The galaxies are spinning. They are turning around. But the stars in the middle of the galaxies are going faster than the stars at the outside, which means if the galaxies were billions of years old, they would have lost their spiral shape and yet all of them are spiral shaped galaxies. So if their trying to tell you that stars are billions of years old, they are simply mistaken they cannot possibly be, they had to be created.
29 comments
"The galaxies are spinning. They are turning around. But the stars in the middle of the galaxies are going faster than the stars at the outside, which means if the galaxies were billions of years old, they would have lost their spiral shape and yet all of them are spiral shaped galaxies."
BZZZZT! I'm sorry Kent but that answer is incorrect. Thank you for playing. Ladies and gentlemen, let's give Kent a round of applause!
image
"So if their trying to tell you that stars are billions of years old, they are simply mistaken they cannot possibly be, they had to be created."
Kent, don't make us call security. Exit the stage like the loser you are.
Actually, if they were spinning, the stars on the outside would be going much faster than the ones in the middle.
Try making noodle soup and stirring it while it's cooking. The noodles on the outside go around quickly, while the ones in the middle hardly move at all.
But wait, this is Dr. Dino? Oh, well, even though my degree is legit he still won't listen...
Patriot University (LMAO) is trying to juggle all those transfers from MIT.
@ Horsefeathers: excellent! I will also applaud the federal judge.
"Actually, if they were spinning, the stars on the outside would be going much faster than the ones in the middle."
This would be true if the overall shape of the galaxy is static and unchanging. The angular velocity would be the same but the linear velocity would increase as one gets further from the center of rotation. Some spiral galaxies do this while others have a dynamic between the inner cluster and the outer stars and therefore have different speeds.
Kent's big mistake in his argument is his assumption that the galaxies must lose their shape over time. Well, just how much time will that take? I don't know and neither does anyone else. He's just assuming that after billions of years they must have lost their shape, which is not true. He further assumes that since the aformentioned postulate is false, it must then equate to creation of some form but that also might not be true!
Wrong again. When ever something spins it's the outside part that spins faster then the inside. This phenomenon is what gives galaxies their spiral shape.
And where did you get your calculations that after billions of years galaxies loose their spiral shape? Or are you just assuming that based on nothing?
See, this is what annoys me about creationists. For the sake of argument, let's assume that we don't have it fully worked out why galaxies have a stable spiral shape. And to be fair, there are some details on that front that we're still working on.
Why are creationists so damned determined to throw up their hands and basically say "I give up?"
"So if their trying to tell you"
Sorry, Kunt, it's "they're."
Glad you got that good ol' PhD. buddy.
1) Not all galaxies are spiral shaped.
2) It's generally the older, larger galaxies that have a spiral shape.
And we have pictures of galaxies that show them in every stage of development. Even Nebulas which are not quite condensed enough yet (Have small rotation quality, but stars are being born) to galaxies colliding into each other.
And you think this type of thing can happen in 6000 years?
I agree with Old Viking:
"But the stars in the middle of the galaxies are going faster than the stars at the outside"
Yes, I believe orbital physics says something like that.
"if the galaxies were billions of years old, they would have lost their spiral shape and yet all of them are spiral shaped galaxies."
How do you know they were always spiral shaped? There's lots of other galaxy shapes which I'm sure somebody above me is already bitchslapping you with.
1. Kent is CORRECT that the stars near the center of a spiral galaxy are orbiting faster than the stars out toward the edge.
2. Kent is INCORRECT that the apparent spiral shape of the galaxy is due to a FIXED SET of stars making up the spiral arms and orbiting in a spiral formation. The spiral arms are regions of the galaxy where BRIGHT stars are BORN and DIE AWAY QUICKLY. The arms are marked by an approximately 15% greater density of material than is found elsewhere in the galactic disk, and are not so much physically orbiting objects themselves as "density waves". Computer simulations using known physical laws have borne these models out.
Wazzamatter Kent? Bubba's holding your bible hostage and you only have your imagination to pass the time, eh?
Still working on your dissertation, I see.
Nice to see Hovind knows about as much about astronomy as he does biology.
Though one must also pay special attention to the website where it came from -- JCSM is run by Jason Gastrich, who is not only a slimy preacher but an unrepentant huckster who decied the Skeptic's Annotated Bible needed to be "corrected and explained". He did this by creating a CD-ROM only version that costs something like $20... to respond to the free SAB. He was also thrown off Wikipedia for repeated POV and bad faith edits, as well as persistent sockpuppetry. He's also created his own accreditation organization for his own diploma mill, from which he claims a doctorate. He is both more ambitious and infinitely lamer than Hovind.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
