James Webb Space Telescope with Dr Jason Lisle

The Purpose and Design of the James Webb Space Telescope

Okay. Okay. So let's make sure that there we go. And we're live streaming. Okay. So I am Terri Kammerzell and I'm here with Creation Fellowship Santee. We're a group of friends bound by our common agreement that the creation account as told in Genesis is a true depiction of how God created the universe and all life in just six days a few thousand years ago.

We've been meeting online here in this format since June of 2020. And we've been blessed by a lot of different presentations by people who love the Lord and have a message to share. And you can find links to most of those presentations by typing in tinyurl .com forward slash CF Santee that's C like creation F like fellowship and Santee is spelled S-A-N-T-E-E.

You can also email us at creation fellowship Santee at gmail .com. And that way you can get on our email list so that you don't miss any links to our upcoming speakers tonight. We're so blessed to have our fan favorite, Dr. Jason Lyle back.

Dr. Lyle is the president and founder of the Biblical Science Institute. He's an astrophysicist. So his specialty is definitely studying things in space. And we've actually had him several times before on other topics as well.

He teaches logic and he has a number of different videos that we've had. And you can find those on our channels and also visit his website biblicalscienceinstitute .com. But tonight we have him here to talk to us about the James Webb Space Telescope and the newest findings and the predictions that he had made and how those have been shown to be true so far.

So Dr. Lyle,.

With that, I'm happy to hand it over to you. Okay. Well, I thought I'd begin by talking a little bit about the James Webb Space Telescope itself, why it was built, what it's for, the predictions that the secular astronomers made, and why the predictions that I made and why.

And I think it would be good to start talking about this spacecraft by comparing it and contrasting it with another space telescope that a lot of people are familiar with. And that's the Hubble Space Telescope that was launched in 1990.

And unless you've been living in a cave for 30 years, you've probably seen some of these amazing images from the Hubble. And the Hubble was a, it's still in operation, but it's basically a space telescope with a 2 .4 meter diameter mirror.

That would be seven feet long, seven foot ten inch mirror in diameter. So it's pretty big. Now there are Earth telescopes that are a lot bigger than that, but the advantage of Hubble is it's above the atmosphere and Earth's atmosphere creates a blurring effect.

At least a little bit of turbulence wind will divert the paths of the light beams. And that causes images in ground-based telescopes to always be just a little bit blurry. Sometimes you can reduce it by getting a real still night, but Hubble's above all that.

And so it gets images that are as clear as is mathematically possible. Those of you that remember when Hubble went up, it, the original curvature of the mirror was slightly wrong due to one of the instruments they used to actually check and correct that curvature.

And they had to service it by basically getting it glasses. They produced the COSTAR instrument, which kind of acts like a contact lens that goes over Hubble and corrects that curvature. But they were able to do that because the Hubble space telescope is in low Earth orbit.

So that's basically, it means it orbits a couple hundred miles above the Earth's surface. And the nice thing about that is we can get people up there to fix it if it, as in fact happened in the 90s. And in fact, Hubble was designed to be upgradable.

It's got four different instruments in it. And the four instruments it has now are not the four that it launched with. They've been replaced over the decades. And we could get the space shuttle up there.

The astronauts could reach it, replace parts as needed. And so that's kind of a neat feature of Hubble. And it's able to do that because it's in low Earth orbit, and we can get to it fairly easily. We're going to see with the James Webb, that's not going to be possible because it's quite a bit, it's a different telescope in a different orbit.

Now, one of the other things about the Hubble is it is a visual wavelength telescope. Hubble sees what we would see. I kind of like that, right? So these images that we get of planets and nebulae, as long as they assign the colors to the appropriate filters, basically that's what it would look like if you were there.

Hubble has about the same range of wavelength frequencies of light that it can detect as the human eye. It goes just a little bit beyond it. It can see a little bit into the infrared and a little bit into the ultraviolet.

So it can see a little bit beyond human vision, but for the most part, it sees what we see. Some of the images that have been taken by Hubble have been false colored just to bring out certain features.

Astronomers do that not to be deceptive, but to bring out certain features. So the certain images are false color, like the famous Pillars of Creation, part of the Eagle Nebula. It's very beautiful. It's false color.

The actual color of that nebula is red. But in any case, Hubble sees what we see, and it gives these crystal clear images because it's above the Earth's atmosphere. And by taking a longer exposure, because it's got a pretty big mirror, it basically can leave the shutter open of the charged couple device, the CCD, and gather in light over a long period of time.

And it can see things that are very, very faint. And so not too long after it was launched, and after they corrected the mirror problem with COSTAR, Hubble did what we call the deep sky image. They pointed that telescope at a small region in space, not too far away from the Big Dipper, a region that in our galaxy is relatively empty, so we could see what's beyond it.

And they were hoping to see galaxies in the process of formation, because in the secular view, as you look deeper out into space, farther out into space, the thinking is, well, the light would have taken longer to get here.

And so basically, you're kind of looking into the past. Now, the issue is more nuanced than that, but that's the standard secular view. And so secularists who believe in the Big Bang, they believe the universe exploded into existence, and then stars formed from the initial gas, and then those stars collected into galaxies.

And so they were kind of hoping that Hubble would be able to see the earliest stages of galaxies. That's not what it found, though. If you take a look at the Hubble Deep Field, it found fully designed galaxies, not too dissimilar to galaxies the way they look nearby, almost as if they were all created like that.

And of course, I believe they were. So one of the goals of the James Webb Space Telescope is to go out deeper into space than Hubble, and to be able to see galaxies in the process of formation, and hopefully be able to see regions of space where galaxies had not formed yet.

And so trying to confirm the secular origin story is one of the reasons that this new telescope was developed. But Hubble can only see, the Hubble Space Telescope can only see out so far, and then it can't see out any further than that.

Why is that? Well, it has to do with what we call the Hubble Law, not connected to the telescope, both are connected to the man, Edwin Hubble, who discovered by his telescopic observations back in the 1920s, that galaxies tend to be redshifted.

And we tend to think of, you're probably familiar with the Doppler effect, you've certainly heard it when a car goes by, and the pitch of the horn changes, or the pitch of the engine changes as it goes by, because when it's approaching, the sound waves are compressed, and so the pitch sounds higher.

When it's departing, the waves are stretched out a bit, and so it sounds lower in pitch. Light will do that too. And so if you had a laser, and you could move it really fast, really forward, it would be shifted toward the blue end of the spectrum, the light would increase in frequency.

And if you were to move it away from you, the light would decrease in frequency, be redshifted. Now with light, it's harder to detect that effect, because you have to get close to the speed of light for it to be easily noticeable.

But we have instrumentation that can detect it, and we know that stars in our own galaxy, some of them are moving toward our solar system, some are moving away. The ones that are moving toward are blue shifted, the ones that are moving away are redshifted.

Now this has nothing to do with the intrinsic color of the star, you can't tell just by looking at a star if it's blue shifted or redshifted. You might say, well there's a blue star, it must be blue shifted.

No, because the star might actually just be blue. But if it's moving toward us, it'll be a little bluer, and the frequencies will be shifted more toward the blue, and if it's moving away, it'll be a little bit redder.

But you can't normally tell the redshift or blueshift just by looking at something. You need a spectrograph, you need a spectroscope to basically break down that light into its frequencies, look for the atomic fingerprint of the elements that are making that light, and then see which way they've shifted.

So it takes some pretty sophisticated instruments to do that, to measure these redshifts. Well Edwin Hubble back in the 20s discovered that galaxies were just about all redshifted except one or two that are really close by, and he found not only are galaxies redshifted, but the farther away the galaxy is, the more redshifted it is.

And so it's basically like all galaxies, it's like the entire universe is being expanded. Perhaps he could have anticipated that. Isaiah 40 talks about that, that very thing, and so maybe he could have seen that.

But in any case, it's there. The galaxies seem to all be moving away from each other more or less, and the farther away they are, the more redshifted they are. Now what that redshift means is that the frequencies of light that galaxies give off are shifted toward the red end of the spectrum.

And again you can't tell just by looking at a galaxy, because normally the redshift is pretty small. For nearby galaxies it's pretty small. But as galaxies get farther and farther away, the redshift is so much that all the light from that galaxy has been shifted into frequencies that we can't see anymore.

They've been shifted below the red end of the spectrum, and the human eye can't detect them, and the Hubble Space Telescope can't detect them, because its range goes just a little beyond human vision.

And so that was one of the goals then with this next generation space telescope, was to be able to, in order to be able to see galaxies that are farther away than Hubble, instead of looking in the visible range of light that human beings see, it's designed to look in infrared.

And that would be natural for looking at highly redshifted galaxies that Hubble can't see because they're too far in the infrared, but the James Webb telescope can see them. So this project was actually started development in the late 1980s, before the Hubble had even launched.

Scientists were already planning its successor, and that's often the way science works, especially when it's federally funded. You have to think in advance, you have to think sometimes decades in advance.

And so scientists began proposing what they called at that time the next generation space telescope, and that was the name for it until 2002. But I remember discussing this project when I was in grad school in the late 90s, in I think it was 98, when I was in my instrumentation class.

The professor was very excited about that, about this new space telescope that would be the successor for Hubble, and describing the way it works and so on. And we were all excited about it, it was just a neat project.

And we lamented that it would be, it wouldn't be until 2007 that it was supposed to be launched. Well, as misfortune would have it, it would have to wait until 2021 for it to be launched. So it just, sometimes things just take longer than they should, especially in science matters, and especially when politics are involved, that can happen too.

But I know people who have worked on this amazing space telescope, folks up in Boulder, Colorado that worked on various components of it, and the way it unfolds and so on. It's really an amazing design.

And so I thought I would talk a little bit about this telescope itself, how it's different from Hubble, and then what the predictions would be and why it was developed. So the next generation space telescope is renamed the James Webb Space Telescope in 2002.

And James Webb, he was the, he was in charge of NASA from 1961 to 1968. And if you think about that, that was kind of the glory days of NASA. That was the, you know, where the Apollo program was in its early development.

And in fact, James Webb was responsible for getting a lot of the, he pushed for federal funding for the Apollo program. And so if you're happy that people landed on the moon, you can thank James Webb for that.

He was instrumental in making that a reality. He passed away in 1992, but he was a good man. And I'm glad that we've honored him by naming the telescope after him. So the James Webb Space Telescope differs from Hubble in two primary ways.

And all the other ways it differs are to support those two primary differences. First of all, it's bigger. The Hubble mirror is 2 .4 meters across, about seven feet. The James Webb Space Telescope, its mirror is 6 .5 meters.

That'd be about 21 feet in diameter. It's so big that they didn't make a single mirror. Hubble has a single mirror. The James Webb Space Telescope has been organized into 18 hexagonal pieces that fit together to make the main mirror.

Perhaps you've seen images of it. Let's see if I can show you this. So there it is. There's the James Webb Space Telescope. And you can see that enormous mirror, 21 feet across. There's a sunshield below it.

That's about the size of a tennis court. And then I don't know if you can see it at this scale, but that's not a single mirror. It's made up of 18 hexagonal mirrors that actually fold together to make the big one.

And that was necessary because we don't have rockets big enough to carry that thing as it is. And so the engineers designed at least some of those panels to be able to fold into a more compact shape. And then after it launches, they unfold into their final position.

It's really ingenious the way it was designed. The sunshield as well. It has a stowed position, and then it unfolds into this tennis court sized sunshield. Really pretty brilliant. And just some of the details in this.

And my compliments to the people who built this thing and got it out there and calibrated it because it's an ingenious design. I mean, even getting those hexagonal mirrors to connect together. James Webb is designed to operate at a very low temperature.

And so they actually built those mirrors a little bigger than they should be on earth because materials contract in the cold. And so they designed it so that when it cools to its final temperature, they'll be the right size to operate appropriately.

So it's really just pretty ingenious the way that it works. So it's bigger than Hubble is the one difference. And that's why they had to design it to be able to kind of unfold. The Hubble Space Telescope can fit in a space shuttle cargo bag.

Not that we use shuttles anymore, but back when it was launched, we did, of course. James Webb won't. And so we had to use our biggest rockets that we have now to get it up there and design it to be compact.

The other difference, and I alluded to this earlier, is that the range of frequencies of light that it detects are below what we normally see. And so it's designed to peer into infrared wavelengths that Hubble really can't penetrate.

Hubble can go a little bit into the infrared. James Webb goes much deeper into the infrared. It's the wavelength range of Hubble is 6 ,000 angstroms to 28 ,500 angstroms. Now, for comparison, human range of vision, we can see from about 4 ,000 angstroms to 6 ,500 angstroms, maybe 7 ,000 angstroms, something like that.

So there's a little bit of overlap. So James Webb can see just a little bit into the red, but most of it's designed to peer into the much deeper infrared. And that's going to allow it to see galaxies that are redshifted beyond the frequency range of Hubble, beyond the frequency range of our eyes.

Now, all the other differences are really are designed around those two. The fact that it's bigger than Hubble and the fact that it sees infrared. So for example, you might notice from that picture that I just showed you, the mirror, it's not silver, it looks like it's gold.

And that's because it is in fact gold plated. The reason you do that is because gold reflects infrared better than silver. Silver is great if you want to see visible light and Hubble designed to detect primarily visible wavelengths, it's got a silvered mirror.

But with the James Webb Space Telescope, each of those hexagonal segments, they're actually made out of beryllium, which is a very light metal and one that doesn't contract as much as others with temperature.

And it's coated with a thin layer of gold. In fact, the layer of gold is only about 700 atoms thick. So it's a very thin layer. And that's because gold reflects infrared very well. So that's why it has that gold tinge to it.

The other thing, the James Webb Space Telescope cannot operate at room temperature. Why? Well, because anything that is at room temperature or a little warmer, gives off infrared. Maybe you've seen on television, people who had, you know, these thermal goggles, and they pointed at like an animal, the animals just glowing, because we give off infrared radiation, infrared light.

And that's not something we can see. But it's something that the James Webb Space Telescope can see. And so if it were at room temperature, it itself would be glowing. And imagine trying to take a picture when you're giving off all this light, it's not going to work.

So the James Webb Space Telescope has to operate at a very cold temperature so that it's not giving off very much infrared, infrared radiation. And so it actually has an operating temperature of about 40 kelvins, 40 degrees above absolute zero.

So that would correspond to, what would that be? I got it written down here, negative 370 degrees Fahrenheit. That's colder than Wisconsin. So that's, that's pretty amazing. And it will get to that temperature passively, if you can get out into space and let it cool off, get it away from all heat sources, it will naturally drop to that temperature, take several months, but it'll get there.

And so, but then the problem is we've got this source of heat in the solar system, and it takes you, you have to leave the solar system to get away from it. And that is the sun. The sun is what heats up the earth.

And if James Webb Space Telescope were not carefully designed, it would heat up that space telescope. So what they did with that is they designed that sun shield that you see at the, at the, at the base of the spacecraft there, that goes between the sun and all the other instruments.

All the instruments are on one side of the space shield, of the sun shield, and then the sun is on the other side. And there are five layers to that, it kind of unfolds, and each one drops the temperature by a certain amount.

And this was all calculated in advance, and it's very sophisticated and very brilliant, and it's been working perfectly. So how about that? But the other thing is, because the James Webb Space Telescope has to operate at such a cold temperature, you can't put it in north orbit, because the earth itself is warm.

The earth is giving off infrared radiation into space. It's receiving new energy from the sun and radiating that away into space. And so again, the, you don't want to put a telescope next to this giant light bulb, because that's what the earth is in infrared, it's glowing.

And so they had to put it in a different kind of an orbit, and they put it at what's called the L2 Lagrangian point. It turns out if you have, you know, the sun, and then the earth orbiting the sun, there are five places relative to the earth and the sun, where you could put a third object, and it would orbit at the same, with the same period as the earth, taking 365 days to go around the sun, but would maintain its relative orientation to the earth and the sun.

And those points are called Lagrangian points, after the man who figured out those, those positions. It's kind of places where the earth and the sun's gravity combine in just the right way, so that an object will orbit just like the earth does, but in a different position.

The L2 Lagrangian point is opposite the sun, so you get the sun, the earth, and then L2 would be a little bit further away from the earth. It's a million miles away from the earth in the opposite direction of the sun.

That's where the James Webb Space Telescope is, and it took it a little while to get there. They had, they launched it in, actually launched it on Christmas day 2021, and it took it a few weeks to get out to that L2 Lagrangian point, and then it's actually orbiting around that Lagrangian point, and then they had to wait for the spacecraft to cool down, and then there was a calibration process where they had to get those 18 hexagonal mirrors, so that they were just exactly aligned, and there's a process by which that occurs, and so on.

It's absolutely ingenious, and just the innovations, too. The lens for this thing, for example, normally you think, well, lenses are made of glass. This one's made of salt, not table salt, but nonetheless a metal and non-metal that are ionically combined, and so, and they did that because glass does not transmit infrared light very well.

Glass blocks infrared, which is why your car gets really hot in the summer when you leave it out in sunlight. Just baking on the inside, you get that greenhouse effect. We don't want to block infrared because that's what the instrument is designed to look at, so you got to put it far away from the Earth, a million miles away, which means, unlike Hubble, it's not serviceable.

We can't get people out to a million miles in space. The farthest human beings have been into space is the and that's 240 ,000 miles away, so, and even that, we're going back, but that takes quite a bit of effort, so that's the disadvantage of that orbit, is the, unlike the Hubble, the Hubble's upgradable and serviceable.

The James Webb Space Telescope is not upgradable. It's not serviceable, and so if anything went wrong, it's 10 billion dollars down the drain, but fortunately it's worked flawlessly. They did find one little hiccup with the spectrograph, but other than that, it's working very, very well and very exciting, very exciting.

So there's even more to it, though. It actually has four different instruments on it that detect different ranges of wavelengths of light, and three of them operate at this operating temperature of about 40 kelvins, 40 degrees above absolute zero, but there's one that operates in the the mid-infrared.

The other three are sort of near-infrared. They're closer to our vision. There's one that's further out, and it requires really cold temperatures to work, and it's called MIRI, and it actually has to operate at a temperature below seven kelvins, so that would be negative 447 degrees Fahrenheit, or about less than seven degrees above absolute zero, and it turns out that passive cooling won't get you there, so they actually had to build basically a cryo-cooler, an air conditioner basically, on board the spacecraft that will cool that one instrument, and it's worked.

It's down to below seven kelvins, so amazingly pretty neat. So what then are the predictions? Why build this thing? And what were secularists expecting to find? Well, as I mentioned earlier, one of the goals of this thing is to confirm some of the predictions of the Big Bang, the secular model of the origins of our universe.

The Big Bang is supposed to say that, according to the Big Bang, the universe starts as a point, not a point in space, but space itself is in the point, as weird as that is, which then rapidly expands, and this point has essentially infinite temperature, because you've got all the energy of everything that will become everything in the universe crammed into a point, so the energy, the temperature is essentially infinite, and then when it expands, it cools.

If you think of the ideal gas law that you learned in chemistry or physics, as it expands, it would, the temperature will drop because it has more volume, and initially the temperature is so high that you can't even have things like atoms.

You can only have these exotic particles that have a very brief existence that live in very high temperature situations. Eventually the universe cools to the point where some of these particles, quarks and stuff, can combine to form protons and neutrons and electrons, and then eventually you get atoms.

Now according to the Big Bang model, the only atoms, the only types of atoms that the Big Bang can produce because of the temperature and the density, and I've worked through the math on this, the math's right, I just, I don't believe those conditions ever existed, but if they had, the only atoms that could be made would be hydrogen and helium gas and a little bit of lithium.

The temperature and pressure and conditions are not right in the Big Bang to produce anything heavier than lithium, so things like oxygen and nitrogen, the Big Bang cannot produce those. And yet we have oxygen and nitrogen in our universe, so how do we get those?

Well according to the secularists, the first stars that formed formed out of that hydrogen and helium gas as gravity pulled that gas together, and then some stars under certain circumstances will explode, and that can create, theoretically, the heavier elements, it will fuse the hydrogen helium into heavier and progressively heavier elements, and then when it explodes, those elements get dispersed out into space, and so the second generation of stars then has a few of these heavier elements, things like oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, things like that, stuff that we're made of.

So the, one of the expectations was that the James Webb Space Telescope would be able to see out to a point in space where the heavy elements had not been formed yet, because haven't had time. That's one of the predictions that was expected.

So in the Big Bang model, the first galaxies that form, because the atoms form, then they collect into stars, and stars collect by their gravity and form into galaxies, and that's supposed to happen around 400 million years after the Big Bang.

That's how long it takes to form the first galaxies, maybe between, early estimates would be between 300 million years and 400 million years after the Big Bang. That's when the first galaxies are supposed to form, and that corresponds to a distance, because in secular thinking, as you look out to farther distances, which correspond to farther redshifts, then it should have taken the light longer to get here.

You're effectively looking back in time, and a redshift, basically 400 million years after the Big Bang, would correspond to a redshift of 11. That means the light's been stretched out by that factor.

300 million years would correspond to a redshift of 14. So I'm going to say redshift, but think distance. So a redshift of 11, that's pretty far out. A redshift of 14, that's really far out. Those are both farther than, that's farther than the Hubble can go.

And so the idea was, since the James Webb can see at distances farther than that, it should see a distance where there are no galaxies, because they haven't had time to form yet. It's looking back in time.

It's looking at a distance that corresponds to a time where galaxies had not yet formed. That was one of the predictions that the secularists made. And then, in fact, let me bring that up. Let's see here.

Oops, wrong window. Hold on a second. There it is. There it is. Okay. So according to the secular predictions, few galaxies at great distances, because it takes time for them to form, right? They don't all form immediately.

That's a creationist view, right? The secular view is that they take time to form. And so you should see very few galaxies at tremendous distances and none beyond a redshift of 14, because that corresponds to, in the secular view, a time of 300 million years after the Big Bang.

There shouldn't be any galaxies at that distance. Furthermore, since it takes time for stars to collect and form galaxies, they would expect the very earliest galaxies, and therefore the farthest galaxies, would be very low mass, because it takes time for those stars to gather together.

So the first galaxy shouldn't have very many. And they should be clumpy and irregular, because the idea is, the reason we have these beautiful spiral galaxies nearby, secularists believe that that happens as a result of galaxies interacting with each other over time.

It's supposed to take time, in hundreds of millions of years, to form these beautiful spiral structures and elliptical galaxies as well. So the secularists were predicting that the earliest galaxies, those that are near redshift 14, ought to be low mass and clumpy and irregular, not these beautiful design spirals.

And then finally, because secularists believe that the Big Bang can only produce hydrogen, helium, and trace amounts of lithium, it follows that the first stars that collapsed from that gas ought to be made of only those three elements and nothing else.

And so the farthest galaxies that we see, which have stars in them, should have only what are called population three stars. Population three star is a hypothetical star predicted by secularists that has no heavy elements in it, nothing like oxygen, nitrogen, what astronomers call metals.

Astronomers use that term different from chemists. In astronomy, anything heavier than helium is considered a metal. Okay, so it's different from the chemists that would not classify oxygen as a metal, but astronomers do.

So the farthest galaxies should not have any metals in them except for a little bit of lithium, because the Big Bang can only produce hydrogen, helium, lithium. And the stars haven't had time to go through a generation and then explode where they contaminate the gas around them.

And then the next generation of stars that forms from that gas has a few heavy elements, and then the third generation has even more. So these are popular, these would be called population three stars, and so far they're hypothetical.

Now we do know of population one and population two stars. Our sun is a population one star. It's kind of backwards because, because of the way they were discovered, the sun was analyzed first, so it's population one.

It's got a lot of heavy elements in it. Well, it's still less than one percent, but for a star it's got a lot of heavy elements in it, things like oxygen, carbon. We can detect those in the sun through spectroscopy, the analyzing of the light, and analyzing that atomic fingerprint that's found in the light.

And then we discovered population two stars that have fewer heavy elements, and then the hypothetical population three should have no heavy elements other than lithium. So it's backwards. The first generation of stars in secular thinking would be population three, the second generation would be population two, and the third generation's population one.

So it's kind of backwards thinking, but I didn't come up with it. So there we go. So that's their predictions, and you can see why they made them. It follows logically from the Big Bang and the time scale that is assumed for the Big Bang in terms of how long they think it takes for the first stars to form.

I mean, stars can't form when the universe is incredibly hot, because the gas pressure would prevent that. So it takes a while for the universe to cool after the Big Bang to the point where the gas can collect, and again, the first galaxies are supposed to form 300 -400 million years after the Big Bang.

That corresponds to a redshift of 14 to around 11 or so. Those earliest galaxies that do exist should be very low, low mass, clumping, irregular, and they should be only population three stars, which means no heavy elements.

My predictions are exactly the opposite. I don't believe in the Big Bang. I believe that God spoke the galaxies into existence. I don't believe that we're effectively looking back in time. Again, that's a nuanced issue, but I believe the Bible's using an anisotropic synchrony convention whereby we're looking at the universe in real time, and so I would expect no matter how far out we look, things are going to look kind of similar to the way they look here.

They don't have to be exactly the same, but my prediction is lots of galaxies at great distances. I predicted that the James Webb Space Telescope would see galaxies at much greater distances than the secularists were expecting because I don't believe in the Big Bang, and I believe God created those galaxies, and because I believe God created the galaxies, I don't believe that you're going to find galaxies sort of in the process of formation where they're low mass and clumpy.

I'm expecting that the farthest galaxies that the James Webb can detect would be fully formed galaxies, massive, well-structured, even spiral disk-shaped galaxies, not sort of in-between forms, not transitional galaxies.

I believe that they would be fully designed for what they are designed to do, and then third, I would expect that the farthest galaxies will have heavy elements in them, things like oxygen and nitrogen, because I don't believe that those are, well, let me clarify, I do believe theoretically that those heavy elements can be produced in the core of a star when it supernovas.

I do think the math checks out for that, but I don't believe that all heavy elements were created that way, because according to scripture, the earth's made on day one, and the earth has heavy elements.

At the very least, it had water right away, because the Bible mentions water being on the earth in verse two. Water's made up of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. Oxygen's a heavy element, and then stars are made on day four, so at least oxygen had to exist before the first stars.

And so I don't have any reason to believe that you're going to find stars that have zero heavy elements. I believe that these most distant galaxies will have heavy elements in them, as do stars nearby.

So as you can see, my predictions are the exact opposite of the secularist predictions, but I'm thinking as a creationist, they're thinking in terms of the Big Bang and secular evolutionary ideas, and I'm confident enough in my predictions, or at very least that the secular predictions would be wrong, that I not only predicted these scientific results, but I also predicted how secularists would respond when their predictions fail.

I was confident enough that I predicted that we will see galaxies way beyond what they were expecting, and secularists will respond with statements like this, quote, web discovers that galaxies formed much earlier than previously thought.

Because, I mean, you'd think, hey, the standard secular model predicts that there shouldn't be galaxies beyond redshift -14, they haven't had time to develop. I mean, you'd think a rational scientist would, when he sees that, hey, there are galaxies way beyond that, he would maybe rethink, well, maybe the Big Bang's wrong.

But you see, evidence will not dissuade people of the Big Bang, because the Big Bang is not based on evidence. It is a philosophical pre-commitment. It's a presupposition through which all the evidence is interpreted.