Creation Moment 8/2/2025 - State of "Consensus Science"

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,.... 

Romans 1:22

"The headline from Darren at Popular Mechanics (July 2025): “Scientists Found a Black Hole That Shouldn’t Exist. Now Physics Has a Problem.”

According to the standard model of black hole formation, there’s a mass gap—a no-go zone—between about 50 and 120 solar masses. When stars that massive die they explode so violently that they don’t leave behind a black hole, or … so says the theory. And yet there it is, a black hole smack in the middle of the forbidden zone, weighing in at 72 solar masses.

This is a celestial singularity in a mass range that physics says should be impossible. Like the mature galaxies JWST is revealing at red-shifts where they cannot be … theoretical faults are opening up across the scientific spectrum, and the consensus is quaking.

What follows is the predictable flurry of patchwork explanations: maybe it’s a merger of smaller black holes. Maybe the models need tweaking. Maybe pair-instability supernovae don’t behave quite like we thought. The desperation is increasing, but they placed their bets long ago and now … they will double-down.
And yet, despite the headlines and hedging, the logical conclusion following the evidence is almost never spoken aloud: maybe we don’t know what we think we know. Science has wandered far from “scientific skepticism,” from accepting its own ignorance, from allowing the observations to lead the conclusions.

In both the micro and macro realms, the same pattern emerges: the deeper we peer, the more the standard expectations unravel, and not just in the mutable details, but in the underlying assumptions.

Consensus science has never been more technologically capable, and never more epistemologically fragile." 

CEH

Creation Moment 7/10/2025 - COSMOS-Web survey

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth His handywork. Psalm 19:1

"Recently, a team of scientists released data collected from 800,000 galaxies at different distances from Earth, all lying within the same narrow slice of the sky. Conventional scientists believe the data from this COSMOS-Web survey, obtained by the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), will enable them to see how galaxies evolved over time. Yet these data from the COSMOS-Web survey are “challenging” to naturalistic theories of the early universe.

Distant galaxies are billions of light-years away, and Big Bang

astronomers think the universe is 13.8 billion years old. So, not too surprisingly, they assume that light from the most distant galaxies took almost 13.8 billion years to reach Earth. Although this may sound reasonable, creation scientists think this assumption is open to challenge.

In any case, by Big Bang reckoning, we should be seeing these very distant galaxies, not as they are now, but as they were eons ago. Since they assume it took many millions of years for stars and galaxies to form naturally, conventional astronomers were expecting to see very few galaxies in the “early” universe, and they expected that any existing galaxies would appear immature and unevolved. But these expectations continue to be routinely contradicted. University of California Santa Barbara physicist Caitlin Casey, one of the leaders of the COSMOS-Web effort, said,

“It makes sense – the Big Bang happens and things take time to

gravitationally collapse and form, and for stars to turn on. There’s a timescale associated with that....And the big surprise is that with JWST, we see roughly 10 times more galaxies than expected at these incredible distances. We’re also seeing supermassive black holes that are not even visible with Hubble.”

Of course, the Lord Jesus was free to create however many galaxies pleased Him at whatever distances pleased Him. He was certainly under no constraint to create galaxies in accordance with Big Bang expectations. So Biblical creationists should not be surprised that astronomical observations continue to contradict Big Bang theory predictions.

Big Bang problems continue to mount, and even some conventional sources occasionally suggest that the Big Bang is in serious trouble. Despite the futile attempts of some to explain our universe apart from our Creator, the heavens are still a testimony to God’s glory." ICR

Creation Moment 6/17/2025 - The "Big Bang", Ps. 2:4 and the Last Paragraph

He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: Psalm 2:4

"The faint “afterglow” that fills the universe has long been one of the most important clues supporting the Big Bang theory. Known as cosmic microwave background radiation, this ancient light not only serves as a snapshot of the early universe, but also helps scientists understand how the very first galaxies came to be.

Now, a team of researchers from the Universities of Bonn, Prague, and Nanjing is challenging what we thought we knew. 

--Their new calculations suggest that the strength of this background radiation may have been significantly overestimated. 

*If their findings are confirmed, it could force scientists to rethink some of the most fundamental ideas in modern cosmology.

According to the standard model of cosmology, the universe began

13.8 billion years ago with the Big Bang. In the moments that followed, space, time, and matter burst into existence and the universe expanded rapidly. During the first 380,000 years, it also cooled down enough for electrons and protons to combine into neutral hydrogen atoms.
This milestone allowed light to travel freely through space for the first time, since photons were no longer constantly interacting with matter. That moment marked the birth of the cosmic microwave background radiation, the universe’s original light, still detectable today.

“Our calculations indicate that some of the cosmic background
radiation actually originates from the formation of the elliptical galaxies,” says Gjergo. “This accounts for at least 1.4% of the radiation but could even account for all of it.” 

SciTechDaily

Creation Moment 6/4/2025 - Who thought so?

Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. For He spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast. Psalm 33:8,9

"‘Previously unimaginable’: James Webb telescope breaks its own

record again, discovering farthest known galaxy in the universe (Live Science, 29 May 2025). We’ve been watching the records fall on this for years now. The JWST was supposed to save the standard big bang theory. It’s doing the opposite. It’s finding galaxies farther back in time, too young for stars to have coalesced into these systems. 

Q: Can they just speed up star formation to save theory?

"The researchers observed MoM-z14 during a burst of rapid star formation. It’s also rich in nitrogen relative to carbon, much like globular clusters observed in the Milky Way. These ancient, tightly-bound groups of thousands to millions of stars are thought to have formed in the first few billion years of the universe, making them the oldest known stars in the nearby cosmos. That MoM-z14 appears similar could suggest that stars formed in comparable ways even at this very early stage in the universe’s development."

Early barred galaxy raises questions about cosmic evolution (Nature, 21 May 2025). Adding to the cosmological revisionism is this statement by reporter Deanne Fisher: “Observations of a galaxy from an early period of the Universe’s history reveal a bar-shaped structure and gas dynamics thought not to have been possible at that time.” 

Q: Who thought so? Not Biblical creationists, who would expect to see a mature universe from the fourth day of creation." CEH

Creation Moment 5/7/2025 - Q: on Zhúlóng

 Lift up your eyes on high, and behold Who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: He calleth them all by names by the greatness of His might, for that He is strong in power; not one faileth. Isaiah 40:26

"Astronomers using the James Webb Space Telescope have discovered

Zhúlóng, the most distant known spiral galaxy, existing just one billion years after the Big Bang.
Defying expectations, Zhúlóng already sports a mature, Milky Way–like structure, showing that spiral arms and organized galactic forms can arise far earlier than previously believed." 

SciTechDaily

Q: Could it be that it was Created and not "evolved" from a "big bang" thereby not too surprising then to find it---distant or close?

Creation Moment 1/31/2025 -Chicken and Egg PROBLEM for the Big Bang

In the beginning God created the heaven..... Genesis 1:1

"The formation of stars after the alleged big bang is also a huge problem. 

The astronomer, Dr Danny Faulkner, pointed out:
"Stars supposedly condensed out of vast clouds of gas, and it has long

been recognized that the clouds don’t spontaneously collapse and form stars, they need to be pushed somehow to be started. There have been a number of suggestions to get the process started, and almost all of them require having stars to start with [e.g. a shockwave from an exploding star causing compression of a nearby gas cloud]. This is the old chicken and egg problem; it can’t account for the origin of stars in the first place." 

CMI

Creation Moment 1/30/2025 - Big Bang & Genesis at odds: Hence NOT Compatible

God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, 

to see if there were any that did understand, 

that did seek God. 

Psalm 53:2

"The big bang teaches that the sun and many other stars formed before

the earth, while Genesis teaches that they were made on the fourth day after the earth, and only about 6,000 years ago rather than 10–20 billion years ago. 

The big bang also entails millions of years of death, disease, and pain before Adam’s sin, which contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture, which is thus unacceptable to Biblical Christians." 

CMI

Creation Moment 10/25/2024 - ‘S8’ tension exposes their "models" as nonsense

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 

1 Corinthians 3:19

"Given how unfathomably large the universe is, it is perhaps understandable that we haven’t yet cracked all its secrets. But there are actually some pretty basic features, ones we used to think we could explain, that cosmologists are increasingly struggling to make sense of.

Recent measurements of the distribution of matter in the universe (so-called large-scale structure) appear to be in conflict with the predictions of the standard model of cosmology.....But there are more radical solutions. These include rethinking the nature of dark energy (the force causing the universe’s expansion to accelerate), invoking a new force of nature or even tweaking Einstein’s theory of gravity on the largest of scales.

What has changed recently is that our measurements of large-scale

structure, particularly at very late times, have significantly improved in their precision. Various surveys such as the Dark Energy Survey and the Kilo Degree Survey have found evidence for inconsistencies between observations and the standard model.

In other words, there is a mismatch between the early time and late time fluctuations: the late-time fluctuations are not as large as expected. Cosmologists refer to this clash as the “S tension”, as S is a parameter that we use to characterize the clustering of matter in the late-time universe.

Depending on the particular data set, the chance of the tension being a statistical fluke may be as low as 0.3%. But from a statistical point of view, that is not enough to firmly rule out the standard model.
However, there are strong hints of the tension in a variety of independent observations. And attempts to explain it away due to systematic uncertainties in the measurements or modelling have simply not been successful to date.

For example, it had previously been suggested that perhaps energetic non-gravitational processes, such as winds and jets from supermassive black holes, could inject enough energy to alter the clustering of matter on large scales.
However, we have shown using state-of-the-art cosmological hydrodynamical simulations (called Flamingo) that such effects appear to be too small to explain the tension with the standard model of cosmology.

If the tension is indeed pointing us to a flaw in the standard model, this would imply that something in the basic ingredients of the model is not correct.

This would have huge consequences for fundamental physics. For example, the tension may be indicating that something is wrong about our understanding of gravity, or the nature of the unknown substance called dark matter or dark energy. In the case of dark matter, one possibility is that it interacts with itself via an unknown force (something beyond just gravity)." 

ZMEScience

Creation Moment 9/28/2024 - "Redshift" Blues for Big Bangers

"William G. Tifft in 1973: “quantized redshifts.” The big bang theory

was becoming stronger at the time. Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias had detected the cosmic background radiation, the alleged “echo” of the big bang, in 1964. Alternative cosmologies were waning in popularity and the big bang was king. It was rapidly becoming the “standard model” for the origin of the universe. But quantized redshifts threw a monkey wrench into the big bang. If true, they suggested that redshifts were not a function of distance or age.

Tifft claimed to have detected 

--a periodicity to redshift values, 

--rather than a continuum. 

*The big bang predicted a continuum of redshifts due to the expansion of the universe. 

Q: How could they be periodic, like beads on a string? 

It made no sense. A few other astronomers followed up with additional estimates of periodic redshift values, either linear or logarithmic. 

Because Tifft was hanging out with mavericks like Fred Hoyle, J.V. Narlikar, Halton Arp and Geoffrey Burbidge, most cosmologists tended to dismiss the announcement as a mistake based on some flaw in measurements or an anomaly that would be explained later.

This year, more discussion appeared among cosmologists about quantized redshifts, and Phys.org picked up the buzz.

Quantized redshift and challenges to Big Bang hypothesis (23 Sept 2024, Phys.org). This article emerged as a dialog on Science X Network, a location on Phys.org’s parent company “where researchers can report findings from their published research articles.” The published article in this instance was posted August 12 on Cornell’s arXiv preprint server:

Quantized Redshift and its significance for recent observations (12 Aug 2024, arXiv). This preprint by Arindam Mal, Sarbani Palit, Christopher C. Fulton, Sisir Roy was the basis for the Phys.org article by two of the authors, Mal and Roy. The abstract of the paper claims new values of periodicity for quantized redshifts:

"We have observed a fundamental periodicity of 0.051 with a confidence interval of 95% in linear scale with the site-available Sloan Digital Sky Survey data release 7 (SDSS DR7) quasar-galaxy pair data set. We have independently generated quasar-galaxy pair data sets from both 2dF and SDSS and found fundamental periodicities of 0.077 and 0.089 in log scale with a confidence interval of 95%."

Astronomers subscribing to alternative cosmologists claim that

redshifts of quasars (the most luminous objects at great distances) are not functions of expansion of the universe, but rather age effects of quasars being ejected from galactic centers.

The Phys.org article says that observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) have come into the discussion:

"Recent observations by JWST and other telescopes violate the standard cosmology fundamental principle that the universe is on average homogeneous and isotropic. Also violated are standard model predictions about high redshift, high luminosity, metallicity and carbon evolution in the early universe, including the presence of large filament objects, galaxies like the Milky Way and unexpected morphology of objects at both high and low redshift."

Some specific instances are mentioned in the article:

"The recently observed GNz7q is a dusty starburst galaxy from which a luminous quasar is apparently emerging, a situation that is not consistent with the presence of a still young central black hole in a less massive phase at high redshift.

GN-z11 is estimated to be only 70 million years old but appears to be a moderately massive, metal-free, second-generation galaxy. JWST has observed a supermassive black hole at 200 million years after the Big Bang, which raises the question as to how this SMBH formed so quickly just after the birth of the universe. Many other observations raise fundamental questions about the formation and evolution of both galaxies and quasars."

Cosmology in Crisis

Apart from the question of quantized redshifts, recent articles have worried about other anomalies threatening the standard big bang model.

Cosmology is at a tipping point – we may be on the verge of discovering new physics (12 Sept 2024, The Conversation). Andreea Font of Liverpool John Moore University uses the “tipping point” motif to suggest that things could go in opposite directions. Nevertheless, she remains “excited” at the possibility of new physics emerging from the debates.

"For the past few years, a series of controversies have rocked the well-established field of cosmology. In a nutshell, the predictions of the standard model of the universe appear to be at odds with some recent observations."

Study: Early dark energy could resolve cosmology’s two biggest puzzles (12 Sept 2024, MIT News). Jennifer Chu’s use of the phrase “two biggest puzzles” indicates that some major anomalies are not yet resolved. “In the universe’s first billion years, this brief and mysterious force could have produced more bright galaxies than theory predicts.” 

If proposed “early dark energy” could resolve them, that implies it

does not at this time. Nobody knows what dark energy is anyway. Sounds like adding a fudge factor to keep a theory from collapsing. MIT astronomers were sent into scramble mode when JWST kept finding big, bright galaxies too early for comfort. Solution: turn up the perhapsimaybecouldness knob.

"The bright galaxies that JWST saw would be like seeing a clustering of lights around big cities, whereas theory predicts something like the light around more rural settings like Yellowstone National Park,” Shen says. “And we don’t expect that clustering of light so early on.

For physicists, the observations imply that there is either something fundamentally wrong with the physics underlying the models or a missing ingredient in the early universe that scientists have not accounted for. The MIT team explored the possibility of the latter, and whether the missing ingredient might be early dark energy."

Q: So what is early dark energy but a fudge factor? 

A: It’s “a sort of antigravitational force that is turned on only at very early times.” Sounds like the Guth Goof, concocting inflation out of whole cloth to solve one problem by creating others.

Q: After cosmic dark ages, what burned away ubiquitous clouds of gas? 

A: NASA telescope finds surprises (10 Sept 2024, Science Magazine). One must read claims about the big bang with scrutiny. This article, while treating the big bang like established fact, exchanges one problem for its opposite problem.

"During the first billion years after the Big Bang, as the first stars and galaxies switched on and filled the darkness with new light, they also caused another transformation: ionizing the neutral hydrogen gas filling the universe. Until recently, astronomers struggled to explain how it could happen. Ionizing hydrogen requires high-energy ultraviolet (UV) light, and the sparse, fledgling galaxies did not seem up to the task. Now, JWST, NASA’s orbiting infrared observatory, has turned that on its head. It is finding so many bright young galaxies and luminous black holes that there may be an oversupply of UV light."

Combination and summary of ATLAS dark matter searches within 2HDM+a framework (12 Sept 2024, Science China Press via Phys.org). They keep looking but just cannot find the stuff.

"Despite extensive astronomical observations confirming the existence of dark matter, we have limited knowledge about the properties of dark matter particles. From a microscopic perspective, the Standard Model of particle physics, established in the mid-20th century, has been hugely successful and confirmed by numerous experiments.

However, the Standard Model cannot explain the existence of dark matter in the universe, indicating the need for new physics beyond the Standard Model to account for dark matter candidate particles, and the urgent need to find experimental evidence of these candidates."

The crisis in big bang cosmology should be a reminder to Bible believers to trust the Word of God and not build their models on the shifting sands of materialist ideas. Details are hard to resolve sometimes, but we have the big picture from the Eyewitness: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1.” 

CEH

Creation Moment 8/15/2024 - Answer to secular cosmologists "what gives?"

"One of the great mysteries of the universe is why anything exists in the first place.
According to our best understanding of the Big Bang, matter and

antimatter particles should’ve been created in equal measure during those first moments of existence. 

But when these two particles interact, they annihilate each other, leaving behind only energy. Fast forward 13.8 billion years and almost everything is made up of matter—you, me, the screen you’re reading this on, the air you’re breathing, the planet, the Milky Way, ad infinitum.
Q: So... what gives?" 

PopularMechanics

A: Thus saith God the LORD, 

   He that created the heavens, 

   and stretched them out; 

     He that spread forth the earth, 

     and that which cometh out of it; 

       He that giveth breath unto the people upon it, 

       and spirit to them that walk therein: 

Isaiah 42:5

Creation Moment 7/20/2024 - Clumpiness Problem for Big Bang

Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by Myself; Isaiah 44:24

"Yet another, more subtle discrepancy is the universe is far too smooth. The basic problem is “For the past decade, a suite of studies have all found that cosmic structure isn’t clumpy enough.” 

The CMB’s [Cosmic Microwave Background] patchiness reveals how lumpy the primordial Universe was. If the Big Bang theory is correct, those little lumps should have grown into big lumps called galaxy clusters. Yet “we only see half as many big galaxy clusters as predicted.”

The Universe’s birth refers to the time when the theorized Big Bang occurred. The assumption that the radiation broke free of matter refers to when matter cooled to a low enough temperature for electrons to combine with nuclei forming neutral atoms. This combination and the absorption of free electrons, caused the Universe to become transparent. Before this time, according to Big Bang theory, the entire universe was a thick opaque cloud of plasma consisting of independent electrons and nuclei. As the universe expanded, it eventually cooled enough to allow the plasma to become atoms. Compression of a gas causes its temperature to rise. Expansion causes its temperature to decrease adiabatically (occurring without loss or gain of heat).

Chown explains that the cosmic background radiation relates to the smoothness problem because variations in its brightness over the sky indicates that clumped matter was produced, scientists believe, 380,000 years after the Universe’s creation by the Big Bang occurred. Theorists run the history of the Universe forward from this 380,000-year event when electrons combined with nuclei forming neutral atoms. They then estimated how gravity and dark energy amplified the primordial clumpiness into today’s clumpiness. When this was done, and the results were compared to reality, they discovered that today’s Universe is about ten percent smoother than the Big Bang theory predicted.

It is now well-documented, judging from the cosmologists referenced above, that it is irresponsible to make naturalistic claims, such as the Big Bang is unequivocally fact proven by science. The main problem is, instead of studying the Universe to understand its construction, physics, and chemistry, cosmologists are now attempting to document the origin of the universe by using purely naturalistic means. This, in the long run may fail as it has likewise failed in understanding life on the Earth." CEH

Creation Moment 6/24/2024 - JADES-GS-z14-0

Thus saith God the LORD, He that created the heavens, and stretched them out; He that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; He that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein: Isaiah 42:5

"Astronomers using the James Webb Space Telescope have recently confirmed that two galaxies are extremely distant, with one becoming the new record holder as the most distant galaxy from Earth. The new record-holding galaxy is designated as JADES-GS-z14-0.... this galaxy existed just 290 million years after the supposed Big Bang, yet it looks too mature for its age. 

The previous record holder was galaxy JADES-GS-z13-0, with a presumed age of just 320 million years after the Big Bang. Because Big Bang proponents think the most distant galaxies emitted their light more than 13 billion years ago, they think we are seeing these galaxies, not as they are today, but as they were shortly after the Big Bang. Because naturalistic star and galaxy formation scenarios require hundreds of millions of years, they think these galaxies should appear “immature” and “unevolved.” But this Big Bang expectation has been repeatedly contradicted, with very distant galaxies often appearing mature, like JADES-GS-z14-0.

To make matters worse, astronomers detected oxygen in JADES-GS-z14-0. Big Bang astronomers believe the first generation of stars, designated as Population III stars, contained almost no elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. They think heavier elements like oxygen were present in later generations of stars. The presence of “significant” amounts of oxygen suggests that, by Big Bang reasoning, multiple generations of stars preceded the existence of JADES-GS-z14-0 as we now see it. 

Webb telescope astronomers were quoted as saying, “The presence of oxygen so early in the life of this galaxy is a surprise and suggests that multiple generations of very massive stars had already lived their lives before we observed the galaxy.”

The researchers were quoted as asking, “This starlight implies that the galaxy is several hundreds of millions of times the mass of the sun!...How can nature make such a bright, massive, and large galaxy in less than 300 million years?” 

ICR

Creation Moment 4/23/2024 - Col. 1:17 vs. Penrose' Speculation of no beginning

And He is before all things, 

and by Him all things consist. 

Colossians 1:17

"Here’s a sampling of science reporting that makes bigger claims than the evidence supports. 

At Closer to Truth, “Roger Penrose — Did the Universe Begin?”

Without any evidence, Penrose postulates an infinite sequence of expanding universes, arguing that after infinite time, an infinitely expanded universe would become spatially equivalent to the singularity representing the big bang of a subsequent universe. 

In a conversation with Brian Keating and Justin Brierley, Stephen Meyer critiques the Penrose proposal, citing other cosmologists to conclude that “Penrose is just speculating,” invoking a physical field with “god-like properties.” 

Penrose tips his hand with a statement that reveals his personal motivation to avoid a true beginning to the universe: “There’s something within us all that would like an eternal universe.”
EN&V

Creation Moment 1/15/2024 -Speculation, Wild Speculation, Cosmology

Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
Job 38:2

"With the passage of time, the lack of proven evidence for the ‘big bang’ has led some scientists to make such remarks as, 

‘Never has such a mighty edifice been built on such insubstantial foundations.’ 

And, 

‘You have to understand that first there is speculation, then there is wild speculation, and then there is cosmology.’" 

CMI

Creation Moment 1/13/2024 -Not all scientists agree with the concept of the ‘big bang’

Thus saith God the LORD,
He that created the heavens,
and stretched them out;' 

Isaiah 42:5

"Not all scientists agree with the concept of the ‘big bang’; in fact, many have never supported it. 

[Ed. note, 2010: see Secular scientists blast the big bang, about ‘Big

bang theory busted by 33 top scientists’ (2005), with many more signing this statement.] 

There have been other non-Biblical theories about the origin of the universe put forward in modern times—the main ones being the ‘steady state’ theory and the ‘plasma’ theory.
Suggested by Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, and Hermann Bondi in 1948, the ‘steady state’ theory assumes that the universe never had a beginning. To fill the gaps left by the expansion of the universe—to ensure that it remained in a ‘steady state’—Hoyle and his colleagues proposed the continuous creation of hydrogen atoms.
[Ed. note, 2023: in December 2022, a Belgian national broadcaster recovered a 1964 interview with Lemaître that had thought to have been lost. Lemaître said he had “the greatest admiration for Hoyle’s work”, but dismissed this idea as “ghostly” or “phantom” hydrogen. Hoyle later became a famous critic of chemical evolution (life from non-living chemicals, ‘abiogenesis’) and Darwinian evolution—see Big bang critic dies (Fred Hoyle, 1915–2001).]." 

CMI

Creation Moment 1/12/2024 - Jargon of the "Big Bang"

Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
Job 38:2

"The ‘big bang’ scenario involves tremendous (even infinite) energy at the beginning, but supplies no explanation for the source of this energy. 

--Nor is it clear how the gravity of the initial universal black hole can be overcome by a ‘quantum fluctuation’. 

--Jargon like this seems to be part of an expanding vocabulary of ‘big-bang-speak’, masking some formidable, if not insuperable, difficulties. 

--There is also no convincing explanation as to why an outward spray of gas radiating from the ‘big bang’ should form galaxies, stars, and planets." 

CMI

Creation Moment 1/11/2024 -Big Bang's Hypothetical Entities

Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? 

Job 38:2

"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical

entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. 

Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.’" 

CMI

Creation Moment 1/10/2024 - Big Bang Bungle

Thus saith God the LORD, 

He that created the heavens, 

and stretched them out;' 

Isaiah 42:5

"‘In the twentieth century, the first version of the ‘big bang’ as the explosion of a ‘primeval atom’ was put forward by Abbé Georges-

Henri Lemaître in 1931.3 Lemaître already knew of Edwin Hubble’s work on the redshift of light from distant stars (which Hubble interpreted to mean that the universe is expanding) and, by extrapolating backwards in time, he postulated that the universe originated as a single particle of vast energy but near-zero radius. He argued (erroneously) that cosmic rays must have come from such an explosion.

In 1946, one of the Manhattan Project (atomic bomb) scientists, George Gamow, postulated that a universal explosion lasting a few seconds could have produced all the elements we see today. This lost favor after about a decade, when calculations suggested that certain elements could form in stars.

In 1965, a third version of the ‘big bang’ was put forward by Robert Dicke, P.J.E. Peebles and others, which appeared to receive some confirmation by the accidental discovery by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson that the universe seemed to be uniformly filled with very even heat at a temperature of about 3 K.6 (K is the symbol for kelvin, the base unit of thermodynamic temperature.) This was interpreted as being the after-glow in the form of microwave radiation left over from a huge initial explosion.

When Sir Fred Hoyle calculated that a ‘big bang’ would produce only light elements (notably helium, deuterium, and lithium), it seemed established as the origin of the universe. In the next 20 years, thousands of papers supporting the ‘big bang’ were produced and virtually no papers challenging it were accepted. It became inconceivable that the ‘big bang’ theory could be wrong, and entire careers in cosmology have been built on the presumption that the ‘big bang’ was fact.

One of the predictions of the ‘big bang’ is that it would produce large amounts of helium, and, in fact, the galaxies contain about 24 per cent of helium. 

--However, calculations have shown that the detected matter in the universe is only about 1 per cent of the amount required to produce

the gravitational attraction needed to form all the galaxies and clumps of galaxies, even within the vast time span of a hypothetical 15 billion years. 

This problem was solved with a stroke of the pen. In the early 1980s, cosmological theoreticians decided that the universe was now made up of nearly 99 per cent of ‘cold dark matter’ (CDM)—necessarily ‘dark’ because no one has ever seen it or detected it, and up to 99 times the amount of the visible matter in the universe. This CDM could not be composed of detectable elements like hydrogen and helium, so hypothetical particles were said to exist, with names like ‘WIMPS’ (weakly interacting massive particles) and ‘axions’.

Another problem was the very smoothness of the so-called background radiation. Large-scale surveys of space have shown that matter is not evenly distributed at all, but exists in the form of huge clusters of galaxies, and even larger-scale clumping including some huge structures which have been given names like the Great Wall, while there are vast empty reaches, one called the Great Void. 

‘Big bang’ theorists decided that if they could find some variation or ripples in the pervasive 3 K radiation, this would be an adequate explanation of the origin of the large-scale galaxy structures. 

In 1989, NASA launched a space satellite named Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) to try to detect the needed tiny variations or ‘bumps’ in the radiation from above earth’s atmosphere. 

--By 1991, no variation had been detected and the ‘big bang’ theorists were beginning to panic. Then, in April 1992, a computer program was used to analyse the data, and at last something was detected—hot and cold spots differing in temperature by up to about three one-hundred-thousandths of a degree Celsius.

‘Big Bang Proved!’ trumpeted the headlines. 

Q: But is it? 

A: This background radiation cannot be invoked as conclusive proof of the ‘big bang’, as there are a number of other explanations for it.

Russell Ruthen, writing in Scientific American, October 1992, says,

‘But controversy has arisen as to whether the COBE measurements have any relation at all to the structure of the universe billions of years ago. Lawrence M. Krauss and Martin White of Yale University argue that the variations in the cosmic microwave background … could be distortions caused by gravitational waves.’ 

 And more than two decades ago two Soviet scientists, R.A. Sunyaev and Yakov B. Zeldovich, pointed out that as the background radiation passes through large clouds of intergalactic gas, the resultant change in intensity could cause these ‘lumps’." 

CMI

Creation Moment 11/14/2023 - So they just add a 2nd Big Bang....

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise... 

1 Corinthians 1:27
---So basically, because they don't understand the existence of something, in their confusion they just add a 2nd "big bang".....

"The enduring mystery of dark matter has led some physicists to propose that it was forged in a distinct moment of cosmic creation,

potentially transforming our view of the early universe.... they say, that in the weeks after the big bang there was a second, similarly profound moment of transformation. 

This one may have spawned monstrous shadow particles trillions of times the mass of those that make up normal matter and could make sense of the mysterious, invisible matter that seems to hold galaxies together.
As outlandish as it might sound, the concept of a “dark” big bang...as cosmologists rewrite what we think of as the standard big bang to account for multiple distinct “phase transitions”, each leaving its mark on the cosmos." NewScientist

Creation Moment 10/30/2023 - uh oh Big Bangers.....

And though I .... understand all mysteries, and all knowledge...and have not love, I am nothing.
1 Corinthians 13:2

Q: Could it be that the Universe expands and contracts---sort of like breathing? Maybe we just haven't had the technology long enough to pick this up the last time it happened. (just a thought)

Q: So how does this new info bode for those who preach and teach Big Bang nonsense by using expansion as evidence?

"According to a new study published in Physical Review Letter, such is the case in a baffling finding from researchers that suggests something is hampering our universe's growth. How the threads are pulled apart from here could undermine and unravel how we as humans understand the laws of physics.

Scientists have found that expanding gas and dark matter structures are being slowed, hampering universe growth.

Known as the cosmic web, the area that the scientists are studying is a massive piece of ever-sprawling structures formed by gas and dark matter that are connected to one another at intersectional points dubbed nodes. 

The new study suggests that this web is advancing at a much slower pace than originally suggested, meaning that, in turn, the universe's growth is also affected. 

This knowledge will better help those researching the sigma-8 tension phenomenon, which is a term scientists use to explain how matter is distributed throughout the universe.......their goal was to learn more about the "history of the cosmic background expansion" rather than what has been happening for it in recent years. 

But, the universe had other plans, with the research team soon stumbling upon a fantastic finding that others looking into similar mysteries had previously missed." MS