Another finding that contradicts evolution?

Question

From yahoo.com

"Sometime around the universe's one billionth birthday, the first stars and galaxies began to shine and ionized all of the hydrogen atoms in the universe (or removed an electron from each atom). The quasar's bright light illuminates the hydrogen gas in front of it, which lets astronomers see whether the atoms still have their electrons attached or not, which could help pin down the date of this momentous event.

The quasar might also be able to help astronomers learn about the growth of the first black holes; the black hole powering this quasar is estimated to be about 500 million times the mass of the sun, which is thought to be unusual for an early black hole.

"It is puzzling how such enormous black holes are found so early on in the universe ... because we believe that black holes take a long time to grow," said team member John Hutchings of the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics. "

Your thoughts?

If the first stars were just forming, how could there have already been a black hole?
.

Acid_zebra

If the Big-Bang was real, there is no way the black hole would exist as early as it did. It's impossible by evolutionary standards.

I apparently did not post the enough of the article.
The Entire Article:

The most distant black hole ever found is nearly 13 billion light-years from Earth, astronomers announced today.
ADVERTISEMENT
click here

The Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope spotted the bright burst of light the black hole created as it sucked up nearby gas, heating it and causing it to glow very brightly in what's known as a quasar.

The distance to the quasar, which sits in the constellation Pisces, was determined by measuring the amount of redshift in the lines of the quasar's spectrum, or prism of light. Because light is "redshifted" to longer wavelengths as an object moves away from an observer, the higher the redshift, the further away the object is-and this quasar had quite a large redshift.

"As soon as I saw the spectrum with its booming emission line, I knew this one was a long way away," said team member Chris Willott of the University of Ottawa.

Because the Big Bang is believed to have occurred aroun

Nevermind.
You try to have a conversation and people just bash you.

Answer 1

Creation = the logical choice

Answer 2

First some background: I have taken graduate courses on General Relativity and Cosmology, and worked at NASA on the Einstein observatory one of the early satellite X-Ray Telescopes used to detect black holes. I actually understand the mathematics involved.

If you have enough mass within a region you will form a black hole. In the early universe the density was much higher than it is now. Stars are not needed to form black holes. Just large amounts of mass in a limited region.

Answer 3

This has nothing to do with evolution, so your basic question is totally wrong.


What it does do is question our current model of the cosmos.

I am not a cosmologist, so I do not know all the answers, but I believe that black holes were formed in the big bang so these hyper-massive black holes may be from the birth of the universe.

At worst all it means is that science has to change it's theory of how the universe formed and early life. Science is quite happy to do this in light of new evidence.

What it does not mean is that we should immediately conclude God Did It. And walk away.


My thought is that you are unwilling to think about science and want trite meaningless answers.

Answer 4

Well, since this has nothing at all to do with evolution your question is irrelevant. However, that is an interesting and cool article if you are a fan of astronomy. Black hole formation requires mass to be compressed past the Schwarzschild radius - the early universe was much denser that the current universe so its possible that early stars were much larger and therefore had faster lifecycles - which could have predicated the early formation of black holes - however this is just my layman interpretation of cosmology and I would assume that the real answer is much more complex.

Answer 5

What you're talking about is usually referred to as cosmology, while "evolution" is used to refer to the theory of how living things developed. Using "evolution" to mean science in general is an aggressively ignorant tactic of anti-science fundamentalists.

The fact that there are things that a theory doesn't explain does not invalidate the theory. All theories are incomplete to some extent. It should come as no surprise that our understanding of what went on 13 billion years ago is a little sketchy in places.

Since you have put this in R&S, I guess you mean to imply that religion is superior to science, because religion is willing to pretend it has all the answers. What you actually achieve with questions like this is to reinforce the impression that religious people are willfully ignorant of the nature and aims of science.

Answer 6

Its not impossible, just unlikely. That is why science takes in data, interprets it, and uses the findings to learn from. That is how they know about the origins of the universe and the species, because they are constantly learning and growing in their knowledge and not pinning themselves down to an old book.

Also, do you understand that this finding SUPPORTS the Big Bang theory, and gives us more understanding of it.

The reason you are not able to have a conversation or debate is that you are bringing false arguments and misinformation to the original point. You then make a connection that isn't there to say this has something to do with evolution or that this somehow proves it wrong.

Answer 7

How does this theory - involving astronomy disprove evoloution.

Just because one scientific theory in a totally different field is under question... how and where does evoloution fit into this,

am I missing the point?

The big bang and evolution are two seperate issues... to believe on you do not have to believe the other. What about the steady state theory?

Answer 8

Good grief, if you want to make a point then make it. Rambling incoherently about subjects you obviously have very little knowledge of, is doing you no favors.

The fact that you think cosmology has something to do with proving or disproving the theory of human evolution, is proof enough.

Answer 9

Yep, absolute proof that evolution is baloney. We all know how the universe was actually made. Some Bozo mumbo-jumboed, swung his magic wand, and BINGO there was the whole universe, decillions of decillions of miles of it.

Answer 10

Astrophysics is NOT the same field as evolutionary biology. So I find it amusing that you quote a article about astrophysics trying to attack the theory of evolution.

Answer 11

Black holes form from large amounts of matter. It doesn't have to be a star.