish the thought!)
-----
http://www.edpsciences.org/journal/index.cfm?edpsname=aa&niv1=others&niv2=press_release&niv3=PRaa200604

The knowledge of early galaxies has made major progress in the past ten years. From the end of 1995, astronomers have been using a new technique, known as the “Lyman-break technique”. This technique allows very distant galaxies to be detected. They are seen as they were when the Universe was much younger, thus providing clues to how galaxies formed and evolved. The Lyman-break technique has moved the frontier of distant galaxy surveys further up to redshift z=6-7 (that is about 5% of the present age of the Universe). In astronomy, the redshift denotes the shift of a light wave from a galaxy moving away from the Earth. The light wave is shifted toward longer wavelengths, that is, toward the red end of the spectrum. The higher the redshift of a galaxy is, the farther it is from us.

bob b
March 14th, 2006, 04:36 PM
What? No comments?

SUTG
March 14th, 2006, 04:38 PM
Here's a comment for you:

:yawn:

ThePhy
March 24th, 2006, 08:04 PM
Astonomers have been finding fully formed galaxies as they are able to look further and further back in time. Is it possible that galaxies did not "evolve" but instead were created fully formed at the very beginning? (Horrors, perish the thought!)
-----
http://www.edpsciences.org/journal/index.cfm?edpsname=aa&niv1=others&niv2=press_release&niv3=PRaa200604

The knowledge of early galaxies has made major progress in the past ten years. From the end of 1995, astronomers have been using a new technique, known as the “Lyman-break technique”. This technique allows very distant galaxies to be detected. They are seen as they were when the Universe was much younger, thus providing clues to how galaxies formed and evolved. The Lyman-break technique has moved the frontier of distant galaxy surveys further up to redshift z=6-7 (that is about 5% of the present age of the Universe). In astronomy, the redshift denotes the shift of a light wave from a galaxy moving away from the Earth. The light wave is shifted toward longer wavelengths, that is, toward the red end of the spectrum. The higher the redshift of a galaxy is, the farther it is from us. Does the article you link to lend material support to your opening statement?

bob b
March 25th, 2006, 03:28 PM
Does the article you link to lend material support to your opening statement?

The article explains how astronomers are able to look at galaxies which are farther away than they were able to do so just a few years ago. Other postings on this forum have supported the idea that astronomers were surprised at how mature such faraway galaxies were. Such findings support the idea that God may have formed stars and their galaxy structures much earlier in the expansion of the universe than was hypothesized just a few years ago.

I have previously discussed on these forums my belief that the single Hebrew word translated as "He made the stars also" and which is used to support the idea that the stars were not formed until Day 4 of Creation Week may in fact be a misunderstanding/mistranslation.

ItIsWritten
March 25th, 2006, 03:51 PM
I have previously discussed on these forums my belief that the single Hebrew word translated as "He made the stars also" and which is used to support the idea that the stars were not formed until Day 4 of Creation Week may in fact be a misunderstanding/mistranslation.
How so? Haven't seen your previous posts expressing this, so since you've raised this idea here perhaps you could restate your reason for this belief.

bob b
March 26th, 2006, 09:01 AM
How so? Haven't seen your previous posts expressing this, so since you've raised this idea here perhaps you could restate your reason for this belief.

Gen 1:16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
----------------------- H3556
H3556 כּוֹכָב
kôkâb ko-kawb'
Probably from the same as H3522 (in the sense of rolling) or H3554 (in the sense of blazing); a star (as round or as shining); figuratively a prince:—star ([-gazer]).

H3522 כַּבּוֹן
kabbôn kab-bone'
From an unused root meaning to heap up; hilly; Cabbon, a place in Palestine:—Cabbon

H3554 כָּוָה
kâvâh kaw-vaw'
A primitive root; properly to prick or penetrate; hence to blister (as smarting or eating into):—burn.

-----------

Note that the text does not say expicitly when the stars were formed. This is only an inference due to the location of a single Hebrew word at the very end of the Sun/Moon discussion.

It seems to me that the single Hebrew word is sort of an aside or afterthought and should not be used as proof positive that the stars (and galaxies) were created after the Sun and Moon.

----

Here is how Darby translated verse 16:

And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights, the great light to rule the day, and the small light to rule the night,—and the stars.

Could the text be saying that the Moon rules over the night and the stars?

ThePhy
March 30th, 2006, 05:39 PM
From Bob b:
The article explains how astronomers are able to look at galaxies which are farther away than they were able to do so just a few years ago. It only mentions that, and for good reason. I suspect you did not read the entire study (at least with understanding). If you feel otherwise, can you tell us the age of the galaxies the study is primarily concerned with taking measurements on?
Other postings on this forum have supported the idea that astronomers were surprised at how mature such faraway galaxies were. Such findings support the idea that God may have formed stars and their galaxy structures much earlier in the expansion of the universe than was hypothesized just a few years ago I am aware of a prior thread in which essentially mature galaxies were found about 1 billion years after the big bang, which was earlier than anticipated. Do you have peer-reviewed references to articles that date mature galaxies earlier than that?

Since you have mentioned mature galaxies and the big bang several times, you should be aware of about how far back (how near the big bang) telescopic observation have been able to reach. How does that compare with the ages of the oldest galaxies? (Obviously this has pretty clear implications for the title of this thread).

And, what is the ratio between the age of the universe when the oldest galaxies appeared, and the time till the creationists would like to have them dated to?

In other words, can you point to anything in science beyond wishful thinking that supports:
Is it possible that galaxies did not "evolve" but instead were created fully formed at the very beginning? (Horrors, perish the thought!)

keypurr
March 30th, 2006, 10:19 PM
Keep in mind that the time period as we know it tody did not start till the fourth day

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:

How long were the FIRST THREE DAYS????????

Letsargue
March 30th, 2006, 10:41 PM
Astonomers have been finding fully formed galaxies as they are able to look further and further back in time. Is it possible that galaxies did not "evolve" but instead were created fully formed at the very beginning? (Horrors, perish the thought!)
-----
http://www.edpsciences.org/journal/index.cfm?edpsname=aa&niv1=others&niv2=press_release&niv3=PRaa200604

The knowledge of early galaxies has made major progress in the past ten years. From the end of 1995, astronomers have been using a new technique, known as the “Lyman-break technique”. This technique allows very distant galaxies to be detected. They are seen as they were when the Universe was much younger, thus providing clues to how galaxies formed and evolved. The Lyman-break technique has moved the frontier of distant galaxy surveys further up to redshift z=6-7 (that is about 5% of the present age of the Universe). In astronomy, the redshift denotes the shift of a light wave from a galaxy moving away from the Earth. The light wave is shifted toward longer wavelengths, that is, toward the red end of the spectrum. The higher the redshift of a galaxy is, the farther it is from us.



---No, the higher the shift, the “FASTER” it is traveling away from us. That is what they SAY, and that cannot be true. -- The intense light, with its great intensity, merely relaxes to a longer wave length, just slightly. The light has been traveling for billions of years, and it appears to be red shifted. They are not fleeing away from us. There is NO WHERE FOR THEM TO GO. The Universe cannot get bigger; there is no place to expand into. Something cannot expand into nothing.
*
----------------Paul---
*

Letsargue
March 30th, 2006, 10:47 PM
Keep in mind that the time period as we know it tody did not start till the fourth day

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:

How long were the FIRST THREE DAYS????????

---The only ecidence says, first day, third day, seventh day. - Thousand years is (as) one day to the Lord, not to us. God tell us that they were just days, so they were just days.
*
------------------Paul---
*