The Big Bang… a Big Bust?


In June, NASA switched on the new state-of-the-art James Webb Space Telescope to peer into the distant Universe and back towards the dawn of time. The images that it revealed in just its first two weeks have turned modern astronomy on its head. The telescope’s astonishingly sharp pictures have shattered astronomers’ preconceptions about the early Universe. “The images from the new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting the Big Bang Hypothesis.”


An article in the journal Nature entitled, “Four revelations from the Webb telescope about distant galaxies” summarizes some of the surprises.


There are an awful lot of galaxies way out there

The Webb images are peppered with never-before-seen galaxies in the earliest distant Universe. Jeyhan Kartaltepe, an astronomer at the Rochester Institute of Technology in New York is quoted as saying, “There’s hardly any empty space that doesn’t have something.”

The new telescope has so far found 44 previously unknown galaxies, along with greater detail on 11 more that were only faintly detected by the Hubble Telescope. These are not single stars, but entire galaxies.


New galaxies are competing for the ‘most distant’ title

Astronomers characterize the distance of galaxies with a measure known as redshift, which quantifies how much a galaxy’s light has been shifted to redder wavelengths; the higher the redshift, the more distant the galaxy.

The Big Bang, expanding-universe hypothesis assumes that extremely distant galaxies will not appear smaller and smaller in the sky but larger and larger in relation to their level of redshift. The illusion occurs because the galaxies were hypothesized to be closer to us when they emitted the light that we see than they are now, and therefore appear larger. If the universe is NOT expanding, however, distant galaxies will look smaller and smaller, as in ordinary space.

Another way of putting this illusion is that objects' surface brightness (their apparent brightness divided by their apparent area in the sky) would decline sharply with increasing distance, thus increasing redshift. Instead, JWST shows that surface brightness remains constant, just as it does in ordinary non-expanding space.

“It is clear that the surface brightness of the galaxies is exactly the same at high redshift as at lower redshift, exactly as predicted by the non-expanding hypothesis.”

This quote from Eric Lerner, Chief Scientist for LPPFusion, and colleague Riccardo Scarpa of Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias is part of an article they published describing their findings. Their article was rejected without review by several leading journals and is being censored by the broader scientific community in cosmology.

“The Big Bang Hypothesis no longer can be defended scientifically “, says Lerner, “so it is defended only by censorship. We are shouting that the Emperor has no clothes, while the cosmological establishment is trying to put their hands over our mouths.”


The early galaxies are surprisingly complex

Webb’s distant galaxies are also turning out to have more structure than astronomers had expected. The theory was that early galaxies were more often distorted by collisions with neighboring galaxies. But the Webb observations suggest there are up to ten times as many distant disk-shaped galaxies as previously thought. The implications are that even these earliest galaxies did not form in a chaotic, post-bang universe.

“With the resolution of James Webb, we are able to see that galaxies have disks way earlier than we thought they did,” says Allison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence. That’s a problem, she says, because it contradicts earlier theories of galaxy evolution. “We’re going to have to figure that out.”

“Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” Kirkpatrick says, “wondering if everything I’ve ever done is wrong.”


An exciting time for Creationists

The authors of these papers are secular scientists and not Creationists by any means. They simply point out that the facts don’t support the current theory of how the universe began, and new theories are needed. The problem for them couldn’t possibly be more profound or far-reaching.

If the universe did not begin with a bang of expanding matter, then every other assumption about the evolution of galaxies is suddenly invalid. Stars and planets could not have coalesced from swirling dust clouds and heavy elements like carbon, oxygen, silicon, and iron existed even before any supernovas had time to spew them into space. The extraordinary precision of planetary orbits and even the foundations of basic physics can no longer be explained.

Just as Archaeology has repeatedly proven the Bible’s historical accuracy, advances in all areas of science continue to create problems for evolutionary theory. The fossil record, geology, and genetic research have all called evolution into question. Now astrophysics and cosmology are increasingly doing the same thing with fundamental theories for the origin of the universe.


Perhaps God is making it as clear as possible for us to see.


"For ever since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through His workmanship [all His creation, the wonderful things that He has made], so that they [who fail to believe and trust in Him] are without excuse and without defense. For even though they knew God [as the Creator], they did not honor Him as God or give thanks [for His wondrous creation]. On the contrary, they became worthless in their thinking [godless, with pointless reasonings, and silly speculations], and their foolish heart was darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools...."
Romans 1:20-22 AMP


97 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All