Astronomy and Cosmology: Where Are They Now?

Next month is going to be exciting because for the first time in man’s history, we are going to get some secular pictures from the space probe, “New Horizons” . Currently the probe is less than 30 million miles away and has already transmitted some historical pictures of Pluto.

“We can also see that every face of Pluto is different and that Pluto’s northern hemisphere displays substantial dark terrains, though both Pluto’s darkest and its brightest known terrain units are just south of, or on, its equator…”  

-says New Horizons Principal Investigator Alan Stern.

This project without its planetary evolution conclusions is good science. The more probes that are out there, the better we learn what is going on in space. It’s exciting! Star formation on the other hand has been used to mislead the public. There is no doubt that Nature News along with Science Daily and certain Astronomers have committed fraud, perhaps but not exclusive to, for the reason of helping fund these types of projects.

Let’s begin by displaying the headlines:

The first one is from Nature News which is also found in Scientific American as well as in other publications.

“Astronomers Claim to Take First Glimpse of Primordial Stars”

In the Southern European Observatory where the discovery took place makes and even more profound statement in their science release.

“Best Observational Evidence of First Generation Stars in the Universe” 

Wow, it sounds as though a major discovery was made, this could be the hard evidence that certain scientists were looking for, but the question remains. Is it really? Let’s go back to Nature News again…

“Now astronomers think they may have spied a late-blooming cluster of such stars, in the brightest distant galaxy observed to date. The stars, seen as they were when the Universe was around 800 million years old, appear to be primordial in compositionbut also to have formed more recently than some second-generation stars.”

How can these Astronomers claim this discovery to be first generation of stars? ‘Appearing’ to be primordial in composition is not the same as being first generation! These stars are considered younger than second-generation of stars! Not only that, but these stars were discovered in a galaxy which has elements that according to their theory could only have formed well after the first generation of stars!

“That primordial stars should turn up in such a large and already-evolved galaxy presents a challenge to the group’s interpretation.” 

Indeed, but these Astronomers used the classic “fit the data into a theory technique” rather than let the data speak for itself. Here is how they answered the challenge which make stars younger than second generation into first generation…

“Sobral and colleagues suggest that the primordial stars may be late-developers, formed from a cloud of pristine and uncontaminated gas that was prevented from cooling and coalescing by the heat of strong radiation from earlier-blooming stars. “We think we’re seeing the last episode of Population III star formation,” he says.” 

This is a prime example on how some scientists (not all) are misleading the public with their so-called discoveries in Astronomy. There is no real evidence here that would make any logical person to conclude that these stars are first generation. None! The headlines are a bunch of lies!

Moving on to Cosmology…

“As is your habit, you are reading Science at breakfast (today’s treat: an omelet made with dodo eggs). But as soon as you finish this paragraph, a carnivorous wombat crashes through the door into your apartment and chomps angrily on your prehensile tail. Right … now” (No this isn’t Star Wars -emphasis mine).

“Ridiculous? Certainly—here. But it’s true somewhere in the universe, according to many scientists. An increasing number of mainstream physicists have espoused an almost unspeakably bizarre picture of the cosmos, one filled with mirror worlds and parallel universes, with doppelgängers and alternate histories. In many of these parallel universes—countless ones—an exact duplicate of you is doing exactly what you’re doing: reading this article in Science magazine. In others, you exist with subtle (and not-so- subtle) changes from your present-day life—you sport horns or speak in Latin or make a living by juggling hedgehogs at cocktail parties.”

This is a classic of opening your mind to fiction because it may be reality someday. Some of this is used in Hollywood. Bob Berman, wrote a very thought-provoking article in Astronomy magazine (July 2004, page 16) which I quoted some of it once before in 2012, it certainly applies to what is going on now with Cosmology. In fact, he gives a pretty good science lesson.

“The problem in cosmology is that facts are few and the imaginations of people who cook up theories are fertile. We have known for nearly seventy years that the cosmos is expanding. Every measurement made of galaxies showed that everything is moving away from everything else. The picture looked very much like what happens when a firecracker explodes, with material on the outside edge of the object that exploded moving the fastest and material to the inside moving less quickly.

“The term “big bang” or “inflation” was at least partially rooted in this observation. Temperature measurements of intergalactic space supported the theory by being exactly what they should be if the cosmos was infinitely hot and cooled during the expansion of the cosmos. What banged or who banged it was not knowable, and that is where all the theories came from. It is interesting that the Bible agrees with the observation of the expanding universe. Numerous passages in the Bible describe the cosmos as an expanding entity. “God who created the heavens and stretched them out” appears in one way or another over and over in scripture (see Isaiah 42:5; 40:22; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Job 9:8; 37:18; Psalm 104:2; Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15; Zechariah 12:1).”  

“Many atheists had a problem with the “big bang” concept because it suggested a beginning, and if there was a beginning there had to be a cause which suggested a causer. To get around this problem, it was recognized that since gravity seemed to be a property of mass, everything in the cosmos was attracting everything else, and that meant that eventually gravity would stop the expansion of the universe and pull everything back to a central point. The fact of gravitational attraction seemed sure and the fact that things were coasting from the initial process seemed unquestionable. One could theorize that whatever caused the big bang could happen over and over. This theory was called the oscillating universe theory, and was heavily promoted by leading atheists.”

“There were lots of scientific problems with the oscillating universe theory. Only mass would be affected by gravity and much of the energy in the cosmos was in the form of light which would not be gravitationally susceptible. It also seemed that some objects on the outer edge of the expansion were traveling so fast that they would never be significantly affected by gravity. In spite of these and other problems, the oscillating universe theory was in textbooks and even used by Carl Sagan in his famous Cosmos series in which he compared it to the Hindu concept of reincarnation.”

“In the late 1990s another observation was made by astronomers that totally disrupted this whole picture. It was discovered that the cosmos was not slowing down in its expansion as gravitational effects would have been expected to do, but that the cosmos was actually accelerating in its expansion. This observation has been confirmed by several different methods and is now considered to be a fact. The problem is that the fact that the cosmos is accelerating in its expansion is at odds with everything we can do in the laboratory.”

“What does a good scientist do when confronted with such an astounding fact? The answer should be to propose explanations that are testable and for which experiments can be conducted to see whether or not the proposal is consistent with scientific experiments. The problem with today’s public speakers on this subject is that proposals are being made that have no possible way of being tested, and each pronouncement is made with such pomp and flair that the average reader assumes that not only has the theory been tested, but it has been successful on every point.”

“One proposal has been that 70% of the universe must be made of an antigravity force called dark energy (* which has been adjusted since this article has been written to 95% of the universe. * -emphasis mine). No one knew what it was or how it could exist, but the concept has appeared in hundreds of magazines and newspapers that we have seen. Recently we have seen statements that the dark energy loses its power over time, so eventually the acceleration will stop and the universe will collapse as the oscillating universe theory suggested. There is no evidence of this, and no way of testing it.”

“Some periodicals have said that Einstein’s cosmological constant is what is causing the acceleration of the cosmos. This is a constant that Einstein threw into his equations to make them fit his opinions about the cosmos–an act that he later called his greatest blunder. The problem is that no one has any idea what the constant would represent or be caused by. Now it is fashionable to refer to the “Big Rip.” This is a theory that says that eventually everything will explode–even atoms. Another theory is called “string theory” which assumes that there are eleven spacial dimensions and then suggests that membranes from these other dimensions sometimes touch each other explosively creating things like our universe.”

“Suddenly, we’re imbedded in a frothy quantum foam of unlimited possibilities. It’s a free-for-all where each solemnly presented theory is soon changed or rebutted.. Throw the math this way, that way, tweak the equations, set fire to the physics building, nothing matters. It’s Alice in Wonderland meets Stephen Hawking.”

New proposals about dark matter come out all the time, New Scientist actually asked a valid question, “How long can we keep looking for dark matter?” 

“WE HAVE been aware of the need for dark matter since the 1930s. Without this stuff, we can’t make sense of the rotation of galactic clusters, or how galaxies formed in the first place. And yet, to date, we have found nothing. Even CERN’s Large Hadron Collider, our best and by far most expensive tool for finding it, has so far drawn a blank. How much longer can we keep looking?”

The universe is not making sense for those who believe in non-design. This usually happens when a theory is not true. Does the article answer its own question? No! Rather, it looks for remedies to find dark matter. This is the problem. It is true, it would be hard to pin point an exact time frame but looking more than 80 years with very expensive tools, I would say it is time to move on. There are so many other things in science which requires work that may turn out to be fruitful. I can’t wait till next month! Pluto, here we come! :)

Cosmological Inflation Theory Self-Destructed

In 1981,  American theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Alan Harvey Guth proposed the “Inflation Theory” which is “the idea that the nascent universe passed through a phase of exponential expansion that was driven by a positive vacuum energy density (negative vacuum pressure).” The theory was invented in order to solve problems (flatness and the horizon) that were conflicting with real-time observations pertaining to the big bang theory.

About 31 years later as the premiere dominant paradigm trying to keep the big bang theory intact, it has been an enormous failure! One of which has scientists back to square one.

New Scientist broke the news…

“The problem is that once inflation starts, it is nearly impossible to stop. Even in the tiny pre-inflation cosmos, quantum fluctuations ensured that the inflaton field had different energies in different places — a bit like a mountain having many balls balanced precariously at different heights. As each one starts rolling, it kicks off the inflation of a different region of space, which races away from the others at speeds above that of light.”

“Because no influence may travel faster than light, these mini-universes become completely detached from one another. As the inflaton continues its headlong descent in each one, more and more bits of space begin to bud off to independent existences: an infinite “multiverse” of universes is formed…”

And that is not all, it gets even better…

“This is not good news for our hopes for cosmic enlightenment. In a single universe, an underlying theory of physics might offer a prediction for how flat the universe should be, say, or for the value of dark energy, the mysterious entity that seems to be driving an accelerated expansion of the universe. Astronomers could then go out and test that prediction against observations.

That’s not possible in an infinite multiverse: there are no definite predictions, only probabilities. Every conceivable value of dark energy or anything else will exist an infinite number of times among the infinite number of universes, and any universal theory of physics valid throughout the multiverse must reproduce all those values. That makes the odds of observing any particular value infinity divided by infinity: a nonsense that mathematicians call “undefined”.

Interesting enough, the article points out that the “inflation theory” was predicting things that were useless or not wanted. Tegmark suggests that the theory has finally died. Is that true? Those of you who believe in this theory, has it in fact died?

The article concludes…

“We thought that inflation predicted a smooth, flat universe,” says Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, a pioneer of inflation who has become a vocal detractor.  “Instead, it predicts every possibility an infinite number of times. We’re back to square one.” Tegmark agrees: “Inflation has destroyed itself. It logically self-destructed.” 

“Sean Carroll was only a little less pessimistic.  ““Inflation is still the dominant paradigm,” he said, “but we’ve become a lot less convinced that it’s obviously true.”  By starting with such precisely balanced conditions, it explains less than the flukes it was intended to explain.  “If you pick a universe out of a hat, it’s not going to be one that starts with inflation,” he said.”

Instead of rescuing the big bang, it created more problems than it solved which is increasing complexity within its explanation due to falsifications and that is not a good sign for something being factual. So what happens? They retreated to other irrationalities, like brane theory or the no-boundary proposal. The brane theory requires a lot more fine tuning in the Universe than what we see.

And another thing, it doesn’t matter if one can punch in equations all over the computer.  If the inputs to a “proposal” are bogus, no amount of mathematical manipulation can rescue it!

In a November issue of Astronomy back in 2004, Bob Berman nailed it on the head after flip flops by cosmologists over a ten year period…

Suddenly, we’re imbedded in a frothy quantum foam of unlimited possibilities.  It’s a free-for-all where each solemnly presented theory is soon changed or rebutted. In one sense, it’s very cool.  Imagination rules!  It’s a unique period in cosmology’s history.” 

“Throw the math this way, that way, tweak the equations, set fire to the physics building, nothing matters.  It’s Alice in Wonderland meets Stephen Hawking. Unfortunately, cosmologists are starting to resemble naked emperors parading before the mass media.  Hey, we love you, but you have no clue about the universe’s true origin or fate, and little knowledge of its composition.  Yet each pronouncement is delivered with pomp and flair.  Maybe you need a serious “time out.”

Perhaps not a time out, but rather a much better framework!

New Observational Data Falsifies Dark Matter

The big bang theory has caused many problems with its predictions concerning research in cosmology one of which is the invention of dark matter.  This is because some scientists are on the wrong path on what makes the universe function.  In the 90’s it was discovered that the universe is rapidly expanding, which falsifies the idea of a prediction that the universe is supposed to be slowing down.  Why would the theory require the universe to go slower?  A rapidly expanding universe as we observe it today would not allow accretion to occur which is another problem concerning the Nebular hypothesis.

You see, experiments and known observational facts of trying to get little amounts of dust to join and then form balls have never been found to be obtainable.  Another problem with that is, the process is required to work fast, otherwise the planet will be dragged into the star in short order.  And that is not all, these little dust particles lack the gravitational potential to grow on their own so it’s up to other mechanisms in the mist of all the chaos like turbulence, wind, heating, cooling, colliding and electrical activity tending to disrupt them.  While the presence of boulder-sized objects are inferred and is able to be observed, one could also look at those objects as leftover debris from the disruption of existing planets which is most likely what happened.

Now getting back to the new study which seriously damages the idea of dark matter. Science Daily reports…

“The most accurate study so far of the motions of stars in the Milky Way has found no evidence for dark matter in a large volume around the Sun. According to widely accepted theories, the solar neighbourhood was expected to be filled with dark matter, a mysterious invisible substance that can only be detected indirectly by the gravitational force it exerts. But a new study by a team of astronomers in Chile has found that these theories just do not fit the observational facts. This may mean that attempts to directly detect dark matter particles on Earth are unlikely to be successful.”

Dark matter is getting harder to detect which isn’t a good sign for those who are trying to detect this man-made story to fill in the gap of another falsified prediction.  Future studies could suggest the same thing. But because of the importance of using dark matter to explain another problem in the big bang theory there remains some sort hope in…

“…existing models of how galaxies form and rotate suggest that the Milky Way is surrounded by a halo of dark matter. They are not able to precisely predict what shape this halo takes, but they do expect to find significant amounts in the region around the Sun. But only very unlikely shapes for the dark matter halo — such as a highly elongated form — can explain the lack of dark matter uncovered in the new study.”

Science is supposed to explain things with reference to natural law and make predictions. Unlike changing natural laws to fit the theory. Yea, it can be falsifiable but it also is supposed to have observational support, rather than increased complexity which is nothing more than reinventing a theory every time new data throws a monkey wrench into the old theory!

Science News From Interesting to Way Out There

In the evolutionary framework, natural selection for the most part selects the best. But nature demonstrates otherwise. Pretending to be a dangerous, they species are harmless and their bluff is far from perfect, yet it is quite effective.  Evolutionary biologists call it a great example of evolution in action. However, the species perform mimics that are poor as a result, they say their supposed emergence remains something of a puzzle.

Many explanations have been invented to explain these imperfect mimics.  The best mimics happen to be the biggest while smaller species are very successful with imperfect ones. Since that is the case, evolutionists claim that natural selection proclaims it to be sufficient enough! Like many of these studies is it demonstrating upward evolution or just variants within a kind? Variants within a kind which isn’t evolution because those variants are not turning into another species.

Next is an invented explanation to fill in a gap about the behavior of gravity which is believed to be no enough to keep the Universe together, so dark matter was invented. Now scientists work on discovering it directly costing billions of dollars. Here is what science daily writes on one of more recent studies…

“There’s more to the cosmos than meets the eye. About 80 percent of the matter in the universe is invisible to telescopes, yet its gravitational influence is manifest in the orbital speeds of stars around galaxies and in the motions of clusters of galaxies. Yet, despite decades of effort, no one knows what this “dark matter” really is.”

“Many scientists think it’s likely that the mystery will be solved with the discovery of new kinds of subatomic particles, types necessarily different from those composing atoms of the ordinary matter all around us. The search to detect and identify these particles is underway in experiments both around the globe and above it.”

Regardless if dark matter exists or not doesn’t really have any effect on the creationist model, but it seems after decades of research reveal that scientists are no closer t knowing what they are looking for.  Job security?

“Instead of analyzing the results for each galaxy separately, the scientists developed a statistical technique — they call it a “joint likelihood analysis”…”An important element of this work is that we were able to take the statistical uncertainties from an updated study of the dwarf stellar motions and factor it into the LAT data analysis,” said Johann Cohen-Tanugi, a physicist at the Laboratory of the Universe and Particles at the University of Montpellier 2 in France and a member of the research team.”

In another discovery, maturity found in our backyard. Back in the 90’s the Hubble stunned scientists when it viewed mature galaxies in deep space, where they thought they would find younger stars.  Now another observation reported by MSNBC is falsifying the “big bang theory”…

“Astronomers have discovered a planetary system that formed nearly 13 billion years ago, suggesting the early universe harbored more planets than has been thought. The system consists of a star called HIP 11952 and two Jupiter-like alien planets. It is just 375 light-years from Earth, in the constellation Cetus (the Whale). The planets are likely the oldest yet found; at 12.8 billion years old, they’re just 900 million years younger than the universe itself, according to the commonly accepted Big Bang theory.”

Increasing complexity in a theory is never a good thing in a traditional practice of the scientific method. The Earth has been labeled as 4.5 billion as well as the rest of our solar system by evolutionists now only 375 years away from us, there is a planetary system that supposedly formed 13 billion years ago.  Some who believe in those time frames along with the big bang suspect the measurement for this discovery is not accurate and will eventually correct itself.

On the contrary, you will see many invented explanations that will attempt to explain such complexity while increasing the overall complexity of the theory itself much like Darwinian evolution.  There is much going on in other areas of science that these people are wasting tons of taxpayer’s money with their beliefs.

As Science Progresses Earth Remains Special

Scientists are now four months into the Kepler spacecraft mission and already they have labeled over 1200 planets for possible alien life forms with a surprise.  Due to selection effects of the transiting method which is based on  is based on the observation of a star’s small drop in brightness.

Now this occurs when the orbit of one of the star’s planets passes (‘transits’) in front of the star where the amount of light lost varies between 0.01% and 1%- depending on the sizes of the star and the planet; and the duration of the transit depends on the planet’s distance from the star and the star’s mass. Since the star’s mass and size  can be determined from spectroscopic observations, the planet’s size and distance can be determined.

Kepler has discovered systems with low inclinations. These have planets smaller than Neptune, because large gas giants can perturb the orbits of member planets into higher inclinations.  The Kepler team was surprised to find so many multiple-planet systems in their area: over one hundred, when only two or three were predicted to be there.

How do planets form? This topic has been going through major revolutions in the last ten years on how they supposedly evolved within its paradigm. Back in 2001, theories on planet formation began to fall apart especially with Jupiter-size planets.  A story that has been taught in public school textbooks known as the “planetesimal hypothesis” where dust accretes to build up a planet a grain at a time was deem too time consuming. It also predicts that Jupiter would have an iron core equal to 10 earth masses, but recent Galileo spacecraft data  indicate it is less than six earth masses – and there may be none at all.

Also, astronomer Alan Boss had proposed an alternative theory called “disk instability” in which the original gas cloud had lumps that condensed into the gas giants. But this mechanism doesn’t last long enough to form planets. And that’s not all, ever since secular astronomers have embraced the idea of the nebular hypothesis where disks of dust and gas will slowly condense into planets that have come into conflicting observational data with that idea.

This conflicting observational data has to do with the discovery of gas giants orbiting extremely close to their parent stars known as; “hot Jupiters” was shocking to astronomers because it indicated that planets migrate inward and will quickly be destroyed unless they can form much faster than the core accretion model would allow. In 2005, Nature publishes research with the problems of trying to explain how planets supposedly evolved…

“The binary orbital period of HD 188753 is just 25.7 years, and the orbital separation of the stars, both of Sun size, is a mere 12.3 AU – about the distance from the Sun to Saturn.  Konacki’s velocity measurements reveal that the primary star (the more massive star, denoted HD 188753A) has a planetary companion of a minimum of 1.14 Jupiter masses that orbits the star every 3.35 days at a distance of about 0.05 AU.  Yet according to the orbital migration theory, this planet should not exist.” 

“The secondary star is so close that its gravitational pull would have stripped away the protoplanetary disk of the primary star – where, even if it later migrated, the planet must have formed – reducing the disk to a radius of just 1.3 AU.  But within this radius, ices are unlikely to last and so cannot contribute to the formation of a massive core.  The alternative explanation – that the planet formed where it is – would challenge the standard picture, but runs into the problem of where the necessary solid material came from.”

Anomalies and constraints are good for science because they put the brakes on speculation which evolutionary planet formation, and Darwinism evolution thrives on in general. With all these problems in various planet formation stories, an upper limited was put on at ten million years or less to avoid the death spiral. But with more data coming in, this appears too long once again. The discovery of IC 348, a cluster of stars thought to be two or three million years old, shows that the dust is rapidly depleting in nine disks detected. In other words, you want to make a planet, you better hurry!

New Scientist makes an interesting observation concerning Kepler’s mission so far…

“Exoplanet systems around other stars are surprisingly flat compared with our own. The discovery means that the solar system must have had a far more colourful history than many of its counterparts and is forcing astronomers to rethink their ideas about the way planetary systems form.”

As science progresses, there have been no solutions or explanations found to problems that occurred with new discoveries in 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2009, even with the latest Kepler Spacecraft observations. What does this say about their epistemic status? Perhaps they should reconsider their notions about planet formation and study what Johannes Kepler was so delighted with his discoveries that even with the progress of science today, the earth remains special in the universe!

Scientific Discoveries Disagrees With Evolutionary Explanations

In recent weeks, there has been quite a number of reports in many different areas in science which amplify the importance concerning the philosophy of science with  real-world examples.  Scientists help design very expensive but amazing tools for observation.  When these amazing tools observe things that defy evolutionary explanations, how far will scientists alter a theory to avoid these real-world falsifications?

Hubble has been one out of many amazing tools ever to be designed, recently scientists have tweaked it to look even farther into the universe where some claim like science daily will give more insights on how the universe supposedly evolved.

“The research is published Jan. 27, 2011, in the journal Nature. The dim object is a compact galaxy made of blue stars that existed only 480 million years after the Big Bang. It is tiny. Over one hundred such mini galaxies would be needed to make up our Milky Way.”

While it is quite an accomplishment with this thrilling discovery, their model did not predict finding just one.  Are they going to alter the big bang-theory so it doesn’t appear falsified? What does discovering one galaxy so close to what scientists consider the beginning, mean? On astronomer describes the significance, “This is an astonishing increase in such a short period, happening in just 1% of the age of the universe.”

Now the Big Bang theory tells us a story about earlier stars that were made of pure hydrogen which are called, Population III stars (that haven’t been observed)  before heavy elements had been cooked inside the first generation stars, because only hydrogen and helium atoms are supposed to have emerged from the particle soup of the big bang.

Will scientists and the public get to see the very first stars? In New Scientist which asks this probing question, gives an answer…”The earliest galaxies may be too distant and dim to see with JWST.” It’s almost like trying to calculate the age of a black hole where time stands still so it’s left up to one’s imagination. Perhaps this is a good thing for evolutionary theory considering that many predictions that have been falsified through real-world observations. As for creationism, we tend to go with the real-world observations as evidence.

Mars has been another interesting discovery. To the surprise of scientists, sand dunes on the surface of Mars can change very quickly. This presents an interesting problem for old age theorists who believe Mars is like 4.5 billion years old. THEMIS infrared camera used on Mars Odyssey orbiter which is another amazingly designed tool, has been studying the dust on Mars. Why isn’t Mars covered with a kilometer of dust which should have happened if Mars was billions of years old.

Real-time observations show the layer to be thin. This is when imagination comes into play. “Well, maybe throughout most of its history, Mars has had too thin an atmosphere to make dust or initiate saltation or wind abrasion,” Mars seems to have global dust storms that occasionally obscure the entire surface of the planet with dust as fine as talcum powder.  Calculations show that 100 meters of dust should blanket the planet in 4.5 billion years given current estimated dust creation rates.

To explain this anomaly to make things right again (altering unobserved evidence to fit the old-age theory), Christensen used his imagination by suggesting the atmosphere was cycling in and out, which actively produced dust only 2% of the time.  The story sounds great for a screenplay that entails science fiction, but not in the real-world. Always remember that evolutionary explanations are an entirely different enterprise than what is found in scientific discovery which evidence leads to the confirmation of God’s Word!

Newly Discovered Galaxies Surprise Scientists

Nothing makes sense in light of evolution. In 1995, Hubble revealed one of the most amazing sights in one of the deepest regions of space than was previously unknown to man. These galaxies are way too mature for big bang models that predict a chronological order of structure concerning different stages of galaxies development as one looks deeper into space. A new discovery has revealed even more mature galaxies found in very deep space.

These newly discovered galaxies are not only way too mature for the big bang theory, but also are very active says scientists quoted in science daily

“We have found a relatively large number of very massive, highly luminous galaxies that existed almost 12 billion years ago when the universe was still very young, about 1.5 billion years old. These results appear to disagree with the latest predictions from models of galaxy formation and evolution.”


“The newly identified galaxies were five to ten times more massive than our own Milky Way. They were among a sample studied at redshift 3≤z<4, when the universe was between 1.5 and 2 billion years old.”

Indeed, these mature galaxies being observed today are falsifying big bang models. This might make multi-universes more popular, but the big bang theory holds no creditable scientific value. Where is the light and where is the sense?  Could this mean a shift into more anti-realism by trying to explain this with multi-universes?  These are not the type of surprises that should be found for a theory that is believed to be correct.

Other observational problems have existed for awhile with the big bang such as “Population III”  which are supposed to be the first stars ever created but it has never been observed and secular scientists seek only to discover one to claim verification of the theory when they need to find several of  these types of stars to validate a prediction which comes from the big bang theory. Could scientists discover even more mature galaxies in very deep space? Yes, which would be awesome!

So we find no organized structure of development predicted by the big bang, we find massive galaxies that are way too mature, no “Population III” stars have been observed but many would be required to validate and detecting radiation that is too smooth. The theory is dead, the only ones who think  keeping it alive are going by blind faith. Observations are indicating a designed universe that is young, not billions of years old!