JWST evidence: Big Bang never happened? (as classically told)

[Mark Quayle]

I recall when Carl Sagan had the courage to speak in a fundamentalists church about the "Big Bang Theory.

After his talk, he took questions which got a little heated.

His final words stuck with me, he said to the effect of; "to me, a God who took billions of years
to create the universe, is more powerful than one who would've made it in just six days."

So even Carl Sagan couldn't see past the notion (or assumption) that time is absolute, and that God must be subject to it in creating?

 

[hedrick]

So even Carl Sagan couldn't see past the notion (or assumption) that time is absolute, and that God must be subject to it in creating?

The comment probably refers to the working out of his plan in time, not to God being limited to time.

 

[BobRyan]

The boundaries of the fully formed universe do seem to have been pushed back by James Webb. Atheists may well be tempted to return to the steady state infinite universe they spoke of before Big Bang theory prevailed although the background echo of some significant cosmic event remains to be explained.

It was always an assumption that we would see partially formed galaxies from moments after the big bang in cosmological time

They still see red shifts even with JWST - and that looks like something is expanding even if it is the space "Between" galaxies and not a movement of the galaxies themselves.

I think their problem is that the galaxies in "old space" are as fully mature as those we see around us which does not fit their view. But the expansion that is observed means that they had a start which evolutionists don't allow since it would take more time than they suppose to have occurred get to that mature state in the early Universe, unless the galaxies were 'created' mature to stat with.

There's the rub..

 

[BobRyan]

His final words stuck with me, he said to the effect of; "to me, a God who took billions of years
to create the universe, is more powerful than one who would've made it in just six days."

The man who builds a 20 story building in 7 days appears to be much more powerful than one who builds it in 200 years. I am amazed that Sagan got so confused on that point. It appears that by that point in his talk in the Q&A his logic had failed to address the hard questions to the point of blatant collapse.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

So even Carl Sagan couldn't see past the notion (or assumption) that time is absolute, and that God must be subject to it in creating?

Not sure how you came up with this based on what I posted.

You'll have to explain it.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The man who builds a 20 story building in 7 days appears to be much more powerful than one who builds it in 200 years. I am amazed that Sagan got so confused on that point. It appears that by that point in his talk in the Q&A his logic had failed to address the hard questions to the point of blatant collapse.

A man can't build a 20 story building in 7 days, never mind create the universe as only God can.

How God did it, is what makes him almighty and all powerful.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Not sure how you came up with this based on what I posted.

You'll have to explain it.

He speaks in only two possibilities: time, and long time. No consideration of the possibility that both are accurate, or that neither are, nor even consideration of something that looks like one or the other or both.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

He speaks in only two possibilities: time, and long time. No consideration of the possibility that both are accurate, or that neither are, nor even consideration of something that looks like one or the other or both.

Sagan wasn't speaking about time in of itself per se, but the belief in a God who would create the universe in billions of years verses the literal interpretation of Genesis as the group he was speaking to do.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Sagan wasn't speaking about time in of itself per se, but the belief in a God who would create the universe in billions of years verses the literal interpretation of Genesis as the group he was speaking to do.

Yes, of course. His comment was rather shortsighted, as though the two possibilities were the only viable options for consideration, and mutually exclusive, is my point.

 

[The Barbarian]

I think their problem is that the galaxies in "old space" are as fully mature as those we see around us which does not fit their view.

Hubble Finds Hundreds of Young Galaxies in Early Universe
NASA - Hubble Finds Hundreds of Young Galaxies in Early Universe

The James Webb Space Telescope has only been watching the sky for a few weeks, and it has already delivered a startling finding: tens, hundreds, maybe even 1000 times more bright galaxies in the early universe than astronomers anticipated.

“No one was expecting anything like this,” says Michael Boylan-Kolchin of the University of Texas, Austin. “Galaxies are exploding out of the woodwork,” says Rachel Somerville of the Flatiron Institute.
Science | AAAS

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Yes, of course. His comment was rather shortsighted, as though the two possibilities were the only viable options for consideration, and mutually exclusive, is my point.

Well, the Big Bang theory is pretty much certain while the literal interpretation of
the creation story in Genesis is not.

 

[JAL]

For many years now I consider myself liberated from humanly incoherent claims whether theological or scientific.

Well, the Big Bang theory is pretty much certain while the literal interpretation of
the creation story in Genesis is not.

Certain? The Big Bang - especially an atheistic version - sounds like an incoherent claim. Expanding into - what? Catalyzed by - what?

I'm certainly open to the possibility that God either exploded or expanded some matter, but I personally wouldn't classify such an event as the beginning of either space or time.

 

[The Barbarian]

Well, the Big Bang theory is pretty much certain while the literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis is not.

It comes down to evidence. Since the Big Bang theory has a good number of confirmed predictions, it is a very solid theory. Ironically it was strongly opposed by some atheists, like the scientist Fred Hoyle, because it implies a moment of creation.

Hoyle originated the term "big bang" to disparage the theory, but it actually made the theory more widespread among non-scientists. Hoyle was a competent scientist; he didn't actually think the theory was about an explosion.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

It comes down to evidence. Since the Big Bang theory has a good number of confirmed predictions, it is a very solid theory. Ironically it was strongly opposed by some atheists, like the scientist Fred Hoyle, because it implies a moment of creation.

Hoyle originated the term "big bang" to disparage the theory, but it actually made the theory more widespread among non-scientists. Hoyle was a competent scientist; he didn't actually think the theory was about an explosion.

The problem for Hoyle is that new galaxies are created all the time as scientists have
observed. Super Nova's explode and new galaxies emerge.

The Big Bang is a theory, so it's not absolute. However, as you state, the evidence
that they have supports the theory.

Back to what I posted, there is more supporting evidence to support the Big Bang Theory than there is to support a literal interpretation of Gensis.

Most rational thinkers see the "creation story," as being allegorical, rather than literal historical fact.

 

[The Barbarian]

Most rational thinkers see the "creation story," as being allegorical, rather than literal historical fact.

Yes, and that's been true for a long time. St. Augustine considered it to be figurative, with the days indicating aspects of creation, not time periods. No one stood up to correct him, as he was perhaps the most respected theologian of his time.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I tend to agree with you there, that is, the notion that the Big Bang is the beginning. Not only is 'existence' itself subject to causation, unless somehow self-existent, above our notions of existence, but IN the Big Bang, as someone said poetically, something like, "the seeds of everything we see now, were planted in the Big Bang." If the Big Bang was even the beginning, there could be no particularity —not even homogeneity would be possible. The very principles of reality could not begin there by mere accident.

 

[The Barbarian]

I tend to agree with you there, that is, the notion that the Big Bang is the beginning. Not only is 'existence' itself subject to causation, unless somehow self-existent, above our notions of existence, but IN the Big Bang, as someone said poetically, something like, "the seeds of everything we see now, were planted in the Big Bang." If the Big Bang was even the beginning, there could be no particularity —not even homogeneity would be possible. The very principles of reality could not begin there by mere accident.

I suppose that Someone said "let there be light."

Notice that God doesn't say that there weren't other things before He made Heaven and Earth. We just don't know. And since the best we can do is consider what happened right after the singularity, we will never know, unless He chooses to tell us.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I suppose that Someone said "let there be light."

Notice that God doesn't say that there weren't other things before He made Heaven and Earth. We just don't know. And since the best we can do is consider what happened right after the singularity, we will never know, unless He chooses to tell us.

With that, I am in full agreement. We just don't know. There's an awful lot we don't know. Thus, the assertion that God depends on our cooperation before he can do what he ordained from the beginning to happen, is (to me) bunk. He is not just on a level above us. He is of a different 'order' of being than we are. HE caused.

 

[The Barbarian]

Thus, the assertion that God depends on our cooperation before he can do what he ordained from the beginning to happen, is (to me) bunk. He is not just on a level above us. He is of a different 'order' of being than we are. HE caused.

Today's winner.

 

[Neogaia777]

https://www.realclearscience.com/2022/08/12/james_webb_data_contradicts_the_big_bang_847610.html

Too many distinct unique Galaxies that are too far away for BB theory?

The August 19,2022 update
Do James Webb Telescope Images Disprove The Big Bang Theory? | Principia Scientific Intl.

"the new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) images of the cosmos are beautifully awe-inspiring.​

​

"But to most professional astronomers and cosmologists, they are also extremely surprising—not at all what was predicted by theory.​

​

"In the flood of technical astronomical papers published online since July 12, the authors report again and again that the images show surprisingly many galaxies, galaxies that are surprisingly smooth, surprisingly small and surprisingly old. Lots of surprises, and not necessarily pleasant ones. One paper’s title begins with the candid exclamation: “Panic!”​

​

"Why do the JWST’s images inspire panic among cosmologists? And what theory’s predictions are they contradicting? The papers don’t actually say.​

​

"The truth that these papers don’t report is that the hypothesis that the JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting is the Big Bang Hypothesis that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since.​

The paper mentioned above as starting off with "Panic!" is this one that finds 10x more than Hubble at that distance.

"Panic! At the Disks: First Rest-frame Optical Observations of Galaxy Structure at z>3 with JWST in the SMACS 0723 Field" July 19,2022

"We discover the surprising result that at z>1.5 disk galaxies dominate the overall fraction of morphologies, with a factor of ∼10 relative higher number of disk galaxies than seen by the Hubble Space Telescope at these redshifts"​

============= the old 1991 "news"
The Big Bang Never Happened - SAND

What is happening to the Big Bang theory these days?

There was no Big Bang…

Science now, just like religion, has now developed an "orthodoxy" now that is now no longer open to even hearing about any kind of changes or newer ideas to any of their long held ideas or theories, etc.

I already figured out what JWST is just now discovering just using logic with what we have now from or as opposed to when the BB was first developed/thought of/conceived or was created and a current picture of the known and observable universe, but I will beat a dead horse no longer, as the current orthodoxy has already proven to me they will never ever be ever open to ever even hearing it ever at all anyway, etc.

God Bless!