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

  • Jeffro

    Sea Breeze:

    Big Bang Model:

    The secularist has limitless faith that Nothing Exploded into Everything...even though this has never been observed. Then, supposedly after billions of years gases slowly coalesced into stars and then after more deep time the galaxies slowly formed, then after more time super massive black holes emerged, etc.

    Strawman argument. Though the colloquial parlance is that the universe "exploded" at the 'big bang', the actual position is that everything was in a dense state that rapidly expanded. The big-bang model does not dictate what happened before that event, or that there was nothing before that, or whether 'before that' is even possible.

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze
    Instead of finding a big mess as the big bang predicts; they will find fully formed stars, spiral galaxies and black holes. I further predict that scholars adhering to the Big Bang model will use words like: surprising, amazing, uncanny, astonishing, and will admit that stars must have formed far earlier than previously thought. just published an article that is titled:

    Webb Telescope Reveals Unpredicted Bounty of Bright Galaxies in Early Universe

    Star formation after the big bang appears much faster than models had forecast

    "The James Webb Space Telescope has only been watching the sky for a few weeks, and it has already delivered a startling finding: tens, hundreds, maybe even 1000 times more bright galaxies in the early universe than astronomers anticipated.

    “No one was expecting anything like this,” says Michael Boylan-Kolchin of the University of Texas, Austin. “Galaxies are exploding out of the woodwork,” says Rachel Somerville of the Flatiron Institute. Galaxy formation models may now need a revision"

    Wow! BB scholars weren't expecting this. But, this was expected by creationists.

    I think that my prediction was confirmed.

  • ThomasMore

    If the scientists who worked on the telescope had been JWs, they would have been shunned for going to University for their respective fields of endeavor. Thankfully, they were men and women of science and we now have a glimpse into the origin of the galaxies that we did not have formerly. Now WTC will try to capitalize on the findings and give praise to the creator. If any of those scientists had been JWs, they would have been frowned upon for pursuing higher education, and seeking information that might have challenged the very narrative of creation that WTC wants everyone to believe.

    Sound like a circle of nuttiness? It is. Buy a fruitcake this coming holiday season and marvel at the similarity with WTC.

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze

    @Thomas Moore

    Thankfully, they were men and women of science and we now have a glimpse into the origin of the galaxies that we did not have formerly.

    Yes, we should all be thankful to men of science. This glimpse better fits a creation model than it does and undirected BB model.

    273,000,000 Americans believe in either creationism or some sort of God-Directed evolution. JW's number only around 1M in the USA.

    So, this is much more than a JW issue.


    If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, it would have recollapsed before it reached its present size. On the other hand, if it had been greater by a part in a million, the universe would have expanded too rapidly for stars and planets to form.

    Stephen Hawking

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze

    The first long-lived matter particles of any kind were protons and neutrons, which together make up the atomic nucleus. These came into existence around one ten-thousandth of a second after the Big Bang. Before that point, there was really no material in any familiar sense of the word. - Jan 6, 2022

    @ Jeffro, the above quote is from a BBC article titled: What Existed Before the Big Bang?

    the actual position is that everything was in a dense state that rapidly expanded.

    I think that your statement is inaccurate. There really was nothing at some point.... not even space.... and then it exploded rapidly expanded. Or, so the story goes.

  • waton
    There really was nothing at some point. Fm,

    disagree here. there always was uncreated energy and eternal time to contain it. timespace instead of spacetime.

    The universe is still expanding into the future timespace .

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze

    Thanks to the WEBB telescope...we know now that there galaxies are "exploding out of the woodwork" where they are not supposed to be; and that we suspect that "Galaxy formation models may now need a revision".... we should probably look at how we know that stars form on their own in the first place. If secular scientists are wrong about the early universe, could they be wrong about star formation itself?

    The storyline goes that gas clouds (3rd generation mind you!) condense due to gravity. But, the weak force of gravity is easily overpowered by the cloud's pressure, as well as its angular momentum. Further, the cloud would have to be more massive than an average star yet orders of magnitude smaller than any known nebulae.

    The example below from Astronomy Cast, hosted by Fraser Cain, the founder of Universe Today, sums up stellar evolution problem:

    The process by which an interstellar cloud is concentrated until it is held together gravitationally to become a protostar is not known. In quantitative work, it has simply been assumed that the number of atoms per cm3 has somehow increased about a thousand-fold over that in a dense nebula. The two principal factors inhibiting the formation of a protostar are that the gas has a tendency to disperse before the density becomes high enough for self-gravitation to be effective, and that any initial angular momentum would cause excessively rapid rotation as the material contracts. Some mechanism must therefore be provided for gathering the material into a sufficiently small volume that self-gravitation may become effective, and the angular momentum must in some way be removed." Eva Novotny, Introduction to Stellar Atmospheres and Interiors, Oxford University Press.

    And here's the admission from Neil deGrasse Tyson in his Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries, p. 187:

    Not all gas clouds in the Milky Way [or any galaxy] can form stars at all times. More often than not, the cloud is confused about what to do next. Actually, [we] astrophysicists are the confused ones here. We know the cloud wants to collapse under its own weight to make one or more stars. But rotation as well as turbulent motion within the cloud work against that fate. So, too, does the ordinary gas pressure you learned about in high-school chemistry class. Galactic magnetic fields also fight collapse: they penetrate the cloud and latch onto any free-roaming charged particles contained therein, restricting the ways in which the cloud will respond to its self-gravity. The scary part is that if none of us knew in advance that stars exist, front line research would offer plenty of convincing reasons for why stars could never form.

    I didn't know that science was "scary". God is scary, until you make friends with him through the blood of the covenant.... then you're just part of the family with literally nothing to be afraid of.

    Here's a more compelling theory on star formation that better fits the facts:

    “You alone are the Lord. You have made the heavens, The heaven of heavens with all their host, The earth and all that is on it, The seas and all that is in them. You give life to all of them and the heavenly host bows down before You,” (Nehemiah 9:6).

    “Thus says the Lord, ‘Heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool. Where then is a house you could build for Me? And where is a place that I may rest? For My hand made all these things, Thus all these things came into being,’ declares the Lord. ‘But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word'” (Isaiah 66:1-2).

  • MeanMrMustard

    The scientific process, by definition, is going to yield incorrect results most of the time. It's an inductive process. The errors normally come to light when new measurements, or new information, invalidates or refines a previous view.

    It's probably not the best strategy to rely on the 'can't explain X' / god-of-the-gaps argument. From a sheer strategy standpoint, theists really should stay clear of this game plan.

    Theories will be refined, more information will be found, and refined again. Explanations will be formulated, applied to other aspects of life, and verified. When that happens, it does 10 times more damage to the theists credibility (regardless of which side is correct) than any atheist on a forum, spouting off names, could ever do.

  • waton

    just because we are, through the scientific methods, ever better to find out how nature/existence works does not mean it is not work in the first place. wirklich

  • GabeAthouse

Share this