Joined: June 2007
Arps observations of quasars being related to other nearby galaxies has essentially been refuted by more detailed redshift surveys and deeper observations, though he continues to stick to his theory, his defenses essentially amount to hand waving. He is not taken seriously in cosmology.
Its not an academic source, but the wikipedia summary isn't too bad, and at least gives a starting point:
|Arp's hypothesis that quasars are local and contain large intrinsic redshifts has never gained any significant support in the astronomy research community. Arp's work is based on a limited number of specific quasar-galaxy associations. Most astronomers believe these associations are simply the result of chance and point to the hundreds of thousands of quasars documented in more recent redshift surveys. These surveys show quasars to be distributed randomly over the sky, rather than associated with radio galaxies. Furthermore, there is now a detailed model of quasars as the ultraluminous cores of active galactic nuclei, effectively the centers of Seyfert galaxies. This model is consistent with the results of more sensitive observations which have been able to resolve host galaxies around quasars with the same redshift as the quasar. The consistency of the standard quasar model with the assumption that all quasars are at cosmological distances leads most astronomers to apply an Ockham's razor conclusion that intrinsic redshifts do not exist.|
Arp still believes that quasars nevertheless have a high intrinsic redshift. To explain the fact that essentially all quasars are associated with host galaxies, he proposes that whatever results in the intrinsic redshift for the quasars also affects the redshift of the galaxy in the same way. He explains the angular size of the host galaxies, which is typical of that expected at cosmological distances, by proposing that the galaxies are ejected with the quasars from active galactic nuclei and only evolve into normal-sized galaxies over time, by a process different from the standard models of galaxy evolution.
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris