"Two physicists have suggested in a recent New York Times guest
Dr. Adam Frank (University of Rochester) and Dr. Marcelo Gleiser (Dartmouth College) give an overview of three major problems confronting mainstream cosmology—problems which are already well known to well-informed creationists.
In their editorial, Drs. Frank and Gleiser acknowledged that data from the James Webb Space Telescope show that the most distant galaxies seem much too ‘mature’ to be in agreement with Big Bang expectations.
In their editorial, Drs. Frank and Gleiser acknowledged that data from the James Webb Space Telescope show that the most distant galaxies seem much too ‘mature’ to be in agreement with Big Bang expectations.
Big Bang proponents assume that light from the most distant galaxies took many billions of years to reach us.
Given that assumption, we should not be seeing these very distant galaxies as they are now, but as they were more than 13 billion years ago.
Hence, these very distant galaxies should look very ‘immature’ and ‘unevolved.’ Yet these expectations are routinely contradicted. And data from the Webb telescope have greatly exacerbated the problem.
Drs. Frank and Gleiser said the problem is “akin to parents and their children appearing in a story when the grandparents are still children themselves.”
The problem is so severe that one physicist suggested doubling the assumed age of the universe in order to try to solve the problem.
They also pointed out that two different methods of estimating the Hubble constant, one of the most important numbers in cosmology, give contradictory values.
One of the methods uses a Big Bang interpretation of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, so this discrepancy may imply that Big Bang cosmologists are misinterpreting the CMB data.
They noted some of the philosophical baggage accompanying modern inflation theory, like the idea of a multiverse containing infinitely many unobservable universes.
They noted some of the philosophical baggage accompanying modern inflation theory, like the idea of a multiverse containing infinitely many unobservable universes.
Inflation was tacked-on ad hoc to the Big Bang in order to solve serious problems, one of which was the Big Bang’s own version of the ‘distant starlight problem.’ Yet there is zero evidence for inflation, and it has created more problems for Big Bang cosmologists.
Just one year ago, a popular science writer said it was a ‘falsehood’
that data from the James Webb telescope had disproved the Big Bang. One could perhaps quibble over the use of the word ‘disproved,’ as Big Bang cosmologists have been extremely adept over the years at absorbing challenges to their model with ad hoc tack-ons.
Just one year ago, a popular science writer said it was a ‘falsehood’
Big Bang true believers can always add still more parameters to their model so that the Big Bang will never be disproven or falsified, regardless of any data accumulated.
But is that really science?
The same writer who suggested that Big Bang critics were being deceptive also said that the “Big Bang theory is still on solid ground.” This New York Times editorial shows that the Big Bang critics were and are correct: the model is not on solid ground, despite ‘happy talk’ to the contrary.
Christ, not an alleged Big Bang, deserves the credit and glory for the amazing universe in which we live." ICR
Christ, not an alleged Big Bang, deserves the credit and glory for the amazing universe in which we live." ICR
