Cosmologists Were Wrong About Galaxy Evolution

Print Article
Posted on March 11, 2014 in Astronomy, Cosmology, Dumb Ideas, Philosophy of Science

Fifteen years ago, no cosmologist would have predicted mature galaxies early on, but they keep getting found – earlier and earlier.

Astronomers just set a new record.  They found mature galaxies dated at just 1.6 billion years after the big bang, a mere 12% of its assumed age.  Science Daily explains in “Galaxies in the early universe mature beyond their years”–:

An international team of researchers has discovered the most distant examples of galaxies in the early universe that were already mature and massive. The mature galaxies were found at a record-breaking distance of 12 billion light years, seen when the universe was just 1.6 billion years old. Their existence at such an early time raises new questions about what forced them to grow up so quickly.

This is what is called a falsification: a failed prediction of what was previously believed.  To adjust the consensus cosmology, astronomers are forced to postulate new mechanisms for forcing galaxies to grow up quickly.  This has the drawback of undermining the uniformity of nature, requiring “special pleading” to get a theory to work.  Astronomer Karl Glazebrook (Swinburne University of Technology) decided to turn the falsification into a celebration:

Fifteen years ago they were predicted not to even exist within the cosmological model favoured at the time. In 2004 I wrote a paper on the discovery of such galaxies existing only three billion years after the Big Bang. Now, with improved technology we are pushing back to only 1.6 billion years, which is truly exciting.”

The excitement covers up the weeping that should come from being so wrong.  Fifteen mature galaxies were found from that epoch.  Judging from their infrared spectrum, they were just as large and massive as the Milky Way.

Astronomers used deep images at near-infrared wavelengths to search for galaxies in the early Universe with red colours. These red colours indicate the presence of old stars and a lack of active star formation. Surprisingly, they located 15 galaxies at an average distance of 12 billion light years — only 1.6 billion years after the Big Bang.

According to Thomas Kuhn’s philosophy of scientific revolutions, anomalies accumulate until a new paradigm emerges.  These astronomers appear determined to keep this anomaly within the old paradigm:

While the Milky Way still forms new stars at a slow rate today, the galaxies we discovered must have formed very rapidly in a relatively ‘short’ time — roughly one billion years — with explosive rates of star-formation. These must have been several hundred times higher than in the Milky Way today,” Macquarie University’s Dr Lee Spitler said.

This is the best evidence to date that these galaxies grew up in a hurry. People have reported ‘old’ galaxies before, but it was never clear until our data that they were actually ‘old’. The excellent imaging products from the Magellan telescope allowed us to prove they are indeed ‘old’.

Kuhn described “normal science” within a paradigm as a puzzle-solving enterprise.  If there’s any way to keep these new anomalies inside the standard cosmological paradigm of the 1990s, they have some pretty massive puzzles to work on.  “The finding raises new questions about how these galaxies formed so rapidly and why they stopped forming stars so early,” the article says.

Why is it so hard for scientists to admit they were wrong?  Why do they show no shame?  This “early maturity” anomaly started over a decade ago (1/08/02), but the standard CDM cosmology stumbles on, with its protagonists, in a drunken walk, hollering “Cheer! [hiccup] cheer!”  Society continues to hold these people up as intellectual wizards.  Would you do that with a financial advisor, who keeps making you spend money on losing stocks that he promised would make you rich?  Would you vote for politicians who keep breaking their promises?  Why do we put up with losers in science?  They should get out and take up truck driving.  Notice that we are not criticizing their skill at math, their knowledge of astronomical terms and concepts, or their instruments and observations.  What we criticize is their materialistic, evolutionary theory that keeps failing the test, over and over and over again.

The theory is in such desperate straits that they have to (1) invent dark matter to hold things together, (2) invent dark energy to explain the surprise of universal acceleration, (3) invent inflation to gloss over the horizon problem, (4) exaggerate the tiniest perturbations to overcome the lumpiness problem, and now, (5) imagine rates of star birth that are hundreds of times faster than previously thought possible, but then shut off inexplicably.  Talk about special pleading!  Empiricists should be aghast.

Keep in mind that there is a big difference between scientific observation and scientific explanation.  Just because you can observe something does not mean you have a clue how it came to be.  Another example is seen in planetary science: NASA and ESA scientists are best in the world at building spacecraft and observing the planets (and they can steer these craft with pinpoint accuracy), but they have been egregiously wrong in their explanations at practically every planet and moon, between what they predicted they would find and what they actually found.

There is one thing in this morass we can know with absolute certainty: Neil de Grasse Tyson and the Cosmos crowd (3/10/14) will exalt this theory as a triumph of the Enlightenment, achieved by the wise men of science who manufacture knowledge for us with a trustworthy method – you know, as opposed to those religious obscurantists who run around looking for thinking people to burn at the stake.  If you are caught up in that mentality, you need some serious deprogramming.  Please listen to Dr. Michael Egnor’s description of the rise of modern science on the ID the Future podcast, and read Casey Luskin’s list of the modern Inquisition trials on Evolution News & Views.  It’s not just evolution skeptics who are appalled at Tyson’s distortion of the Bruno affair (Evolution News & Views).

Sadly, many Christians and theistic evolutionists exalt the same theory as proof of creation.  All cosmic expansion can show, however, is that the universe had a beginning.  The rest of the sorry CDM (cold dark matter) model with all its ad hoc pleadings should be shunned, not embraced.  Watch out for those who lead you to worship the wizards, thinking that “Oh, these people are so smart!  They must be right!”  That’s a non-sequitur of cosmic proportions.

 

 

 

13 Comments

Jon Saboe March 11, 2014

Well, you know, when your predictions fail — just add another epicycle. The Ptolemic view MUST be maintained!

John S March 11, 2014

These (star formations) must have been several hundred times higher than in the Milky Way today”.

So are they uniformitarian or not? They are when it suites their ideas but are non when it doesn’t? I don’t understand a lot about this stuff, but it’s fairly clear to me that they are saying things were much different back then than we observe now. Then they will turn around and disallow/mock that same idea in other areas. How can they get away with that?!

rheinberger March 11, 2014

I find this very interesting. With regards to galaxies including the milky way, has anybody checked out the late Barham Kitarai’s rather convincing theory on galaxies, found easily on Google. Although he was not a Christian, his ideas solve the starlight problem in one fell swoop, and it seems many cannot refute what he says. Check it out and let me know if I’m really “spaced out” to even consider his ideas.….they really are mind boggling! Excellent website, I visit every day and love your satire, as well as the Truth you share, Thank you.

ponder-this March 11, 2014

A lot of good truck drivers just got insulted.

snelldl March 11, 2014

Is there any hint in any articles about this what the apparent age of those galaxies are?

MartyK March 11, 2014

Astronomer Karl Glazebrook decided to turn the falsification into a celebration…The excitement covers up the weeping that should come from being so wrong.”

For some reason, the first thing that came to mind upon reading this latest outrage was this:
A Congress (or at least one side of it) which stood up and applauded when a President told them he had a pen and a phone and would get things done without them. Basically, after saying he would like to make them irrelevant, they give him a standing O.

snelldl March 11, 2014

rheinberger:

I couldn’t find anything on Barham Kitarai on google or bing. Perhaps it is mispeled?

rheinberger March 11, 2014

Snelldl,

My apologies.….spelling mistake. Try Bahram Katirai.…Revolution in Astronomy.

It makes a very interesting read.

Editor March 11, 2014

rheinberger, you should avoid turning readers’ attention to outside sources and focus your comments on the material in the article or its links.

rheinberger March 11, 2014

I do apologise, I thought it might be relevant to the article at the time. Clearly not.

Epistem0logy March 11, 2014

Been following this site for a couple months and I’m definitely loving the articles as well as the insight in the commentary.

Personally putting together a list that proves evolution is not really falsifiable because it doesn’t matter how many wrong predictions they make, they still uphold the theory.

You illustrated several of those problems in the category of astronomy.

I’m aware of the dark matter/dark energy and inflation as rescue devices but can’t say that I’m familiar with the lumpiness problem.

Could you explain what that is exactly?

BTW, Keep up the good work. You may not get hundreds or thousands of comments but I’m going to start promoting this site and I believe one day it will change thousands of lives.

What exactly is that in reference to?

Thanks!

Editor March 11, 2014

No need to apologize. I just like to remind our commenters from time to time not to send our readers off into uninspected weeds on the internet.

Editor March 11, 2014

Thanks for the kind words. The lumpiness problem is explained in the 11/13/14 entry, the 12/03/13 entry, and others you can find by searching on the term “lumpiness.”

Leave a Reply