It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
right....THE FRANCIS FILAMENT...WHICH I SOURCED ALREADY...exhibits "unevolved" traits rather than "highly evolved traits"...please explain to me HOW...
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?
The universe was very violent in its early epochs, and galaxies grew quickly, evolving by accretion of smaller mass galaxies.
Creationism is faith-based. You tell me, is observational evidence relevant when it comes to faith?
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.....
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...
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....
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.
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.
so...why do evolutionary atheists ask "who created God?"..? it's completely rational to think that He "evolved"....
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.
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]
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....
do you still think that I am arguing that these galaxies represent UNEVOLVED characteristics?
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?