JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE PROVIDES EVIDENCE FOR BIBLICAL CREATION MODEL

Posted on by

We have previously reported that observations of distant galaxies using the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) are contrary to the predictions of the Big Bang but match predictions of biblical creation.  Now, new observations of the angular sizes of distant galaxies challenge one of the essential underlying assumptions of the Big Bang – that the “fabric” of space is expanding as galaxies recede. 

Without an expanding space, a big bang is impossible.  These observations support a new creation-based model of cosmology – the Doppler model – which makes specific quantitative predictions about future observations.

Predictions

The Doppler model allows us to make predictions regarding future JWST observations that differ from the predictions of the Big Bang based on the FLRW metric (The metric that describes an expanding or collapsing universe named after the four founding physicists: Friedmann-Lemaitre-Walker-Robertson). The median angular diameter of galaxies beyond a redshift of 20 should continue to be smaller than galaxies at low redshifts.  In particular, the Doppler model predicts the median diameter of galaxies beyond a redshift of 20 to be around 0.2 arcseconds.  This is roughly ten times smaller than the predictions based on the FLRW metric.  Furthermore, The Doppler model predicts that such galaxies will be fainter by more than one magnitude.  Time will tell which model is correct.

Note that these are specific, quantitative predictions.  Successful specific predictions are the hallmark of good science. Dr. James Lisle suggests that the Big Bang is not good science as it does not make specific successful predictions.  Furthermore, it is inconsistent with the latest JWST observations of galaxy sizes and brightnesses.  In addition, the Big Bang has difficulty accommodating the existence of galaxies at such high redshifts since they have had so little time to form according to secular assumptions. Lisle predicts that galaxies will continue to be discovered at higher redshifts, up to the detection limit of the JWST.

Conclusions

The angular sizes and apparent brightnesses of distant galaxies are consistent with the Doppler model and not with the Big Bang.  To be clear, the universe is indeed expanding because the average distance between galaxies increases with time as these galaxies move through space.  But the fabric of space is not expanding.  The FLRW metric is wrong.  This affects the estimated sizes of distant galaxies because the FLRW metric predicts a magnification effect that is simply not seen.  The implication is that distant galaxies are about the same size and brightness on average as nearby galaxies.  Thus, there is no evidence of galaxy evolution over the supposed billions of years.  Thus the Doppler model fits the natural expectation of a “recent” (thousands of years ago) supernaturally created universe.  The Doppler model is compatible with the ASC model that explains how distant starlight reaches Earth within the biblical timescale.

This creation-based Doppler model makes specific quantitative predictions about the angular diameters and brightnesses of galaxies that will be discovered in future JWST images.  Namely, these will have an average angular diameter of 0.2 arcseconds, roughly ten times smaller than the Big Bang model predicts.  And such galaxies will be fainter than Big Bang predictions by a little over 1 magnitude (2.5 times).

This is a very exciting time to be a biblical creationist.  All the observations coming from the JWST confirm biblical creation models, and none are supportive of a Big Bang.  In fact, these latest observations are absolutely devastating to Big Bang interpretations.  And since models like Doppler and ASC make specific predictions about future observations, creation scientists are now leading the way in cosmology research.

This article is an extract from an article by Dr Jason Lisle: New James Webb Space Telescope Observations Challenge the Big Bang | Aug 2, 2024 | Astronomy on http://www.biblicalscienceinstitute.com

MORE ON THE BIG BANG – Is the Big Bang really scientific?

Posted on by

Creationist scientists argue that the atheists’ claim that our universe arose from a random ‘explosion’ is absurd. For example, the rate of expansion would have needed to be just right, as even a tiny deviation from the required rate would have been catastrophic. If just a little faster, particles would have simply flown away from each other, never coming together to form stars and planets. If just a little slower, gravity would have pulled everything back together resulting in a violent ‘great crunch’, with no planets and no life. According to Nobel prize-winner, Professor Steven Weinberg, the number determining the required expansion rate (known as the ‘cosmological constant’) would have had to be just to right to within 120 decimal places.10

How realistic is it to believe that an ‘explosion’ just happened to produce an expansion rate this critical?

The expansion rate, however, is just one of many factors that would have had to be ‘fined-tuned’ for the big bang to have produced a universe like ours in which life could exist. For example, unless the masses of the particles that make up atoms, the forces that hold atoms together, and the force of gravity all had the right values, the big bang would have produced a lifeless universe. Creation scientists argue that a process that is this critical could not have occurred by chance.

Conclusion

Christians need not be intimidated into accepting secular accounts of origins. Big bang theory only appears to be scientific because people are exposed only to the evidence that appears to support it. At the same time, nothing is said about its major scientific problems. Big bang theory contradicts the account of creation in Genesis, and Bible-believing creationists should reject it on the authority of God’s word.

Extract from an article by Dominic Statham entitled “Is the Big Bang really scientific?” http://www.creation.com

References and notes

  1. Technically, CMBR is said to date from the 379,000 years after the big bang when atoms were formed. Previously, the energetic nuclei and electrons, as charged particles, would scatter any radiation, but when they combined to form neutral atoms, the universe became transparent to the radiation. Return to text.
  2. Horgan, J., Physicist slams cosmic theory he helped conceive, Scientific American, 1 December 2014; blogs.scientificamerican.com. Return to text.
  3. Burbidge, G. and Hoyle, F., The origin of helium and other light elements, The Astrophysical Journal 509:L1–L3, 10 December 1998. Return to text.
  4. Burbidge, G., The case against primordial nucleosynthesis, in: Hill, V., François, P. and Primas, F., eds, From Lithium to Uranium: Elemental tracers of early cosmic evolution, IAU Symposium Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union 228, Paris, May 23–27, 2005; adsabs.harvard.edu. Return to text.
  5. That is, measurements of ordinary matter density. See wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_ele.html. Return to text.
  6. Hartnett, J., Dark Matter and the Standard Model of particle physics—a search in the ‘Dark’, 28 September 2014. Return to text.
  7. Hartnett, J., Is ‘dark matter’ the ‘unknown god’? Creation 37(2):22–24, April 2015. Return to text.
  8. More precisely, because the wavelength of the light is now longer, it has ‘shifted’ towards the red end of the spectrum. Note that this does not necessarily cause a particular star to ‘look red’. Return to text.
  9. Professor Halton Arp, however, noted that there are many exceptions to this rule, which are difficult for advocates of big bang theory to explain. See Hartnett, J., Big-bang-defying giant of astronomy passes away, 31 December 2013. Return to text.
  10. Weinberg, S., Facing Up: Science and its cultural adversaries, Harvard University Press, USA, pp. 80–81, 2001. Return to text.
  11. Lewis, F.G. and Barnes, L.A., A Fortunate Universe: Life in a finely tuned cosmos, Cambridge University Press, UK, 2016. Return to text.
  12. See also Statham, D., A naturalist’s nightmare [review of Ref. 11], J. Creation 32(1):48–52, April 2018. Return to text.

WHY RADIOMETRIC DATING GIVES AGES OF MILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF YEARS

Posted on by

A young age for ‘ancient’ granites

When physicist Dr Russell Humphreys was still at Sandia National Laboratories (he now works full-time for the Institute for Creation Research), he and Dr John Baumgardner (still with Los Alamos National Laboratory) were both convinced that they knew the direction in which to look for a definitive answer to the puzzle of why radiometric dating consistently gives ages of millions and billions of years.

picture – Linear accelerator used in radiometric dating.

Others had tried to find an answer in geological processes—e.g. the pattern was caused by the way the magma was emplaced or how it crystallized. This is indeed the answer in some cases.2,3 But Drs Humphreys and Baumgardner realized that in other cases there were many independent lines of evidence that suggested that huge amounts of radioactive decay had indeed taken place. (These include the variety of elements used in ‘standard’ radioisotope dating, mature uranium radiohalos and fission track dating.) It would be hard to imagine that geologic processes alone could explain all these. Rather, there was likely to be an answer that concerned the nuclear decay processes themselves.

From the eyewitness testimony of God’s Word, the billions of years that such vast amounts of radioactive processes would normally suggest had not taken place. So it was clear that the assumption of a constant, slow decay process was wrong. There must have been speeded-up decay, perhaps in a huge burst associated with Creation Week and/or a separate burst at the time of the Flood.

There is now powerful confirmatory evidence that at least one episode of drastically accelerated decay has indeed been the case, building on the work of Dr Robert Gentry on helium retention in zircons. The landmark RATE paper,4 though technical, can be summarized as follows:

  • When uranium decays to lead, a by-product of this process is the formation of helium, a very light, inert gas, which readily escapes from rock.
  • Certain crystals called zircons, obtained from drilling into very deep granites, contain uranium which has partly decayed into lead.
  • By measuring the amount of uranium and ‘radiogenic lead’ in these crystals, one can calculate that, if the decay rate has been constant, about 1.5 billion years must have passed. (This is consistent with the geologic ‘age’ assigned to the granites in which these zircons are found.)
  • However, there is a significant proportion of helium from that ‘1.5 billion years of decay’ still inside the zircons. This is, at first glance, surprising for long-agers, because of the ease with which one would expect helium (with its tiny, light, unreactive atoms) to escape from the spaces within the crystal structure. There should surely be hardly any left, because with such a slow buildup, it should be seeping out continually and not accumulating.
  • Drawing any conclusions from the above depends, of course, on actually measuring the rate at which helium leaks out of zircons. This is what one of the RATE papers reports on. The samples were sent (without any hint that it was a creationist project) to a world-class expert on helium diffusion from minerals to measure these rates. The consistent answer: the helium does indeed seep out quickly over a wide range of temperatures. In fact, the results show that because of all the helium still in the zircons, these crystals (and since this is Precambrian basement granite, by implication the whole earth) could not be older than 14,000 years. In other words, in only a few thousand years, 1.5 billion years’ worth (at today’s rates) of radioactive decay has taken place. Interestingly, the data have since been refined and updated to give a date of 5,680 (± 2,000) years.
  • The paper looks at the various avenues a long-ager might take by which to wriggle out of these powerful implications, but there seems to be little hope for them unless they can show that the techniques used to obtain the results were seriously flawed.

The Bible clearly tells us that God created a mature universe: Adam was a man, not a baby, the trees and plants mature and on day six Adam could see all of the stars in heaven. God tells us that He stretched out the heavens at creation on day four. The Cosmos could only have been created by a being outside of His creation with miraculous powers.

Big Bang from nothing does not explain the complex ordered universe that is so evident, it is certainly not good science.

Taken from an article by Dr. Carl Weiland “Radiometric dating breakthroughs” http://www.creation.com

4. Humphreys, D. et al., Helium diffusion rates support accelerated nuclear decay, icr.org, 16 October 2003. Return to text.

BIG BANG MODEL OF COSMOS IS ABSURD

Posted on by
Secular scientists claim that our universe formed itself in a big bang event about 13.8 billion years ago. They say that the big bang is a valid scientific theory, well-supported by the evidence.
These claims are false. Not only is there abundant scientific evidence against the big bang, but the model also contradicts itself, and has absurd implications.

30-9-619_14

In this third DVD in the series, engineer and former atheist Spike Psarris explores the origin of the universe. Did it form in a Big Bang event billions of years ago? Or are the heavens consistent with the biblical account of creation instead?

Using spectacular graphics and brilliant photographs of God’s magnificent heavens, Spike demonstrates why the Big Bang fails scientifically. You’ll not only learn about the abundant scientific evidence against the Big Bang, but see why the model contradicts itself and has absurd implications. Spike makes difficult concepts easy to grasp, including redshifts, the cosmic microwave background radiation, the multiverse, and more. Plus, you’ll gain a deeper understanding of dark matter, dark energy, inflation theory, and the bizarre concept of a ‘Boltzmann brain’—all of which threaten the Big Bang’s status as a scientific theory.

https://austore.creation.com/astronomy-vol-3-our-created-universe-dvd?utm_sour  Watch the five minute preview

An objective evaluation of the evidence does not support a self-creation of the cosmos. Instead, “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1).