The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this ‘the winding-up dilemma’, which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same ‘winding-up’ dilemma also applies to other galaxies.
For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the dilemma has been a complex theory called ‘density waves’. The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and lately has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the ‘Whirlpool’ galaxy, M51.
Comets disintegrate too quickly
Not enough mud or salt on the sea floor
The Earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast
Many strata (mountainous area) are too tightly bent
Helium in the wrong places
I can go on, would you like me to?
I agree the winding problem has been known for a long time.
But the spiral density wave theory has NOT been discarded or fallen apart.
The M51 (Whirlpool galaxy) observations you refer to are talking about some discrepancies between theoretical models of the interaction of M51 and it's companion and observation. BUT these models assume M51 was not a spiral before the interaction. This may not be true and some of the latest observations are more in line if M51 was a spiral prior to it's current interaction. Either way this is not a refutation of the density wave theory.
Comet argument - refuted so many times it's become a joke in the astrophysical community
Mud/Salt - stupidity in the extreme - go back to high school!
Magnetic field argument - perhaps the most egregious use of misquotes and data manipulation in the Creationist realm AND that is saying a lot. Why do ancient pottery samples have fields often weaker than today?
Strata too tightly bent? - your kidding right?
Helium in the wrong places? - don't know what you mean here BUT then you probably don't know what you mean either!
Oh, please don't go on - I hate bearing witness to repeated idiocy.
By the way, what are your outstanding qualifications in the scientific realm? What original thoughts and/or research have you done? Treading out a PRATT list does not count.
™ Version 4.2