A question or two that STILL need an answer...

reply to post by rnaa


I give Arp credit for being genuinely creative in the interpretations of how the Francis Filament could be perceived as such. I'm not saying the assumptions are wrong...just that they seem to be irrational from what we current understand from redshifts. Of course, I have to allow room for our current understanding to be incorrect, but I'm not giving THAT much room...

By the way, the Francis Filament was noticed in 2004 and since then the deep field research taken on by the Hubble and other telescopes have found that the Francis Filament is not unique and Arp's explanation is not required to account for their formation at such early states in the universe.

Then please point me in the direction of the explanation that accounts for their formation....

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

right....THE FRANCIS FILAMENT...WHICH I SOURCED ALREADY...exhibits "unevolved" traits rather than "highly evolved traits"...please explain to me HOW...

OK, talkin' at cross purposes here.

Fox brought up your quote describing object in the Hubble Deep Field Image being 'insufficiently evolved'.

I didn't see any claim for Francis Filament objects being 'too evolved'. I'll go back and look. But anyway, 'mainstream' Big Banger's don't have any problem with highly organized structures after 2 billion years. That is plenty of time.

reply to post by rnaa


I seriously want to know how they can rationalise this in concurrence with BBT(without using Arp's explanation because that just puts into question everything we understand about redshifts). If you find a link can you please post it?

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

I seriously want to know how they can rationalise this in concurrence with BBT(without using Arp's explanation because that just puts into question everything we understand about redshifts). If you find a link can you please post it?

OK, I can't locate any 'text book' type descriptions, and I don't have access to to the subscription services required to check out the papers that may be discussing this.

The closest I can get is the Wikipedia article on Galaxy formation and evolution which is part of a larger section on the current state of Physical Cosmology. (Yes, I know Wikipedia is not a scholarly journal. but the article is extensively referenced to scholarly articles if you have access).

In that article they describe recent findings of galaxy formation at around 500 million years of the BB - much older than Francis Filament. There is no mention of that 'causing a problem' for the current theory, indeed it is asserted that according to the current theory

The universe was very violent in its early epochs, and galaxies grew quickly, evolving by accretion of smaller mass galaxies.

[edit on 19/12/2009 by rnaa]

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

Creationism is faith-based. You tell me, is observational evidence relevant when it comes to faith?

So your telling me we can't observe God's work at all? The account given in Genesis is just bogus BS? God's direct revelations of creation and those visible work's in existence aren't really his despite his claim? Use your brain, it won't bite.

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

All my sources have previously been cited thank you very much.

I don't feel it is necessary to cite them every time I refer to them...I believe once will suffice.

And...your excerpt doesn't substantiate your claims.....

Another cop out!

He just argued against a statement made by yourself using one of your own sources. And you counter with that BS? Is this a serious argument here, or was he right? *sticks fingers in ears* "LALALALALALA"

reply to post by sirnex


The excerpt he was quoting was irrelevant to the statement I was making. I think maybe my claims have been misinterpreted or misunderstood. Stop with your biased attitude and open your eyes a little bit. I'm asking questions that aren't completely understood at the moment, which TO ME, represents fallacies that NEED to be answered.

edit to add: as far as the genesis story goes, anyone will agree that it is not a scientific account....OR IN OTHER WORDS, it is not SCIENTIFICALLY OBSERVABLE.....meaning that anything we observe from the genesis account is going to be rationalised by something else...

[edit on 19-12-2009 by Agree2Disagree]

[edit on 19-12-2009 by Agree2Disagree]

reply to post by Tobeornottobe


I'll bite, Me being atheist.

I love cosmology, and everything to do with science, but yes, the big bang still stands out. to me, the mechanism that caused it will by definition be god (in my world), whether it was some higher dimensional membranes colliding, releasing a massive amount of energy into a 3d plane, or a former universe rebounding from a big crunch.

As for you, don't listen to what other people tells you to believe, follow your heart, use your brain and be kind to your next of kin. Faith is just a label we use to differentiate ourself from the rest.
I think all religions, and atheist can agree on one commandment - Don't be a jerk.

Give love, Get love

Btw, got this link from another thread, and it should be an epic read in your current mental state :p - it is pure fiction though

www.fullmoon.nu...

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

The excerpt he was quoting was irrelevant to the statement I was making.

I'm sorry kiddo, but it *is* relevant. Your claiming the deep field galaxies are very evolved whereas he is citing a source that proves the contrary. How is that not relevant when your both discussing the same issue? Do you know how to apply the word irrelevant to an argument, or do you think big words make you sound smart?

I think maybe my claims have been misinterpreted or misunderstood.

Not at all, perhaps you've gotten a tad lost in the two discussions and have intermixed them into one, which if done would make it appear that your two arguments are misunderstood.

You and I were discussing one aspect of disbelief, which I fully intend on still pursuing. You and Mr. Fox were discussing a completely unrelated aspect of disbelief. Which he may still continue to pursue or not. You need to learn to discern the two discussions even if one or the other jumps into the other conversation to make a point on that aspect of the argument.

Stop with your biased attitude and open your eyes a little bit.

I'm closed minded because you made an erroneous unfounded claim? Are you hoping to have a serious discussion, or are we just tooling around playing games?

I'm asking questions that aren't completely understood at the moment, which TO ME, represents fallacies that NEED to be answered.

Yes, I understand that much and I do agree with some of your points in regards to the BBT. No, my eye's are not closed to the fallacies of the theory at all. I am pretty sure that I made it explicitly clear earlier that I was against the theory, but for a different line of reasoning than the one you presented initially.

edit to add: as far as the genesis story goes, anyone will agree that it is not a scientific account....OR IN OTHER WORDS, it is not SCIENTIFICALLY OBSERVABLE.....meaning that anything we observe from the genesis account is going to be rationalised by something else...

I don't think your understanding the similarities of observation here. Science need not apply at all. The account given by the BBT can never be observed as equally as the account in Genesis can never be observed. Technically as both trains of thought go, they require an equal amount of faith in order to accept either as true.

I think you've lost focus of our discussion and what set that discussion off in the first place.

They can claim whatever they want about the big bang...the simple fact of the matter is that it is postulated from observances that we make AFTERWARDS...we have no way of knowing that what we THINK caused what we observe is really what happened....so technically, it can't be replicated or validated scientifically...it's just a well-thought out guess....unlike other theories...that can be validated scientifically....

If your able to comprehend what you read, then apply what I've just said to that paragraph of text. If you still can't see why that literal line of reasoning of disbelief is ridiculous and hypocritical to your belief in Deity, then I don't know what to do for you. I've attempted to explain this the best I can... Yet I'm still closed minded. Figures.

reply to post by sirnex


Go back and read again. Perhaps you skipped through the sources...Perhaps you don't see that the Francis Filament, ALONG WITH SOME OF THE OTHER SOURCES MENTIONED BY OTHER INDIVIDUALS BESIDES MYSELF, are depicting very MATURE galaxies...formed approximately 11B LY away(some even 13B LY away)....so either BBT must account for these early formations, or something is wrong in the way we view LY's, in the sense that if we were seeing them as they were 11B years ago...it's presumed that these galaxies would be mere infants....which they clearly aren't....

edit to add: how does his source say that they aren't highly evolved when you can ask any astronomer about very old galaxies....

Mature before their time: in the youthful universe, some galaxies were already old. www.thefreelibrary.com...

Astronomers have known for more than a decade that a few rare galaxies, which arose in unusually dense regions of the universe, managed to acquire a large amount of mass in a short amount of time.

www.phschool.com...

The surprise: these galaxies appear to be more fully formed and mature than expected at this early stage in the evolution of the Universe. This finding is similar to a teacher walking into a classroom expecting to greet a room full of unruly teenagers and finding well-groomed young adults.

www.gemini.edu...

on and on and on....you need more sources to support MATURITY or do you still think that I am arguing that these galaxies represent UNEVOLVED characteristics?



[edit on 19-12-2009 by Agree2Disagree]

I believe God created the Universe, who or what created God, only God knows,... I do know that each stage of life in the creation follows the same stage of developement of a child in the womb. I know that if you convert the Hebrew word for red into its numerical equivalent, and digitize it...it shows up as red...same for the other colors. Read it in the Jerusalem Post. I know that the order of creation described in Genesis follows the same stages as described in science. I also know that the Bible is backed by historical, archeological, and scientific fact...the Bible says the Earth orbits around the Sun, and shows that the moon orbits the Earth. It mentions dinosaurs ans describes them accurately in Job, even though man supposedly never coexisted with them...see Behemoth, some will say it is an elephant or hippo...read the description of the tail.
Back to your point, some things we will never know...not in this world, anyway.

reply to post by AlreadyGone


If we are to believe that abiogenesis is a feat that is truly accomplishable, then by no means is "who created God?" a substantial argument...

so...why do evolutionary atheists ask "who created God?"..? it's completely rational to think that He "evolved"....

[edit on 20-12-2009 by Agree2Disagree]

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

so...why do evolutionary atheists ask "who created God?"..? it's completely rational to think that He "evolved"....

That question is only asked of those who claim that there must be a first cause and assign that first cause to a supernatural entity - God.

What you consider to be rational has nothing to do with what is 'reasonable' or 'useful' to human knowledge. We could all be part of a universe that is encased in a marble attached to a collar wrapped around the neck of a cat named Orion. That is a perfectly rational idea, albeit steeped in a few too many joints around the camp fire maybe. It just doesn't add anything to human knowledge or help us to understand the universe we live in.

Whether our universe was created by God or not, it is organized in such a way that we can learn about it and theorize about it and experiment about it and come to conclusions about how it works and marvel at how beautifully it all fits together.

If you believe in God as the creator of the universe, it makes no sense whatever to deny that God's creation is not arranged the way it is or works the way it is or that our learned view of the world is not exactly what God wanted us to learn about the world.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Tobeornottobe

 

Science`s answer may not be so fancy or entertaining as religion`s answer, but at least its honest: We don`t know yet.

I think there was obviously something, since something can not come from nothing, but anything else about the nature of this pre-big bang "something" is just speculation now. There is no reason to antropomorphise it.

www.google.com...

If existence didn't come from nothingness then existence would never have existed.

I guess some forget the difference between infinite and finite.

If something is infinite. It takes up all possible space. That would mean finite must be within the space of infinite nothingness. Existence can not exist any other place.

Think of existence and Non existence. They must both exist. Existence would never change if there was no nothingness. Because there would be no more room for existence to change. And we would probably know the future because it would exist. But it doesn't yet.





[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


Further to 'early formation of galaxies and clusters':

Galaxies From the Dawn of Time. See especially the graphic on page six.

This article from 1994 may be an early example of the 'mature' galaxy problem of which you speak.

A pair of galaxies were detected that seemed to be too red for their suspected distance which indicated that they were very old and the blue giants had already died which seemed to dictate that the age of the universe was twice the current estimate (which was at the time about 10by). The discoverers thought the galaxies were about at a red shift of z=2.4; but they couldn't measure it properly yet so there was a mystery.

Speculation at the time included that they were at huge (for the time) red shifts beyond z=6 or maybe weird galaxies consisting only of red and brown dwarfs.

Today we have computed the Hubble constant more accurately than then and know the universe is about 13.7by old, and there are lots of objects out beyond z=6.

The question also arises about what is meant by a 'mature galaxy'? Well one measure is the number of short lived stars, like blue giants, that have died. Since these stars have completed their manufacture of heavy elements, the spectrum can be used to indicate maturity. And since giants live only a million years or so, a galaxy as far away as 3 billions years from the big bang has had plenty of time to "mature".

This is simply NOT a problem for BBT. Sorry to disappoint you.



[edit on 20/12/2009 by rnaa]

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by Agree2Disagree

 

Further to 'early formation of galaxies and clusters':

Galaxies From the Dawn of Time. See especially the graphic on page six.

This article from 1994 may be an early example of the 'mature' galaxy problem of which you speak.

A pair of galaxies were detected that seemed to be too red for their suspected distance which indicated that they were very old and the blue giants had already died which seemed to dictate that the age of the universe was twice the current estimate (which was at the time about 10by). The discoverers thought the galaxies were about at a red shift of z=2.4; but they couldn't measure it properly yet so there was a mystery.

Speculation at the time included that they were at huge (for the time) red shifts beyond z=6 or maybe weird galaxies consisting only of red and brown dwarfs.

Today we have computed the Hubble constant more accurately than then and know the universe is about 13.7by old, and there are lots of objects out beyond z=6.

The question also arises about what is meant by a 'mature galaxy'? Well one measure is the number of short lived stars, like blue giants, that have died. Since these stars have completed their manufacture of heavy elements, the spectrum can be used to indicate maturity. And since giants live only a million years or so, a galaxy as far away as 3 billions years from the big bang has had plenty of time to "mature".

This is simply NOT a problem for BBT. Sorry to disappoint you.



[edit on 20/12/2009 by rnaa]

We will never figure out the beginning of existence. Because we can not measure the distance from 1 to zero. No matter how well we calibrate our scopes.

reply to post by rnaa


It might not be a problem for minds that aren't sceptical. However, I don't see what sources astronomers are using to imply that galaxies could form in such a manner. Where is the evidence? Have we ever truly witnessed how a galaxy is formed? Or is it all merely speculation and educated guesses? IMO, there is simply too much room for error in BBT. I'm not saying anyone is wrong for believing it, simply that I choose not to.



[edit on 20-12-2009 by Agree2Disagree]

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

Go back and read again. Perhaps you skipped through the sources...Perhaps you don't see that the Francis Filament, ALONG WITH SOME OF THE OTHER SOURCES MENTIONED BY OTHER INDIVIDUALS BESIDES MYSELF, are depicting very MATURE galaxies...formed approximately 11B LY away(some even 13B LY away)....so either BBT must account for these early formations, or something is wrong in the way we view LY's, in the sense that if we were seeing them as they were 11B years ago...it's presumed that these galaxies would be mere infants....which they clearly aren't....

I get that point, it's one of my issue with BBT as well. Yet the heart of the issue is the contrary source stating that the BBT can allow for these formations in the early universe. How are you and I supposed to reconcile the obvious problem with the BBT when the BBT scientists constant rewrite the theory to make it fit with current observations?

edit to add: how does his source say that they aren't highly evolved when you can ask any astronomer about very old galaxies....

Appeal to authority while attack authority? WTF is that all about? At least that is how it's coming off to me. It's a matter of scientific opinion, which is quiet evident given by his source. Some will adhere to the new changes made that do account for the observations and some, like me will disregard the new changes only because those new changes were made to account for those observations. What happens if you ask one hundred of them and half give one answer and half give another? Can't really go the appeal to authority route solely here.

do you still think that I am arguing that these galaxies represent UNEVOLVED characteristics?

You need to learn to read, seriously. Here is what I said in the post you just replied to.

"Your claiming the deep field galaxies are very evolved"

Do you see the word unevolved in there?

reply to post by sirnex


my statement concerning galaxies exhibiting unevolved characteristics was directed towards an earlier statement that I believe was based off of misinterpretations of my statement.

I believe someone claimed that galaxies depicted exactly what BBT predicts...which BBT predicts very old galaxies would APPEAR to be unevolved....which, we've already discussed....and they do NOT appear that way....

I'm seriously frustrated with this thread. I think I'm going to spend some time at BTS. It's like...trying to discuss creationism with atheists....or being right-brained vrs left-brained...I AGREE2DISAGREE and now I must relax....

reply to post by sirnex

from sirnex
I get that point, it's one of my issue with BBT as well. Yet the heart of the issue is the contrary source stating that the BBT can allow for these formations in the early universe. How are you and I supposed to reconcile the obvious problem with the BBT when the BBT scientists constant rewrite the theory to make it fit with current observations?

Well it isn't really true that BBT is constantly being rewritten. Cosmology in general is developing all the time. Why else would we continue to explore? New stuff extends our knowledge, it doesn't rewrite it.

New phenomena are being discovered and need to be explained. The explanation is either found directly in the existing model or a new explanation has to be found to extend the Cosmological model (of which BBT is only a part). There is nothing 'wrong' with the alternative theories, like steady-state, except that they don't explain as much or predict as much as BBT.

The original Steady-State proposal by Hoyle couldn't account for why quasars were only found very far away, nor for the cosmic microwave background radiation, whereas BBT did. So 'mainstream' cosmology accepted BBT. Hoyle went on to propose Quasi-Steady state and when the accellerating universe was observed, Hoyle had to modify his theory again. QSS still leaves many things unexplained that BBT explains, so it just isn't a viable alternative.

Do you get the pattern here? No matter what theory you hold to, it has to be modified to explain new phenomena. That is not unique to BBT, and there will never come a time when new things can't extend the model.