Further Fizzles of the Big Bang

The Big Bang and cosmic evolution are thought by some to be as important as descent-with-modification biological evolution. Both have their problems, and with advances in technology, those problems become glaring. Indeed, more difficulties are found.

It infuriates evolutionists when their belief system is called a death cult, but study on it a spell. In biology, death of organisms is necessary for life to advance. In cosmology, the death of stars (which were never actually alive) is necessary for the evolution of the universe. So where are the supernova remnants?

Supernova RCW 86 remnants, X-ray: NASA et al; Infrared [spelling corrected] NASA et al, usage does not imply endorsement of site contents

Skipping many details here, but the Big Bang supposedly provided the materials necessary to build the universe. Stars and galaxies formed, stars forged heavier elements, big stars went supernova and spread the materials, other stars formed. Atheopaths say that we are stardust. Lawrence Krauss foolishly said, "Forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today."

Supernovas leave remnants. After the Webb telescope started giving evidence that was unfriendly to the Big Bang, some scientists started looking more closely at the data. Some supernova remnants were given much younger dates that don't support the Big Bang, and other observations don't fit the storyline either. This is using their reckoning, too.

The James Webb Space Telescope team released a stunning image of Supernova 1987A, the nearest supernova since Johannes Kepler observed one in 1604. Astronomers have been monitoring the remnant over time to learn about the aftereffects of exploding stars (supernovas/supernovae).

Webb Reveals New Structures Within Iconic Supernova (NASA, 31 Aug 2023). The press release labels the parts of the remnant and offers some preliminary physical explanations of what is taking place in the expanding bubble since the star exploded in 1987 (Earth time). There was hope that the JWST would be able to see a predicted neutron star formed after the core of the star collapsed.

For the rest, blast off to "Not Enough Supernovas for Deep Time." Come back for the next installment!

Scientists have hypotheses and theories, and scientists in many fields are expected to make predictions. As mentioned above, the story for the Big Bang involves galaxies forming, supernovas going kablooey, other stars forming, yada yada yada. Not only are predictions falling down, new evidence keeps cosmologists employed Frankensteining the Big Bang instead of admitting that it's a meadow muffin.

In biological evolution, Darwin's acolytes try to support the alleged similarity in human and chimpanzee genomes because they require a high percentage. If the similarity is lower (and it is), there is not enough time (according to their reckoning) to allow for the split of humans and apes from the alleged common ancestor.

Distant galaxies were found, and these "early" galaxies formed too soon to please cosmologists. They were supposed to be "primitive" with little structure, but not only do they have it, there is tremendous diversity.

Things troubling to secular scientists that send them running to the Darwin chapel to light Carl Sagan prayer candles are well in keeping with what biblical creationists expect. The universe did not evolve from the Big Bang and inflation, old son. It was created far more recently than secularists want to believe.

Cosmologists may come to regret launching the James Webb Space Telescope. It has developed a bad habit of finding things that shouldn’t exist.

Right after beautiful images from the JWST were being promoted in the media (Nature, 2 Dec 2022), troubling headlines began appearing.

. . . 

The heat was growing against conventional wisdom. Evolutionary bluffing, however, was still going strong by summer 2023. On July 11, Robert Lea at Space.com announced confidently, “The 1st light to flood the universe can help unravel the history of the cosmos. Here’s how.” He likened the triumph of big bang theory to the triumph of Darwinian evolution:

Oh, boy. You gotta read the rest (you'll thank me later) at "Big Bang Failures Reach the Breaking Point." Next, we have a final installment on this subject that has a different approach: science fiction elements.

Although the general theory of evolution and the Big Bang are sacred to many people inside and outside of science-related circles, there are still those who are willing to point out flaws — aside from biblical (young Earth) and Intelligent Design proponents. The leftist rag The New York Times amazingly ran a guest editorial by two physicists that the Big Bang may be starting to unravel. There is also an article in Scientific American discussing how the Big Bang has elements of science fiction. The latter is our object of interest now.

That science fiction has science in it is to be expected, but writers also insert speculations as well. Some of those are plausible while others are based on science-free (indeed, sometimes science-defying) imaginations. The Big Bang includes assumed history that may look good on computers, but there is no actual evidence for it. Some of the rescuing devices used are reminiscent of science fiction. The efforts of secularists to deny the Creator seem to be increasingly desperate.

Galileo wrote, “Mathematics is the language in which God has written the universe”.

A recent Scientific American (SciAm) article1 notes that cosmology—the study of the origin of the universe—is “a mathematically driven science”. Thus it “is usually thought to be extremely precise”.

Thus the study of the universe is driven by the language in which God has written the universe. That seems appropriate. But while cosmology may be precise, is it accurate? . . .

Behind the numerous popular descriptions of the big bang, there is an elaborate mathematical edifice. The article calls it a “conceptual framework” upon which “floor upon floor has been added intact”. There is a story being told with this mathematics. However, is this story history based firmly on (observational, experimental) science, or is it largely a historical novel with elements of science fiction?

You can read all of this very interesting article by venturing over to "The big bang—Science or science fiction?"