You do realise you’re quoting a science journalist, not a scientist, don’t you?
Journalism does not exactly have a stellar track record for accuracy. The number one rule of journalism in general is, “never let the truth get in the way of a good story.” And the idea of soft tissue and DNA in dinosaur fossils is a good story because it panders to the public’s imagination of making Jurassic Park a reality. For that reason you always need to treat dramatic statements such as “pose a radical challenge to the existing rules of science” and “were promptly attacked” as potential hyperbole when coming from the popular news media outlets. And it’s for that reason that you need to refer to textbooks or reputable peer reviewed journals in order to establish what was found and what wasn’t, and what the findings challenge and what they don’t. It’s when you do that, that you find out that the findings weren’t anywhere near as paradigm-demolishing as they get made out to be by the news outlets and popular documentaries.
This is something that happens in every area of science. This illustrates it:
You quote me out of context. That is not an honest thing to do. Did I say that or anything implying that? Do your homework and be truthful in your citations. Someone else said that – I did not even give the vaguest hint that I believe any such thing, but exactly the opposite.
You are right that science itself is not secular - because it forms no hypotheses nor makes any conclusions. Science is raw information and the methods by which that data is gathered.
But you continuously confuse “science” with Scientism (Biblically: “science falsely so-called”). And Scientism (what you erroneously refer to as “science”) is most certainly a secular endeavor by flawed human beings who will not allow serious discussion of any supernatural creator outside of our world - despite the observational evidence requiring exactly that. Scientism is like observing Stonehenge, but being forbidden to even discuss the obvious and most rational conclusion that it was intelligently designed for a purpose.
Based on your obvious misunderstanding of what “science” actually is, we can make our own conclusions about who is really misleading whom.
The scientific method by definition involves the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. You do not get to make up your own meaning for science.
God created the lights and placed them in the firmament as signs and markers for days, months, seasons, and years. The sun wasn’t created to initiate or alter mornings, evenings, or days - but to mark the passage of time periods that were already occurring beforehand.
So what we call a “solar day” today is the same length of time as Days 1, 2 and 3 were before the sun was created as a marker for days.
(Note that the division of time known as a “week” is not included as a reason for the lights in the firmament, but based solely on the number of days God took to create our world - plus one day of rest afterwards.)
I’m sorry you deny the truth that comes from the reality of God’s wonderful creation, subjecting your interpretation of early Genesis to science, denying God’s intent.
No worries though, top guys are already on it. From the article…
In this new work, researchers refined distance measurements to four different galaxies (which are at distances ranging from 168 million light-years to 431 million light-years from Earth) and additional, previous distance measurements to two galaxies. They found the Hubble Constant, or the rate that the universe is expanding, to be 73.9 kilometers (45.9 miles) per second per megaparsec.
At best, it requires “refining” the distant measurements, and even the Hubble Constant. At worst, it calls into question expansion itself - which most certainly has to do with the alleged singularity.
Here’s a more recent article highlighting some of the newest “rescue devices”…
From the article…
The possible explanations for how astronomers got it wrong are plentiful. Perhaps early stars formed far more efficiently than we thought, through mechanisms that scientists hadn’t considered before. Allison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas who studies galaxy evolution, wonders whether cosmic dust in these galaxies could be playing tricks on Webb, making stars appear older than they really are—and maybe cosmic dust was just different back then. Ivo Labbé, an astronomer at Swinburne University of Technology, suspects that black holes could play a role: They are among the most luminous objects in the universe when they’re feeding on cosmic matter, which glows as it gets sucked in. “If you dump a lot of gas into a black hole, it will start to outshine the entire galaxy,” Labbé told me. Such black holes could make early galaxies appear brighter, more star-filled. But none of these possibilities will undo the fact that the first island universes are not what we expected. Even accounting for some weird new phenomena, “everything’s too big, and it’s too big, too soon,” Kirkpatrick told me.
It’s always the same. A new discovery challenges the official narrative that people have shoved down our throats for years as incontrovertible fact - and then out come all the rescue devices.
Do a Google search for “big bang debunked” and just look at all the articles trying their best to promote the idea that, “No, despite what a bunch of prominent astronomers are saying, Webb most certainly does NOT debunk our beloved Big Bang Theory!”
I laugh at all of it, because the Bible makes it very clear that there can’t even be some space telescope floating around in some alleged vacuum taking pictures of alleged ancient galaxies in the first place.
Uh huh. So according to the Bible it is clear your GPS does not work.
I tried. You resist basic notions of grade school science, what the scientific method is, what fluid behavior is. It is apparent that engaging in a good faith discussion of modern cosmology with you is a futile waste of time, and you are only interested in platforming your conspiracy beliefs.
They apply.