Question about the spiral galaxy argument

(Adam Kania) #1

Answers in Genesis has written an article about the spiral galaxy argument. This is the article:

This article is also written by Danny Faulkner.

In the article they say, “Most astronomers currently think that this dark matter may allow galaxies’ spirals to survive. However, the best evidence for dark matter—the higher-than-expected rotation of the outer portions of galaxies—may actually make the winding problem worse, not better.”

I cannot understand why they say this. Why does dark matter make it worse? I am simply confused by their argument.

Besides, this article: that says, “The spiral arms are self-perpetuating, persistent, and surprisingly long-lived.” The article also says, the spiral arms of galaxies, “can exist on their own through (the influence of) gravity, even in the extreme when the perturbations are no longer there.” So based off this research, spiral galaxies could survive on their own without dark matter. Correct?

The Answers in Genesis article also says: “Another wrinkle has developed in recent years. Astronomers have photographed very distant galaxies, about 12 billion light-years away. Assuming, for the sake of argument, a big bang happened 13.7 billion years ago, these galaxies are among the youngest in the universe. Though they differ subtly from nearby (and presumably older-appearing) galaxies, they appear otherwise identical to them. In other words, little evolution has occurred.”

Is this true? If so, why has no evolution occured?

(Casper Hesp) #3

Hi Adam,
Thanks for the questions! I’ll write up a response over Christmas / New Year, and post it under my blog post on galactic spiral arms.

Merry Christmas!

(Jonathan) #4

That is a good question, @Adam_Kania, and welcome!

That is not an acceptable answer, and it is probably not even a true statement.

@Casper_Hesp, I look forward to reading your blog post!

Merry Christmas to all!

(Jonathan) #6

At least it is only poor now instead of very poor. You are on the right track! :wink:

I feel like it would be a more profitable discussion for all if people could overcome their anti-AIG prejudices (even if the are well founded, which I do not believe them to be, but I do not know everything) and take AIG seriously, if only to refute them. As is, when AIG poses a question, oftentimes we will be answered with fallacious attacks on AIG itself that do not answer the question. This makes it look like (gasp) the attackers may not even have an answer! And this simply gives credibility to the uncomfortable question posed in the first place, and makes people think…Maybe AIG is right after all? However, all is not lost, as we still have:[quote=“Casper_Hesp, post:3, topic:37501”]
I’ll write up a response over Christmas / New Year, and post it under my blog post on galactic spiral arms.
Which I am interested in reading when it comes out!

Anyhow, @beaglelady, it is perfectly within your rights to say such things about AIG, but that does not answer the question posed in this topic, and should probably be posted on a “criticisms and accusations directed at AIG” thread ;).

A blessed Christmas to all!


(James McKay) #7

You’ve got a very good point here Jonathan. @Adam_Kania is new to the forum and he is asking some specific questions. Merely saying that AIG is a bad source of information is unhelpful: we need to explain accurately and specifically what is wrong with their arguments.

I’ll just make a couple of remarks of my own in response to his questions here.

I don’t understand why he says this either. He doesn’t cite any references or sources, nor does he give any reasoning. I would have expected, at the absolute minimum, a link to a computer simulation on YouTube showing this to be the case, and ideally also the source code on GitHub (together with initial conditions and starting parameters) so that it could be checked for correctness. After all, there are plenty of YouTube videos of computer simulations showing that the density wave model of galactic spiral arms actually works and does allow them to last for billions of years. Here is one such example:

According to this article by @Casper_Hesp, it isn’t. Distant galaxies have significant differences from nearby ones:

  • They are more blue in colour
  • They have lower quantities of heavy elements
  • They show higher rates of star formation
  • They are more “lumpy.”

This is exactly what one would expect from the standard Big Bang model.


I have removed the offending statement about AiG being a poor source of information. It was probably bound to be removed by moderators anyway. That is still my opinion. I much prefer being told when a source of information is dicey or when I’m wrong. Even when full information isn’t immediately available. Our library had a program about fake news and the like.

(Larry Bunce) #9

I am not an astrophysicist, but I see a problem in the phrase “nearer and presumably older galaxies.” If a galaxy that is a billion light-years closer to us formed a billion years after the older one, both galaxies would appear to us as being the same age.
It is a bit confusing when we are looking at distant objects as they looked billions of years ago, but AiG likes to throw out misleading assumptions to catch the unwary off guard. It is a waste of time for mainstream scientists to answer questions that can be cleared up in an introductory class for a subject, but AiG will say that mainstream science can’t answer their question if no scientist replies.

(James McKay) #10

There’s no need to remove it altogether. Just give some reasons why you think AiG is a poor source of information, with examples. You could try my critique of their ten best evidences for a young earth for starters.

(Adam Kania) #11

thanks so much man! I’ll be excited to see your response