Has the James Web finally killed the big bang theory?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Has the James Web finally killed the big bang theory?

Post #1

Post by EarthScienceguy »

The James Web space telescope has recently discovered 6 smooth, large and old galaxies which are said to be 300 million years after the big bang. The big bang theory says that this is not possible.

What theory will materialists go to next?

Is the James Web confirming that God created the Universe?

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Has the James Web finally killed the big bang theory?

Post #2

Post by Miles »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 11:20 am The James Web space telescope has recently discovered 6 smooth, large and old galaxies which are said to be 300 million years after the big bang. The big bang theory says that this is not possible.

What theory will materialists go to next?
Why would they need to go to a new theory when all it may take is making a small adjustment to their present theory, like moving the 6 in the equation to the tenths place?

Is the James Web confirming that God created the Universe?
Yes it is because I remember reading:

Limitations 1:23
God's creation of the universe will be confirmed when six massive galaxies are found. Galaxies so ancient they fly in the face of current theory..... Praise Jesus.

.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Has the James Web finally killed the big bang theory?

Post #3

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Miles in post #2]
Why would they need to go to a new theory when all it may take is making a small adjustment to their present theory, like moving the 6 in the equation to the tenths place?
What equation would that be?
  • The Pennsylvania State University's Joel Leja, who took part in the study, calls them "universe breakers."

    "The revelation that massive galaxy formation began extremely early in the history of the universe upends what many of us had thought was settled science," Leja said in a statement. "It turns out we found something so unexpected it actually creates problems for science. It calls the whole picture of early galaxy formation into question." https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/11587938 ... s-big-bang
Is the James Web confirming that God created the Universe?
Yes it is because I remember reading:

Limitations 1:23
God's creation of the universe will be confirmed when six massive galaxies are found. Galaxies so ancient they fly in the face of current theory..... Praise Jesus.
Well, I do not remember a book called "Limitations". But I do know Genesis 1:14-19

"And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day."

So as far back as we can see we see old, mature galaxies. Just like the Bible predicts. Creationists have also said what the JWT discovered would be found.
When atheists are clearly answered and they run away because they have lost, then they claim they were never answered, are they liars?
by AquinasForGod

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Has the James Web finally killed the big bang theory?

Post #4

Post by Miles »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Thu May 18, 2023 11:15 am
Limitations 1:23
God's creation of the universe will be confirmed when six massive galaxies are found. Galaxies so ancient they fly in the face of current theory..... Praise Jesus.
Well, I do not remember a book called "Limitations". But I do know Genesis 1:14-19

"And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day."
But what about Genesis 1:3-5 where god had already created light?

Genesis1:3-5
3 Then God said, “Let there be light!” And light began to shine. 4 He saw the light, and he knew that it was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God named the light “day,” and he named the darkness “night.”

If he's naming the light “day,” and the darkness “night" then it's already a done deal. Right? And Genesis 1:14-19 is merely a tiresome redundency.

So as far back as we can see we see old, mature galaxies. Just like the Bible predicts.
Hmm. Didn't see any mention of galaxies at all. Exactly where in the bible does it predict them?

Creationists have also said what the JWT discovered would be found.
Why should anyone care what creationists say?

.

User avatar
boatsnguitars
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
Has thanked: 477 times
Been thanked: 580 times

Re: Has the James Web finally killed the big bang theory?

Post #5

Post by boatsnguitars »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 11:20 am The James Web space telescope has recently discovered 6 smooth, large and old galaxies which are said to be 300 million years after the big bang. The big bang theory says that this is not possible.

What theory will materialists go to next?

Is the James Web confirming that God created the Universe?
Well, considering you didn't believe the science before, I suppose you can continue to not believe it now.
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm

User avatar
boatsnguitars
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
Has thanked: 477 times
Been thanked: 580 times

Re: Has the James Web finally killed the big bang theory?

Post #6

Post by boatsnguitars »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 11:20 am The James Web space telescope has recently discovered 6 smooth, large and old galaxies which are said to be 300 million years after the big bang. The big bang theory says that this is not possible.

What theory will materialists go to next?

Is the James Web confirming that God created the Universe?
BTW, the next time "EarthScienceguy" posts anything about science, understand his bias. He's most likely trolling.
The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has not disproved the Big Bang, despite an article about a pseudoscientific theory that went viral in August, and which mischaracterized quotes from an astrophysicist to create a false narrative that the Big Bang didn't happen.

Although the James Webb Space Telescope has only been conducting science operations for a few months, it has already made some iconic discoveries, including the detection of what could be some of the earliest galaxies ever seen, that existed just 200 million years after the Big Bang. Although issues with calibrating the instruments might mean that some of these galaxies are not as distant as first thought, JWST has almost certainly broken the record with some of them.

"JWST is designed to find the very earliest galaxies in the universe," Allison Kirkpatrick, an astrophysicist at the University of Kansas, told Space.com. "One of the things that it found is that those galaxies are possibly more massive than we thought they would be, while another surprising thing is that it revealed that these galaxies have a lot of structure, and we didn't think galaxies were this well organized so early in the universe."

Cosmology's standard model describes how the first galaxies were formed through a hierarchical process, involving small clouds of gas and clusters of stars coming together to form larger nascent galaxies. That these early galaxies seem a little more evolved than expected in JWST's observations is an intriguing astrophysical puzzle that confounds current models of galaxy growth.

Nature wrote a piece on the research on July 27, in which Kirkpatrick said: "Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning, wondering if everything I've ever done is wrong." It's this quote that was later misused.

"It was a good quote!" Kirkpatrick said. "I try to be a pretty forthright person, and I meant what I said — that everything I had learned about the first galaxies based on previous telescopic data probably wasn't the complete picture, and now we have more data so we can refine our theories."

Disinformation strikes
Kirkpatrick went back to her research and forgot about her quote. That was, until mid-August, when she received a text from a friend saying that there was an article — originally published by an organization called the Institute of Art and Ideas but now being republished on mainstream news sites — saying that JWST's observations of distant galaxies had disproved the Big Bang, which is not correct.

Worse still, the article had taken what Kirkpatrick had told Nature and misused it out of context to give the false impression that astrophysicists were panicking over the thought of the Big Bang theory being wrong.

The author of the article, an independent researcher named Eric Lerner, has been a serial denier of the Big Bang since the late 1980s, preferring his personal pseudoscientific alternative.

"I saw it and thought 'This is horrible, but it's also nonsense, nobody is going to read this,'" Kirkpatrick said. "The next thing I know, everybody has read it!"

Things started to take a stressful turn for Kirkpatrick. Though her immediate friends and colleagues knew her well enough to know that she had been misquoted, more distant acquaintances started getting in touch, asking if she'd really said it and even questioning her sanity. Then came the emails, dozens cluttering her inbox, from various people who had read the article and believed it. People even called her phone.

"I didn't reach out to anybody, I didn't want to engage," she said. "It upset me because there are a lot of people very interested in science, but who don't have the background to distinguish fact from fiction, and they read something like this and think it's true."

Secrets of science denialism
None of this is surprising to Lee McIntyre, a philosopher of science at Boston University and author of the book How to Talk to a Science Denier (MIT Press, 2021).

McIntyre is keen to point out the difference between people who deliberately peddle anti-science narratives and people who get sucked into believing it because they don't know any better. While researching his book, McIntyre spent several days at a flat-Earth convention talking to believers and came away with a better understanding of the methods science deniers use regardless of the topic at hand.

6 WAYS TO AVOID FALLING VICTIM TO SCIENCE DENIERS:
1. Check the source — is it from a reputable source such as a peer-reviewed journal or a mainstream news site?
2. Qualifications — is the writer with a university or reputable institution, or are they an 'independent researcher' with no accreditation?
3. Who else agrees — can you find other accredited experts from mainstream institutions who are in agreement, or at least provide some validity?
4. References — has the writer done their research and cited other credible research to support their results?
5. Follow the logic — are they just cherrypicking evidence, leaving things out to suit their narrative?
6. Become an expert — if all else fails, and you're still not sure, then do a bit of open-minded reading on the subject to make sure you're not being misled.

"The first step in science denial is cherrypicking evidence," McIntyre told Space.com. "Number 2 is that they lie about conspiracy theories. Number 3 is they engage in illogical reasoning. Number 4 is they rely on fake experts and denigrate real experts. And number 5, they insist that science has to be perfect in order to be credible."

McIntyre said that the tactics employed in Lerner's article are classic misdirections used by science deniers. For example, Lerner uses logical fallacies, such as implying that in the Big Bang model more distant galaxies should look larger because in an expanding universe their light should have left when they were closer to us. This premise makes absolutely no sense — these were the farthest galaxies when their light left them, and they're still the farthest galaxies now, so they shouldn't appear any bigger with distance.

He also cherrypicks data, for example completely ignoring other evidence for the Big Bang such as the cosmic microwave background, which is leftover heat from the event. He over-blows real data, suggesting that the unexpected characteristics of these early galaxies is not just a massive problem for models of galaxy formation, but, he writes, rules out the entirety of cosmology. And he denigrates real scientists by knowingly misusing their words against them and claiming that there is a conspiracy among "government-funded committees" to stamp out any heretical ideas that dare question the Big Bang.

Science denial is a growing problem. While science denial has existed for as long as science, in recent years it seems to have grown more pervasive, perhaps encouraged by social media. And although somebody choosing not to believe in the Big Bang won't cause society to unravel, other examples of science denial are not so benign: not believing in vaccines, for example, saw millions of people around the world die unnecessarily from COVID-19, while climate denial has stymied efforts to bring in legislation to combat the planet's rising global temperatures.

"Science denial has gotten worse because it's now more of a threat to the wellbeing of our society," McIntyre said. "Denialism costs lives."

Kirkpatrick echoes McIntyre's line of thinking. "In this case, it's pretty benign if someone thinks the Big Bang didn't happen, but you see the same kind of thing with things that really matter, such as COVID vaccines and climate change," she said. "If we start getting all these conspiracy theories in astronomy, if people are willing to believe those, does it make them more willing to believe other conspiracy theories?"

Victims of a lie
Getting through to science deniers is difficult, admits McIntyre, because their instinct is to distrust what they are being told by experts or authority figures. It's tempting for scientists to not respond to them and hope they will go away, but McIntyre suggests that this is a mistake: they don't go away.

"If we ignore it, that's one of the worst things we can do, because if we don't engage and refute, they are just going to recruit more believers and it can get out of hand," McIntyre said. If you want to win science deniers over, however, you first need to get them to trust you, which is really difficult.

"The only people who have ever changed their mind, that I know about, did so because somebody they trusted took the time, with as much love and empathy as possible, to get them to realize that they were mistaken," McIntyre said. "It requires the realization that most science deniers are victims. I'm not talking about the Eric Lerners of the world, I'm talking about the people who believe him."

Astronomers do have a head start over many other scientists because public outreach is a huge part of an astronomer's work and amazing images such as those taken by JWST reliably wow people. Astronomers are able to engage with the public and put a human face to the science in a way that is more difficult for researchers in some other scientific fields.

"While there has been a definite erosion of trust in science, in astronomy we do take public outreach seriously, and as a result I think astronomers are still some of the more trusted scientists," Kirkpatrick said.

The Big Bang definitely happened
In the meantime, astronomers continue to learn more about the early universe with the fantastic data coming down from JWST.

The irony is that JWST's observations are actually supporting the Big Bang model, showing that the first galaxies were smaller and grew larger over time, just as Big Bang cosmology predicts. The surprising finding that galaxies in the early universe are more plentiful, and a little more massive and structured than expected, doesn't mean that the Big Bang is wrong. It just means that some of the cosmology that follows the Big Bang requires a little bit of tweaking.

And that's the fun of science. Despite the arguments from Lerner and other science deniers, science is never clean-cut; we're always learning, always improving our theories, and there is no shadowy conspiracy trying to stamp out independent thought. More than anything, science is based on observation and evidence, which the Big Bang has in bucketloads.

That's not to say people shouldn't be allowed to question things, but intelligent questioning is done in a framework of open-mindedness without pre-conceived ideologies, where beliefs are forged by evidence, rather than the other way around. That's exactly how the Big Bang theory was conceived nearly a century ago: by following the (then surprising) evidence that the universe is expanding, working out what this might logically mean, and then testing it on predictions such as the existence of the CMB radiation.

So, the next time you read someone saying that the Big Bang didn't happen, or that the Earth is flat, or that climate change isn't happening, don't take for granted what they're saying. Politely ask them for their evidence and hold it to the highest standards, just like a scientist would.
https://www.space.com/james-webb-space- ... nce-denial

Remember, religious zealots and science deniers aren't trying to prove their case, they're only trying to into throw question everyone else's. They have no clue, they aren't educated on the matter, they don't care about the truth - they only want to force their uneducated opinion into the discussion as if it has a place at the table.
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm

User avatar
boatsnguitars
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
Has thanked: 477 times
Been thanked: 580 times

Re: Has the James Web finally killed the big bang theory?

Post #7

Post by boatsnguitars »

6 WAYS TO AVOID FALLING VICTIM TO SCIENCE DENIERS:
1. Check the source — is it from a reputable source such as a peer-reviewed journal or a mainstream news site?
2. Qualifications — is the writer with a university or reputable institution, or are they an 'independent researcher' with no accreditation?
3. Who else agrees — can you find other accredited experts from mainstream institutions who are in agreement, or at least provide some validity?
4. References — has the writer done their research and cited other credible research to support their results?
5. Follow the logic — are they just cherrypicking evidence, leaving things out to suit their narrative?
6. Become an expert — if all else fails, and you're still not sure, then do a bit of open-minded reading on the subject to make sure you're not being misled.
This is a good list. Reminds me of a post I made ages ago about "What Makes a Good Explanation."

Specifically addressing #3, the Science Deniers would have you believe that if credible experts aren't agreeing, it means the experts are part of a conspiracy to hide the info.
This is the crazy world the Science Deniers live in. They can't accept they're wrong - they "know" they are right and the scientists are evil (largely due to the Science Deniers psychological propensity to believe garbage).
They really have nothing to add to the world. Like I said, they don't offer support for their own position, nor do they actually try to understand the real science. It's all trolling and lolz for them.
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Has the James Web finally killed the big bang theory?

Post #8

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Miles in post #4]
So as far back as we can see we see old, mature galaxies. Just like the Bible predicts.
Hmm. Didn't see any mention of galaxies at all. Exactly where in the bible does it predict them?
Your right it just mentions luminaries. Lights in the heavens. God made all of the lights that you see in the expansion of the heavens. So that would include not only galaxies but everything else.
Creationists have also said what the JWT discovered would be found.
Why should anyone care what creationists say?
Because that is called a prediction and it is successful predictions that indicate the strength of a theory.
When atheists are clearly answered and they run away because they have lost, then they claim they were never answered, are they liars?
by AquinasForGod

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Has the James Web finally killed the big bang theory?

Post #9

Post by Purple Knight »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 11:20 am The James Web space telescope has recently discovered 6 smooth, large and old galaxies which are said to be 300 million years after the big bang. The big bang theory says that this is not possible.

What theory will materialists go to next?

Is the James Web confirming that God created the Universe?
If you believe in god, these theories have nothing to do with whether god did it or not; they're about how. If a god created the universe, it's not an excuse to simply cease wondering about how he did it, or what existed at the very beginning of creation, at the first moment we can understand. If you like the Big Bang theory, you can just map that to "there was light."

The Big Bang, therefore not god... is not really a great argument, especially since, by that theory, we can't understand what happened just before it. It's like saying that we understand how a tree works, therefore god can't have created it. Let's say a powerful god can make a car. Will he always make a car we can't explain without the supernatural? I think a powerful and thoughtful god is more interested in making a working universe that doesn't require him to keep pedaling.

By the same token, if there are holes in the Big Bang theory, it doesn't mean there definitely is a god, anymore than it being true means there definitely isn't.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Has the James Web finally killed the big bang theory?

Post #10

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #6]
So, the next time you read someone saying that the Big Bang didn't happen, or that climate change isn't happening, don't take for granted what they're saying. Politely ask them for their evidence and hold it to the highest standards, just like a scientist would.
Ok, let's try this again. My evidence is that there was discovered 6 huge old galaxies 300 million years according to deep time theory from the big bang. Big Bang cosmology cannot explain these galaxies. The Big Bang theory predicts that population III stars should be just starting to form, it also predicts that we should see no heavy elements and these galaxies should not be smooth. None of which we have observed. That would mean the falsification of a theory. This is but one of the problems with the big bang theory.


  • Eric Lerner: Saying that the Big Bang theory is a well-confirmed theory is very much like saying that the emperor’s clothes are beautiful. It’s something that lots of people agree on because ultimately their jobs and income depend on it. But it’s not something that’s backed up by scientific evidence.

    Whenever and wherever you look at what the Big Bang hypothesis predicts, and you compare with observations, then in almost every single case you get a mass of contradictions.

    This theory – despite its widespread support in the cosmology community – is like Swiss cheese, full of holes. And yet the response of the cosmology community as a whole is to say, “Each of these cases is an individual anomaly. Yeah, we’re still working on it, but, you know, look at all the other things that the theory gets right.”

    In the paper that I’ve just submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, we look at 18 large, independent data sets of observations, and in 17 of these, the predictions of the Big Bang theory are clearly contradicted by the data.

    JT: Could you name some?

    EL: For example, the universe contains objects that are 10 times older than when the Big Bang was supposed to have happened.

    The Big Bang’s predictions of the distribution of the light elements in the Universe are completely wrong – orders of magnitude wrong.

    Example of contradictions to the Big Bang theory: The abundance of the light element lithium plotted against iron abundance in parts per billion for the 26 known stars with the least contamination from earlier stars. The Big Bang-predicted range of values is shown by the red solid lines, a factor of 20 too high compared with observed values.

    The evidence against dark matter, whose existence is postulated by Big Bang theory, is overwhelming.

    The Big Bang theory’s predictions concerning the cosmic microwave background have multiple contradictions, as do the theory’s predictions concerning so-called inflation and dark energy.

    In each case, observations are based on many papers, published by many different groups of researchers in leading peer-reviewed journals over a period of years – or even decades.

    One of the most damning cases of false predictions by the Big Bang theory concerns the brightness of galaxies. Newer research tested one of the striking predictions of the Big Bang theory: namely that ordinary geometry does not work at great distances.

    In the space around us, on Earth, in the solar system and the Milky Way, as similar objects get farther away, they look fainter and smaller. Their surface brightness, to use a technical term– the ratio of their apparent brightness to their apparent area – remains a constant.

    In contrast, the Big Bang theory tells us that in an expanding universe objects actually should appear fainter but bigger. In addition, the light would be stretched as the universe expanded, further dimming the light. So, in an expanding universe the most distant galaxies should have hundreds of times less surface brightness than similar nearby galaxies, making them actually undetectable with present-day telescopes.

    But that is not what observations show. Researchers have carefully compared the size and brightness of about a thousand nearby and extremely distant galaxies. Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that the surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical, just as one would expect with no expansion. https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/ar ... r-happened
Do you have an article that actually addresses the evidence?
When atheists are clearly answered and they run away because they have lost, then they claim they were never answered, are they liars?
by AquinasForGod

Post Reply