James Webb challenge to existing models

[mindlight]

What authorities are those?
How do they "prove," things?

Science does percents, not proof. Probabilities.

Something demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt
leaves you only with unreasonable doubt.

The world is spherical and orbits the sun. Australia exists and when I flick the switch, the electric light comes on. Some things are real and some things, like the origins of life on earth or the beginnings of the universe, are not accessible to the scientific method. The James Webb telescope produces amazing pictures about which we can only say so much. Grand cosmological models and the theories about the evolution of galaxies are less about facts that a fantastic light show that testifies to the glory of God.

 

[Astrid]

The world is spherical and orbits the sun. Australia exists and when I flick the switch, the electric light comes on. Some things are real and some things, like the origins of life on earth or the beginnings of the universe, are not accessible to the scientific method. The James Webb telescope produces amazing pictures about which we can only say so much. Grand cosmological models and the theories about the evolution of galaxies are less about facts that a fantastic light show that testifies to the glory of God.

Guess you didn't understand what I said.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The world is spherical and orbits the sun. Australia exists and when I flick the switch, the electric light comes on. Some things are real and some things, like the origins of life on earth or the beginnings of the universe, are not accessible to the scientific method. The James Webb telescope produces amazing pictures about which we can only say so much. Grand cosmological models and the theories about the evolution of galaxies are less about facts that a fantastic light show that testifies to the glory of God.

Those fantastic things you dismiss are either well supported by data or this is exactly the data being sought to clear up any confusion.

 

[mindlight]

What speculations are we talking of here?

In this context, we know that redshift means stuff is moving away from us. We can see clusters of lights far away that look very much like stars and even seem to obey the rules we can demonstrate in our own solar system and we can even make out some descriptive details. We can hear a background echo of some great cosmic event. We can play with fabulously complex mathematical models based on assumptions we can prove in our own environments. But the Big Bang, the dating of the universe, the cosmological model, and theories about the evolution of the universe are just rationally consistent speculative models. We have no way of proving them and the James Webb telescope does not bring us any nearer, it just shows how marvelously beautiful and wonderful God's creation is and it raises a few more doubts and questions.

 

[Halbhh]

In this context, we know that redshift means stuff is moving away from us. We can see clusters of lights far away that look very much like stars and even seem to obey the rules we can demonstrate in our own solar system and we can even make out some descriptive details. We can hear a background echo of some great cosmic event. We can play with fabulously complex mathematical models based on assumptions we can prove in our own environments. But the Big Bang, the dating of the universe, the cosmological model, and theories about the evolution of the universe are just rationally consistent speculative models. We have no way of proving them and the James Webb telescope does not bring us any nearer, it just shows how marvelously beautiful and wonderful God's creation is and it raises a few more doubts and questions.

Perhaps it's better to discuss these things with me, in a Christians Only section of the forum, as I have decades of background knowledge in astrophysics/cosmology (and a background in physics), and I won't just merely repeat an ideology or make simplistic arguments, etc., and it might be an interesting discussion.

 

[mindlight]

Perhaps it's better to discuss these things with me, in a Christians Only section of the forum, as I have decades of background knowledge in astrophysics/cosmology (and a background in physics), and I won't just merely repeat an ideology or make simplistic arguments, etc., and it might be an interesting discussion.

The definition and value of science

 

[SelfSim]

One more note about abiogenesis -- it happens if God designed for it to happen. A reasonable Christian guess is that since God made the Universe (all creation) "very good" (Genesis chapter 1)... "31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good." -- that therefore we should not be even slightly surprised if we discover some future day that simple life forms arise out there in the "very good" creation that God made, which is 'very good' for life! After all, it's His work... His chemistry, His physics, right?

Nope .. Chemistry and Physics were developed by humans.

 

[Halbhh]

Nope .. Chemistry and Physics were developed by humans.

Ok, thanks!

A more accurate word is 'discovered'. Regardless of whether it's an old idea for someone or novel epistemology, the laws of physics already exist before we know anything about them, and we can at best only slowly discern those already-existing laws, over time, gradually discovering them.

(We might even be like half way to the end point of having found them all, it's hard to say. Maybe 20%, maybe 70%. Hard to know until we finally get there.)

 

[SelfSim]

A more accurate word is 'discovered'. Regardless of whether it's an old idea for someone or novel epistemology, the laws of physics already exist before we know anything about them, and we can at best only slowly discern those already-existing laws, over time, gradually discovering them.

(We might even be like half way to the end point of having found them all, it's hard to say. Maybe 20%, maybe 70%. Hard to know until we finally get there.)

The 'laws of Physics existing already before we knew about them' is an untestable belief, when viewed from the scientific method perspective.
It is inconsistent, (and thus unwise), to rely on beliefs in direct support of objectively formed arguments.

 

[AV1611VET]

The 'laws of Physics existing already before we knew about them' is an untestable belief, when viewed from the scientific method perspective.
It is inconsistent, (and thus unwise), to rely on beliefs in direct support of objectively formed arguments.

Did the law of gravity exist before Isaac Newton?

 

[SelfSim]

Did the law of gravity exist before Isaac Newton?

No .. Seeing as Newton didn't describe that law, (called 'Newton's law of Universal Gravitation'), before 1687.

 

[sjastro]

In this context, we know that redshift means stuff is moving away from us. We can see clusters of lights far away that look very much like stars and even seem to obey the rules we can demonstrate in our own solar system and we can even make out some descriptive details. We can hear a background echo of some great cosmic event. We can play with fabulously complex mathematical models based on assumptions we can prove in our own environments. But the Big Bang, the dating of the universe, the cosmological model, and theories about the evolution of the universe are just rationally consistent speculative models. We have no way of proving them and the James Webb telescope does not bring us any nearer, it just shows how marvelously beautiful and wonderful God's creation is and it raises a few more doubts and questions.

Let me emphasize yet again as other posters have stated science is not about proof.
Even though we humans weren't around to give a first hand account of the Big Bang or have a near seat view of the distant galaxies JWST is imaging we are resourceful enough to produce falsifiable theories which makes predictions and can be tested.
General relativity and its application to the Big Bang model is actually fairly simple mathematically speaking, the "fabulously complex mathematical models" involve quantum field theories.
Quantum field theories have made significant inroads in our understanding of the very early universe a fraction of a second after the Big Bang.
Why because in the very early history of the universe we surmise it to be very small which puts it in the field of particle physics rather than cosmology and is based on quantum field theories.
We can use particle accelerators to reproduce the ultra high temperatures of the very early universe.

In 1983 particle physicists were finally able to reproduce these temperatures to recombine the electromagnetic and weak forces into the electroweak force.
The electroweak force vanished from the universe nearly 14 billion years ago as the universe cooled down.

​

While this example strictly speaking is not about a theory supported by experiment as it is around the other way to improve our understanding of the early universe.
BB bang cosmology has made many predictions which are supported by observation.
Big Bang - Wikipedia

 

[Halbhh]

Did the law of gravity exist before Isaac Newton?

We could ask just as well:
Did the consistent and independent reality Newton thought of as gravity exist before he discovered some things about it?

Or was it an construction only corresponding to reality some by luck, liable to be shown completely inconsistent with unknown reality at any moment, such as then perhaps we might be unbound from the construction, and who knows, maybe float up at random into the air? (Just being humorous, because the discussion can become boring)

 

[SelfSim]

We could ask just as well:
Did the consistent and independent reality Newton thought of as gravity exist before he discovered some things about it?

Or was it an construction only corresponding to reality some by luck, liable to be shown completely inconsistent with unknown reality at any moment, such as then perhaps we might be unbound from the construction, and who knows, maybe float up at random into the air? (Just being humorous, because the discussion can become boring)

Discussions from questions such as those would also lead to nothing more than pure waffle.

Newton's law is a general physical law derived from empirical observations by what Isaac Newton called inductive reasoning. He assigned the word 'Gravity' the descriptive meaning given in his empirical formula.

Prior to that, the word 'gravity' came from Old French gravité meaning seriousness, thoughtfulness .. and directly from Latin gravitatem (nominative gravitas) meaning weight, heaviness, pressure, from gravis: heavy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Discussions from questions such as those would also lead to nothing more than pure waffle.

Newton's law is a general physical law derived from empirical observations by what Isaac Newton called inductive reasoning. He assigned the word 'Gravity' the descriptive meaning given in his empirical formula.

Prior to that, the word 'gravity' came from Old French gravité meaning seriousness, thoughtfulness .. and directly from Latin gravitatem (nominative gravitas) meaning weight, heaviness, pressure, from gravis: heavy.

So gravity came first, then later came a scientist (or scientists) to quantify gravity into a law -- right?

 

[SelfSim]

So gravity came first, then later came a scientist (or scientists) to quantify gravity into a law -- right?

Well if you meant: 'seriousness, thoughtfulness, weight, heaviness, pressure', (etc), then there's a slight chance I might agree .. but somehow I suspect that's not what you meant .. (groan!)

 

[Astrophile]

The world is spherical and orbits the sun.

The Flat Earth Society denies the first, and 26% of modern Americans deny the second -http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/02/14277058739/1-in-4-americans-think-the-sun-goes-around-the-earth-survey-says. If you reject scientific theories about cosmology and biological evolution, what grounds have you for accepting scientific theories about the shape of the Earth and its orbital motion?

 

[AV1611VET]

Well if you meant: 'seriousness, thoughtfulness, weight, heaviness, pressure', (etc), then there's a slight chance I might agree .. but somehow I suspect that's not what you meant .. (groan!)

As I understand it, gravity is Gm₁m₂/r² -- right?

 

[SelfSim]

As I understand it, gravity is Gm₁m₂/r² -- right?

Why are you asking me what you mean by 'gravity'?

 

[Hans Blaster]

In this context, we know that redshift means stuff is moving away from us.

From the expansion of the Universe.

We can see clusters of lights far away that look very much like stars and even seem to obey the rules we can demonstrate in our own solar system and we can even make out some descriptive details.

Those patchy things are galaxies, not stars. And yes we can see that atomic physics works the same way there as here.

We can hear a background echo of some great cosmic event.

The Cosmic Microwave Background is more of an afterglow than an "echo".

We can play with fabulously complex mathematical models based on assumptions we can prove in our own environments.

The evolution equation for the expansion of the Universe is fairly simple and it fits the data very well.

But the Big Bang, the dating of the universe, the cosmological model, and theories about the evolution of the universe are just rationally consistent speculative models.

No. Not "speculative". Backed by massive piles of data.

We have no way of proving them and the James Webb telescope does not bring us any nearer,

Sure it does bring us closer to knowing. It has already.

"Proof" isn't really the term we use in science. But, we do have lots of things in science that have been demonstrated to the point where there is not any real possibility that they would be overturned by new data. That the Universe is old and expanding is one of those things.

it just shows how marvelously beautiful and wonderful God's creation is and it raises a few more doubts and questions.

It is beautiful and you can think it the product of god if you like. (I don't.) If our new answers didn't raise new questions we hadn't thought of before science wouldn't be any fun now would it.