JWST

[FaithT]

Where it says in the article below, “That is, these early JWST results suggest that the formation of normal galaxy structure was much earlier than previously thought.” Does that mean they think the universe is older or younger than previously thought?




What if the Big Bang never happened? The James Webb Space Telescope might change everything

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Does not make sense at this point. Seems they are finding galaxies that are older than the alleged "big bang." I had a strange feeling that this was going to happen. Of course, everything we see is just light that has been traveling through time and space for billions of years. There is no telling what is really happening. There are probably tons of things we do not know about time, space, and how light behaves.
It is like Bible study. Whenever you find a problem, it is just an opportunity to learn something you did not know before. Just have the courage to admit your current ideas are wrong and the strength to update them with the new discoveries. That is very difficult for some believers to do, and even more so for scientists who have been pushing the big bang at us for decades.

 

[Neogaia777]

Backs up what I have been trying to say all along...

God Bless!

 

[The Barbarian]

Sorry to pop the bubble, but...

No, James Webb Space Telescope Images Do Not Debunk the Big Bang

The JWST provides an intriguing look at the early universe, but it's not yet rewriting fundamental theories of the cosmos.

But with the flurry of preprint papers and popular science articles about the James Webb Space Telescope's first images, old, erroneous claims that the Big Bang never happened at all have been circulating on social media and in the press in recent weeks. One scientist has claimed that the JWST images are inspiring "panic among cosmologists" -- that is, the scientists who study the origins of the universe.

This is simply not true. The JWST has not provided evidence disproving the Big Bang theory, and cosmologists aren't panicking. Why, then, are we seeing viral social media posts and funky headlines that suggest the Big Bang didn't happen at all?

To answer that question, and show why we should be skeptical of claims like this, we need to understand where the idea came from.

It all started with an article at The Institute of Art and Ideas, a British philosophical organization, on Aug. 11. The piece was written by Eric Lerner, who has long argued against the Big Big theory. He even wrote a book titled The Big Bang Never Happened in 1991.

This provocatively headlined article at IAI is also related to an upcoming debate Lerner is participating in, run by the IAI, dubbed "Cosmology and the Big Bust."
...
One of the chief reasons the Big Bang theory stands up is because of the cosmic microwave background. This was discovered in 1964. In short, the CMB is the radiation leftover from the Big Bang, right when the universe began and scientists have been able to "see" it with satellites that can detect that lingering radiation.
No, James Webb Space Telescope Images Do Not Debunk the Big Bang

There's a pretty good you tube video here:
SYeUkVqDZjA

 

[FaithT]

Sorry to pop the bubble, but...

No, James Webb Space Telescope Images Do Not Debunk the Big Bang

The JWST provides an intriguing look at the early universe, but it's not yet rewriting fundamental theories of the cosmos.

But with the flurry of preprint papers and popular science articles about the James Webb Space Telescope's first images, old, erroneous claims that the Big Bang never happened at all have been circulating on social media and in the press in recent weeks. One scientist has claimed that the JWST images are inspiring "panic among cosmologists" -- that is, the scientists who study the origins of the universe.

This is simply not true. The JWST has not provided evidence disproving the Big Bang theory, and cosmologists aren't panicking. Why, then, are we seeing viral social media posts and funky headlines that suggest the Big Bang didn't happen at all?

To answer that question, and show why we should be skeptical of claims like this, we need to understand where the idea came from.

It all started with an article at The Institute of Art and Ideas, a British philosophical organization, on Aug. 11. The piece was written by Eric Lerner, who has long argued against the Big Big theory. He even wrote a book titled The Big Bang Never Happened in 1991.

This provocatively headlined article at IAI is also related to an upcoming debate Lerner is participating in, run by the IAI, dubbed "Cosmology and the Big Bust."
...
One of the chief reasons the Big Bang theory stands up is because of the cosmic microwave background. This was discovered in 1964. In short, the CMB is the radiation leftover from the Big Bang, right when the universe began and scientists have been able to "see" it with satellites that can detect that lingering radiation.
No, James Webb Space Telescope Images Do Not Debunk the Big Bang

There's a pretty good you tube video here:
SYeUkVqDZjA

I’ve always thought of the Big Bang as the way God spoke the universe into existence.

 

[The Barbarian]

I’ve always thought of the Big Bang as the way God spoke the universe into existence.

"Let there be light." Yep

 

[FaithT]

"Let there be light." Yep

Apparently my church, Lutheran LCMS thinks otherwise, though I’m a former Catholic.

 

[The Barbarian]

Apparently my church, Lutheran LCMS thinks otherwise, though I’m a former Catholic.

Yeah, the Missouri Synod, unlike almost all other Lutheran denominations, has a doctrinal stance against evolution. I'm told they are under the impression that the Big Bang is part of evolutionary theory, but I haven't seen the documents.

 

[FaithT]

Yeah, the Missouri Synod, unlike almost all other Lutheran denominations, has a doctrinal stance against evolution. I'm told they are under the impression that the Big Bang is part of evolutionary theory, but I haven't seen the documents.

we’re free to not believe it, though, and my pastor knows that I believe in an old earth and is fine with it.

 

[Halbhh]

Where it says in the article below, “That is, these early JWST results suggest that the formation of normal galaxy structure was much earlier than previously thought.” Does that mean they think the universe is older or younger than previously thought?




What if the Big Bang never happened? The James Webb Space Telescope might change everything

Neither, yet. Rather for now the initial finding (still being confirmed) is only that galaxies look like they formed earlier than had been thought: for now its looking like large galaxies may have already existed when the Universe was only a mere ~ 200-250 million years old, compared to a previous view that would be at a later time closer to 400m years on. So its quite a change in view of how soon galaxies formed after the Universe came into existence.

That will be quite a change. . Its a fun time, very interesting!

 

[The Barbarian]

we’re free to not believe it, though, and my pastor knows that I believe in an old earth and is fine with it.

I have a friend who is very scientifically minded and he's a Southern Baptist. They don't have a doctrinal statement on evolution, but in his church, they're constantly talking it down. He says he just keeps quiet to keep the peace and that's O.K.

 

[FaithT]

The Bible FAQs

• What is the LCMS’ position regarding the age of the earth?
• Do animals go to heaven?
• Are Bible stories true?
• Is there a translation the LCMS prefers?
• Is the Bible inerrant?
• Is there a connection between the antichrist and the pope?

Return to main menu



800-325-3040 or www.cph.org) and asking for stock no. 12-3004.

 

[The Barbarian]

"While I see no reason for or indication of the fact that the account regarding Jonah as well as many other accounts of incidents in the Old Testament are not to be taken literally, it is perhaps best to concentrate on the purpose of the recording of these accounts.

In the case of Jonah, it is clear God was intending to point out that He is a God of grace and mercy who will forgive and spare those who turn to Him and that He is the Lord and Deliverer not only of the Jews but also of the Gentiles."

Seems like a very sensible approach.

 

[Halbhh]

...

• What is the LCMS’ position regarding the age of the earth?

That was interesting. They don't say it at the top, but basically the view they end up offering is an Old Earth combined with literalistic days of creation -- one of the several Old Earth variations. So, the LCMS view of at least this site is not exactly what I expected.

"At the same time, the Synod firmly believes there can be no actual contradiction between genuine scientific truth and the Bible. When it comes to the issue of the age of the earth, several possibilities exist for "harmonizing" Biblical teachings with scientific studies (e.g., God created the world in an already "mature" state so scientific "data" leads one to the conclusion that it is older than it actually is, etc.)."

It's not an exaggeration to say there are very many creation theories.

It would be encouraging to see everyone honestly admitting their theories about creation -- YEC for example -- are only a theory.

Admitting your own view is only a theory, or at least avoiding saying your theory is the only honest interpretation of 'God's word' when in fact the Word of God doesn't say how old the Earth is -- following the good example here from the LCMS: "The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod does not have an official position on the precise "age of the earth," since the Bible itself does not tell us how old the earth is." -- that admitting the truth about your theory only being a theory would be a good indication of honesty and humbleness, both of which are unconditionally required of us, we read in scripture.

 

[FaithT]

That was interesting. They don't say it at the top, but basically the view they end up offering is an Old Earth combined with literalistic days of creation -- one of the several Old Earth variations. So, the LCMS view of at least this site is not exactly what I expected.

"At the same time, the Synod firmly believes there can be no actual contradiction between genuine scientific truth and the Bible. When it comes to the issue of the age of the earth, several possibilities exist for "harmonizing" Biblical teachings with scientific studies (e.g., God created the world in an already "mature" state so scientific "data" leads one to the conclusion that it is older than it actually is, etc.)."

It's not an exaggeration to say there are very many creation theories.

It would be encouraging to see everyone honestly admitting their theories about creation -- YEC for example -- are only a theory.

Admitting your own view is only a theory, or at least avoiding saying your theory is the only honest interpretation of 'God's word' when in fact the Word of God doesn't say how old the Earth is -- following the good example here from the LCMS: "The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod does not have an official position on the precise "age of the earth," since the Bible itself does not tell us how old the earth is." -- that admitting the truth about your theory only being a theory would be a good indication of honesty and humbleness, both of which are unconditionally required of us, we read in scripture.

Well, if there’s anything I’ve learned from Christian forums and my pastor, is this: they are theories.

 

[Neogaia777]

What if the Big Bang never happened? The James Webb Space Telescope might change everything

If we are intellectually honest, we have to say there is absilutely no evidence for the big bang at this point, when there maybe should be evidence for it at this point, and that there are a lot of problems associated with there being not a lot of evidence for it at this point, etc...

I've come to think some people won't change it due to their maybe not being able to see it or conceive of it any other way, etc...

The age of the universe could possibly be correct though, but sometimes I call that into question as well, etc...

God Bless!

 

[The Barbarian]

If we are intellectually honest, we have to say there is absilutely no evidence for the big bang at this point

Except for the evidence already in place. Most compelling is the predicted microwave background remaining from the Big Bang, accidentally discovered by two Bell Lab engineers. Theories are considered confirmed when their predictions turn out to be correct. If we are intellectually honest, we have to say that the theory is well-established until someone can show a plausible alternative for all that evidence. Would you like to learn about other evidence for the Big Bang?

I've come to think some people won't accept the evidence for it due to their maybe not being able to accept anything that doesn't fit their personal religious convictions.

 

[The Barbarian]

Well, if there’s anything I’ve learned from Christian forums and my pastor, is this: they are theories.

Some of them are theories. It takes a lot of evidence and confirmed predictions before an idea can be qualified as a theory. "Theory" is as strong as it gets in science. Which may seem odd, because uneducated people often think of "theory" as something like "an educated guess." And that better fits a hypothesis or a law than a confirmed theory. Laws are weaker things than theories because while laws predict things, theories predict and explain them.

For example, Kepler's laws predict how planets move around the Sun, while Newton's theory of gravitation not only predicts that movement, it explains why it happens, and thereby makes it useful for navigating spacecraft and understanding apples falling from trees.

 

[Neogaia777]

Some of them are theories. It takes a lot of evidence and confirmed predictions before an idea can be qualified as a theory. "Theory" is as strong as it gets in science. Which may seem odd, because uneducated people often think of "theory" as something like "an educated guess." And that better fits a hypothesis or a law than a confirmed theory. Laws are weaker things than theories because while laws predict things, theories predict and explain them.

For example, Kepler's laws predict how planets move around the Sun, while Newton's theory of gravitation not only predicts that movement, it explains why it happens, and thereby makes it useful for navigating spacecraft and understanding apples falling from trees.

A theory can also just be a plausible idea for awhile, etc, and it only has to suggest something, etc, and in fact, most of them do start out that way, etc...

God Bless!

 

[The Barbarian]

A theory can also just be a plausible idea for awhile, etc, and it only has to suggest something, etc, and in fact, most of them do start out that way, etc...

You're describing a hypothesis, not a theory. To become a confirmed theory, a hypothesis must make testable predictions, which must then be verified.

My experience is people are sitting around in the break room, and someone says "the oddest thing happened today..." And people start saying "well did you check...?" or "Maybe it's..." And eventually, someone tries to see. If one of those ideas is confirmed by evidence, someone writes a paper and it's on its way to being a theory. Next step is for other scientists to see if they can duplicate the results. If they can, then they write papers, and eventually after a lot of confirmations, scientists conclude that the idea is right. And that's what a theory is.

In science, that is. I've been told that lawyers use the term as "not confirmed but what I'd like it to be." But if you do science, you should use scientific terms.