1º(B.A. Bible/Biology)*
HUGE PROBLEMS WITH BIG BANG THEORY
THE MOST AMAZING thing revealed by the James Webb telescope is that the furthest you look back in time there were already huge, mature, and fully formed galaxies. Big Bang astronomers are now stunned and surprised because according to the Big Bang theory those galaxies shouldn’t be there. There should have been only primordial dust from which they assume that stars and galaxies originated after a primeval explosion. The James Webb telescope is challenging the Big Bang theory held by most scientists and it is causing consternation in the scientific community, at least among those scientists who believe in the Big Bang origin of the universe.
Big Bang scientists believe that the expansion of galaxies in the universe came from a singularity that exploded billions of years ago. Yes, some galaxies may be expanding, moving further away (what is called Red Shift), but this is not necessarily the case with the entire universe, and not even all scientists (including evolutionary scientists) interpret Red Shift in our universe as meaning galaxies are expanding or that there was a primeval Big Bang from which the universe sprung. It has been said that publishers of prestigious science journals refuse to publish papers and research from scientists who refute the Big Bang theory. Canadian physicist and scientist David Rowland asserts in his Internet article "The Big Bang Never Happened" several scientific contradictions to the Big Bang that have been conveniently glossed over or ignored in order to support the much cherished Big Bang theory held by the majority of scientists. These scientists have had to resort to the Internet to publish their scientific arguments refuting Big Bang theory!
Rowland says that the Red Shift in actuality is not a measurement of velocity (of showing that galaxies are expanding and moving away), but only a measurement of temperature and distance. He says that Big Bang scientists initially confused the Red Shift from galaxies with the Doppler effect and this confusion led these earlier scientists to believe that the universe was expanding. Rowland points out that the light from galaxies naturally attenuate over long distances, and that this attenuation had been wrongly interpreted by early scientists as evidence that galaxies in our universe must be expanding. Once this belief had set in early-on, it continued to be taught and held by the majority of scientists to this day. Even the famed astronomer Edwin Hubble , after whom NASA named its famed telescope, and who discovered the Red Shift expressed doubts about interpreting the Red Shift as evidence that galaxies are expanding. Hubble believed there could be other reasons for the Red Shift. Hubble refused to believe that the Red Shift was proof of galaxies expanding.
Even if there was a past expansion of galaxies, this does not mean that the galaxies are presently expanding. We can only see the past from telescopes, not the present. Interestingly, the Bible teaches that the heavens at one time expanded. Various passages in the Bible speak of God stretching out the heavens (i.e. Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2).
If the Big Bang really occurred, there would have been a uniform distribution of gases in space. This uniform distribution of gasses throughout the universe would have made sure that the gasses didn't have enough gravitational attraction to form into planets and stars. Big Bang scientists must assume the existence of dark matter in the universe to provide enough gravitational force for stars and galaxies to form. However, there still is no scientific proof for the existence of dark matter. In fact, the hypothesis of the existence of dark matter has been increasingly discredited by science.
Big Bang scientists believe that dark matter can be the only gravitational explanation for how galaxies behave. However, other scientists have successfully shown an alternative explanation to dark matter known as MOND, which stands for Modified Newtonian Dynamics. In other words, it is not necessary to believe that 80% of the universe must be made up of dark matter in order to explain certain behavior and movement of galaxies.
The late creationist and scientist Dr. Duane T. Gish had said, “the (galactic) structures discovered during the past few years, however, are so massive that even if CDM (Cold Dark Matter) did exist, it could not account for their formation” (Dr. Duane T. Gish, “The Big Bang Theory Collapses"). Furthermore, an explosion cannot explain the precise and orderly orbits and courses of thousands of billions of stars in thousands of billions of galaxies. Gravity may explain how that order is maintained, but mere gravity cannot explain the origin of that order!
The disorder in the universe can be explained because of chance and random processes, but the order can only be rationally explained because of an intelligent Power.
Some evolutionary astronomers believe that trillions of stars crashed into each other leaving surviving stars to find precise orderly orbits in space. Not only is this irrational, but if there was such a mass collision of stars then there would be a super mass residue of gas clouds in space to support this hypothesis. The present level of residue of gas clouds and dust in space doesn't support the magnitude of star deaths required for such a hypothesis. It's more rational to believe that stars die and decay into gas clouds and dust instead of believing that gas clouds and dust evolve into stars as evolutionary astronomers teach (i.e. The Pillars of Creation"). Evolutionary astronomers only assume that gas clouds and dust in the so-called Pillars of Creation are birth places for stars. This assumption is conveniently passed on as fact in textbooks and media.
Read the Internet article, 'SMOKING GUN' PROOF OF BIG BANG ALREADY IN DOUBT by creationist and scientist Dr. Jake Hebert. Most people don't realize how much disagreement there is among evolutionary scientists concerning their own theories. The media doesn't report those details, at least not to any substantial extent.
Visit my newest Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION
Author of popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS
*I have given successful lectures (with question and answer period afterwards) defending creation before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges and universities. I've been privileged to be recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis "Who's Who in The East" for my writings on religion and science.