My Prediction Regarding New Space Telescope That Will See Back to 100 Million Years From the Big Bang

by Sea Breeze 140 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  joey jojo

  Without being dogmatic- because I am certainly no astrophysicist, the JWST causing a re-think of early universe modelling does not automatically imply that the only alternative is a creation theory.
• 

  waton

  
  
  

  a year ago
  Sea Breeze:
  I would like to make a prediction from a Creation Model:

  Instead of finding a big mess as the big bang predicts; they will find fully formed stars, spiral galaxies and black holes.

  Sea Breeze, You are probably in for a disappointment. ( as a certified true prophet).

  we already now from Penzias & Wilson that the earliest universe had no such details in the message.

  One interesting new (young universe) picture from the JWST, is a star forming in the narrows of an hourglass gas stream, perhaps squeezed there to "ignition" temperatures.

  
  
• 

  waton

  Sea Breeze might have gotten wind of something after all:

  Rochester Institute of Technology. "Wide diversity of galaxies in the early universe: Scientists use CEERS Survey to examine the structure and morphology of 850 high-redshift galaxies." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 9 January 2023. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/01/230109191625.htm>.

  University of Texas at Austin. "James Webb telescope reveals Milky Way-like galaxies in young universe." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 5 January 2023. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/01/230105150228.htm>

  .NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center. "NASA's Webb Telescope reveals links between galaxies near and far." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 9 January 2023. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/01/230109145139.htm>.
  
• 

  Jeffro

  Sea Breeze:

  The experts are saying that there is hardly an empty space to be found.

  Wow. Almost as though there was less space between things before the universe had expanded to the extent that it has now. 🙄
• 

  Jeffro

  Sea Breeze:

  But it doesn't contradict a creationist model at all.

  A ‘creationist model’ makes no specific predictions. It has no criteria. Anyone can just say anything is ‘consistent’ with vague magical thinking.
• 

  Jeffro

  Sea Breeze:

  All very predictible, if you are a creationist.

  This is typical creationist arrogance. Because scientists make predictions based on incomplete evidence, they are not always exactly correct, so they keep looking. But creationists sit back, reveling in their own ignorance, claiming that if scientists don’t know every exact detail, that the only alternative is, essentially, ‘a magical sky friend did it’. (Did what exactly… well… whatever it was that was done. 🤦‍♂️) False dichotomy, argument from ignorance, argument from incredulity, magical thinking… and not a speck of evidence.
• 

  waton

  (Did what exactly… well… whatever it was that was done Jeffro,

  whenever good scientist tested, replicate natural events, they had to create elaborate, machines often costing billions of dollars/Euros,

  If these puny results: a particle or 2 , or a satellite or 1000, ,-- whatever , --took so much work, creativity,

  why is not true of this universe?
  
  
• 

  Jeffro

  🤦‍♂️ Offering an argument from incredulity only makes my point for me. 😂
• 

  waton

  my point for me

  "my self proclaimed plus point " point is, you have not offered a counter argument.
  
• 

  Jeffro

  Thanks for adding a ‘shifting the burden of proof’ fallacy. 😂