James/Kathleen/Eugene (et al.),It is commonly known that, unless more hypothetical factors are added, the predictions made from the big bang model stand in utter contradiction of what we observe.
The crucial point, however, is not what happened after the bang, but what happened prior to it. Leaving Steady State aside, one can choose between: a) “everything came from nothing” (effect without a cause)b) “everything came from something” Because option a) is idiotic, it was utterly rejected by Fred Hoyle. Making fun of it, he called it sarcastically the “big bang”. Today, it is obviously idiotic not to accept the idiotic option, viz. the miraculous effect without a cause.
I assume this is all part of “the beauty of science”, the evolving ‘facts’, etc. That the current consensus is aligned with the views presented in this thread is perfectly fine. Personally, I prefer option b), and if that merits the designation of “religious fanatic”, then this is fine too. What is not fine is to teach children this miraculous illogical model without giving them the alternative version. And to clear the misunderstanding, – I don’t think the big bang theory is deplorable, it’s merely stupid.
Bombarding children and young teenagers with the stereotype, “13.8 billion years ago blablaba”, without even giving option b), – that is a deplorable crime which rather merits getting a millstone around the neck and to be drowned. I certainly don’t expect my insights to reform the education system anymore, but at least I’d like to air my views.
In response to further contributions: Uniformitarianism is not science but the result of disallowing a Divine Foot in the door. It’s merely the consequence of believing in the above magic, i.e. in an effect without a cause. As for evolution, it can be nipped in the bud right away: life doesn’t arise spontaneously from non-living chemicals, and if someone nevertheless wants to believe in the impossible, then I admire their faith, but I don’t share it and deem it irrelevant for our discussion. If it helps people to believe that they are unaccountable accidents, then I will be the last person to stand in their way.
I don’t know what the “antichrist reference” has to do with our subject, but it seems that the faculty of Atatürk University plus the Turkish government is viewed as a bunch of idiots or anti-science fanatics (this is what I am forced to conclude).
It is a pitiful tactic of recommending science, but I do appreciate the scoffing and also the vehement opposition if a find supports Scripture. Both of these practices prove the reliability of the biblical text. Considering all the redundant prattle, I wouldn’t mind moving on now and look at some (potential :-) autoptic archaeological evidence: Mt. Sinai, the encampment area, the altar of the golden calf, etc. – that kind of thing… any interest? No?
PS: James, – fossilized timber specimen found at the ark site was tested and showed 0.7019% organic carbon (plus 13.04% iron).