I have $100 that says in 5 years the scientific community will still accept the Big Bang theory, because there is no credible evidence against it. Accept?
The discovery (compliments of the James Webb Space Telescope deep field images) nis the presently accepted cosmic redshift interpretation that predicted a 'Dark Ages', an era just after the Big Bang when there was nothing but primordial particles. Turns out it is full of garden variety galaxies.
Consequently, arguing the existence of a big bang based on an evolutionary redshift interpretation is false logic.
Does cosmic redshift exist? Sure. It informs us of cosmic distances. That the Universe is expanding? Well, the 'Dark Ages' was wrong, so why give redshift credit for expansion?
There is truth in what you say, and even though observational evidence can have its drawbacks (especially in quantum mechanics), it's still the best we've got.
The discovery of fully formed galaxies so close to the big bang, and virtually the entire news media reluctant to ask the obvious question, "...then where is the Big Bang?", is akin to a ship captain looking at what is obviously landfall, by placing his telescope to his blind eye and saying, "Nope. nothing there"
I have $100 that says in 5 years the scientific community will still accept the Big Bang theory, because there is no credible evidence against it. Accept?
Tom, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I would even say the Big Bang will struggle on for generations:
https://youtu.be/D7zRrqqbc9c
The discovery (compliments of the James Webb Space Telescope deep field images) nis the presently accepted cosmic redshift interpretation that predicted a 'Dark Ages', an era just after the Big Bang when there was nothing but primordial particles. Turns out it is full of garden variety galaxies.
Consequently, arguing the existence of a big bang based on an evolutionary redshift interpretation is false logic.
Does cosmic redshift exist? Sure. It informs us of cosmic distances. That the Universe is expanding? Well, the 'Dark Ages' was wrong, so why give redshift credit for expansion?
There is truth in what you say, and even though observational evidence can have its drawbacks (especially in quantum mechanics), it's still the best we've got.
The discovery of fully formed galaxies so close to the big bang, and virtually the entire news media reluctant to ask the obvious question, "...then where is the Big Bang?", is akin to a ship captain looking at what is obviously landfall, by placing his telescope to his blind eye and saying, "Nope. nothing there"