It’s a reasonably common DpSU topic – Brian Thomas finds a report of some galaxy at the edge of the universe (in time, if not in space) that looks a little older than would be expected according to Big Bang related models, and concludes that we must ditch it altogether and that we should thus return to
Fred Hoyle’s Steady State Cosmology Biblical Creationism. Today’s article is called Distant Galaxies Look Too Mature for Big Bang – a name I’m surprised he hasn’t used already.
In this particular occasion, the galaxies are from two billion years after the big bang (12 billion years ago) and actually have a concentration of heavier elements (which is what is so interesting) greater than the sun. The first point makes this less amazing, the second, more so. It’s not impossible for this to be the case, but it is a first and unexpected. What’s the trouble?
A core Big Bang doctrine is that certain stars process lighter elements into heavy elements.
If you were drinking something harmful to your keyboard I apologise, but am unable to provide a replacement to any and all readers both now and in the future. I mean really Brian? All stars do this (hydrogen to helium being the most common and well-known) and the other processes are pretty impossible to argue with too.
The Big Bang supposedly only produced the lightest elements, hydrogen and helium. Astronomers speculate that after millions of years, hydrogen clouds condensed into stars. And then eons passed before those stars became mature enough to create the heavier elements, all of which astronomers call “metals.” But stars never could have formed this way, and these new observations fly in the face of that doctrine.
This…doesn’t “fly in the face” of the Big Bang, and ‘doctrine’ is not the correct word. So what if everything’s a metal to an astronomer? And we know that stars form, I’m pretty sure we know how they do it, and the physical laws of the universe are set up so that the creation of the metals is possible, in ways that are unnecessary if creationism was true.
Distant galaxies appear just as mature as those near to earth, as though there was no relative time difference between the galaxies’ formation.
Well now, that’s false. Older galaxies with less heavy elements exist. And the press release speculates that the two galaxies here are merging, producing more stars and more heavy elements.
For example, very distant spiral galaxies—where stars are arranged in great, winding arms—appear to have undergone the same amount of spiral arm winding as closer ones.
Maybe because spiral arms are density waves, and don’t actually wind with the stars?
This is consistent with the idea that astronomical time runs, or used to run, at very different rates than earth time. It also matches the proposed idea that distant starlight takes no time to travel to earth.
I’ll get into the starlight problem another day – the creationists have had to propose a number of wacky ideas to explain, for example, why light from these 12 billion light-year away galaxies doesn’t make them (and the universe) 12 billion years old.
Astronomers routinely find mature-looking galaxies at great distances, and these galaxies defy the Big Bang’s story of how nature might have constructed them, as well as when they were formed.
Why do these galaxies have such mature makeups? The Big Bang could not have produced stars or galaxies, but would instead have produced evenly scattered material.
It’s called “quantum fluctuations” – though I’ve seen Mr Thomas try to attack quantum mechanics before, so I’m not surprised he doesn’t consider that as a good explaination.
Therefore, since the very existence of stars and galaxies requires a supernatural cause, it stands to reason that the same Cause would have also determined the composition of those stars and galaxies.
Yes – Quantum mechanics is God!