A Galaxies Cluster Older Than Possible! Scientists say.

reply to post by Stuffed


There is no absolute evidence to prove darwinism, yet it is taught as fact and any heretic who foolishly challenges that "fact" is immediately excommunicated by the intelligentsia as a brainless fool. Darwinism requires much more faith than creationism.

Originally posted by toxsick
as for the big bang theory, which btw, scientists have always said was a theory and not fact, never sat right with me. The way i saw it, why did the universe not "exist" until the supposed big bang? even if there was nothing, nothing is something. sure, a black void is empty, but it's...a black void, still something....

According to some aspects big bang theory, there wasn't even a black void. There was "nothing"; nothing meaning nothing -- no "space-time". There was literally no place in which the universe could exist. A "black void" presupposes a place for a black void to exist. What I'm saying is that without space-time, there could not even be a "place" in which a black void could exist.

It would be something like a painting existing without a canvas. Without a canvas, there would be no place on which the paint could sit.

The reason I say "some aspects" of the big bang theory is because scientists admit to not knowing exactly what -- if anything -- existed before the big bang. They have admitted this all along. Even mainstream scientists who are trying to prove the big bang theory know and admit that they don't understand the big bang theory completely, and there are many different competing "sub-ideas" about the big bang that are still being argued.

Originally posted by IAMSEEKER
Science is as good as it gets...

The earth is flat....oups, no sorry

The earth is the center of the universe...oups, no sorry

The sun is the center of the universe...oups, no sorry

The big bang started it all....oups, no sorry

Pluto is a planet....oups, no sorry

We can only take for granted what hasnt been debunked so far.

Can't wait from ***BREAKING NEWS, SCIENTISTS ADMITS:"WE HAVE NO CLUE SINCE THE BEGINNING"

Yes, but it was also science that proved those first theories wrong, like it's science that may prove our current theory of how old the universe is wrong.

Was it praying to god that allowed people to view this thread on those computers through the internet or was it science that did it for us? This anti-science sentiment I see on this thread is pathetic and backward.

Originally posted by Gazrok
Maybe we need a new term, for what the Universes float around in?

The Big Electron... Woa... woa...

Originally posted by Hawkwind.
This anti-science sentiment I see on this thread is pathetic and backward.

Who is anti-science? My problem is with those who hold blindly to theories that have enough gaping holes to drive a semi-truck through. A bird adapting to it's surroundings by growing a different bill does not logically lead to a theory of trans-speciation. Where are the transitive fossils? Where are the evolving species of fish developing air breathing capabilities? I could go on and on, but you get the point. Did "evolution" just stop? There should be species in transition right now, where are they?

Creationists, those that believe in a young universe created in only 6 24hour days, do a disservice to all who believe in an intelligent creator. Their foolish desire to limit the Hebrew word for "day' to only a 24 hour period is not even supported in the Bible the believe to be taken literally. That same word is used in some places to refer to a complete 24 hour period and in others to refer to only the daylight portions of that same period. With regard to the "creative days", the Bible at Gen 2:4 speaks of all the creative periods as one “day.” Same Hebrew word, but applied to a different period of time. Logically, these were, not literal days of 24 hours, but long periods of time.

Each creative "day" or period could have lasted millions or Billions of years. For Creationists to dogmatically claim that the universe was created in 6 days is dishonest and unduly restrictive.

This makes Creationists subject to ridicule from scientists because it contradicts the clear fact that the universe is much older than they imagine.

Science & religion does not need to always be at war. It is only when religion adopts dogmatic and unfounded beliefs that are not even supported in their own Bible that a wall is built between them.

For instance: There was no real conflict with what Galileo knew to be true (That the earth revolved around the sun) and anything contained in the Bible. It was the religious hierarchy's unfounded dogmatic belief's that resulted in the suppression of the truth.
The same thing is going on today, but fortunately the Creationists now have very little influence.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776


They are making a straw man argument.. Noone is anti-science. What you say i agree with.
Why blindly follow what a few scientists say without trying to research the facts yourself and see if what is proclaimed can be proved with certainty.

Gravity exists, the atom exists, the cell does, earth is round. All proven by tools and science.

Can the big bang be proven with the amount of certainty as the above? Right now it cant!!! So dont assume its truth. Ive seen programs on tv and even here in my local history/science museum they play it off as the Big Bang is pretty much a given.

reply to post by Sparky63


I agree with you. Just as evolution and a creator can go coexist.

God the programmer wrote the software, hit enter and the program ran its course and continues to do so.

This is just another thing that proves once again that the Big Bang THEORY is total bunk. EVERY DAY "astronomers are baffled" by what they see. Every time they turn the Hubble telescope in a new direction, they have to invent more magic fairy dust like "dark matter" and "dark energy" to make their obviously flawed equations work out. When will it end?

reply to post by Sparky63

I agree. A day of the Lord can be as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day. God is outside of and transcends time. A "day" in the case of the creation of the universe, could just be whatever period of time was required to carry out that portion of creation. However, "scientists" fail to consider 1 very important thing. God created Adam as a fully grown man. Why could he not have created a fully grown universe? Time is nothing to God. He could have done it all in 6 real days, and "aged" the universe. God is God and we are not. We don't know what he could have done, or how he could have done it. There is nothing wrong with studying and learning from the processes, but to pretend you know more than God? You are a fool. if you do.

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
reply to post by Sparky63

 

I agree. A day of the Lord can be as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day. God is outside of and transcends time. A "day" in the case of the creation of the universe, could just be whatever period of time was required to carry out that portion of creation. However, "scientists" fail to consider 1 very important thing. God created Adam as a fully grown man. Why could he not have created a fully grown universe? Time is nothing to God. He could have done it all in 6 real days, and "aged" the universe. God is God and we are not. We don't know what he could have done, or how he could have done it. There is nothing wrong with studying and learning from the processes, but to pretend you know more than God? You are a fool. if you do.

But why would God create the Universe in an instant and then "age" it to give the appearance that it has been around for Billions of years, but then take the relatively simple task of creating the earth (simple only in comparison the the universe) and it's inhabitants and split it up into 6 days? Why not just do it all in 1 day, or 1 hour, or 1 sec?
The facts show that the universe & the earth are much older than Creationists claim and it's age in no way contradicts the Bible's account if one recognizes that the word, "Day" is flexible.

You are right that we cannot claim to know the mind of God, but if we base our understanding of the universe on the evidence he has given us, it leads us to a view of the universe that is many billions of years old.

reply to post by Arken


has anyone noticed the light bending around the top star? does that mean a black hole is present there? O_o

The blurb said, "may lead to the revision of the most reliable models of galaxy formation and galaxy clusters."

Most reliable? Gravity-only theory has never been reliable. Each time a new bit of data comes in, it never sits well with astronomers and their ilk - they never follow the Scientific Method and scrap the old theory. They just plod along, adding mathematical equation after another and end up in the same position as before - in a quandary.

Electrical Theory is always accurate. Predictable. You can test it in a laboratory. Plasma scientists have been learning new things everyday about the real universe while most gravity-driven astronomers have yet to learn even a single thing their entire career.

Try thunderbolts.info for a clue as to how the universe actually works.

I would think a "new term' to use, rather than universe, would be "univiy".
That should be the plural of universe -- right !!

As to creation or evolution. One species does not change into another species. It adapts to it's environment and this adaptation brings about a species better developed to survive.

As to the cosmos it's self. The doppler red shift, which is used to calculate the speed of separation between us and other objects, can only give us an observation from our prospective. It could not tell us where we are in real relationship to the center of the original point of the "big bang" because we are also moving away from it.

Could it be that these galaxy clusters are on the opposite side of that original point and their light has had to travel that extra distance to reach us. They would be moving away from us, and us away from them making a combined distance for any doppler red shift to cover.

reply to post by Arken


I always thought that there was something wrong with this BigBang Therory. I just couldn't buy it. I lean more towards the String Theory or parallel Universe Therory where several universes exist within different frequencies.

The translation of the article in the OP is hard to understand and doesn't make sense when I read it.

The Milkyway Galaxy itself is 13.2 billion years old, making it one of the oldest galaxies in the universe.

I hope some mainstream sites with a good English translation are published to make more sense of this 'discovery'.

So nice to see so many smart, beautiful people using their brains on ATS! Saying the Big Bang started the Universe is the same thing as saying And God said let there be light. From a very young age, I thought the BBT was complete horsepoo. The BBT has always been dangerously close to faith/spiritualism for me. This just goes to show that science is the new religion, it's all just cocky little humans trying to pretend they know it all, when we really know NOTHING outside of our own bodies and minds. I'm with whoever posted the comment about spending the money to look for asteroids headed our way and to scrap the rest of the theorhetorical (new word!) research study BULL. We've got better things to spend our money on. I like these kinds of stories, because they show the know-it-alls that they don't know much, but is anyone's life better because of this knowledge? Did it solve any problems here on earth?

reply to post by Lightheart


Not to be rude, but i don't see how you can fire off "facts" like the age of our galaxy in relation to the rest of the Universe, or the age of our galaxy period, in light of this post. Doesn't this discovery throw into question the validity of the science off of which those "facts" were based?

We honestly don't know enough yet to make a definitive conclusion. We are making new discoveries every year that overshadow the ones before it. The multiverse does seem to be infinite though. Its a hard thing to think that everything always was, and that there is no beginning, but who knows maybe that is the case.