<object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QNoQvjlmGdk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QNoQvjlmGdk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object>
Not terribly open minded on this subject, are you... It is one thing to be questioning something that science can easily answer, but another to dismiss something that is not actually in conflict with what science actually knows... Is it possible that one day in the time frame of God's creation meant half a billion years or more in our years? Why not? Certainly even you can grasp the concept of "dog years" when discussing lifespan, so what is a day in the life of God who is eternal? Each so called day is insignificant and of undetermined length. Can you say how much time passed before your so called "big bang?" It is all speculation and musing by scientists who have no methodology to provide a test of their musings and speculations... It is pretty safe to say that taking scriptures literally and fundamentally will result in confusion of false bravado, but it actually is equally true that people who take the musing of scientists (not the actual science) literally and fundamentally will culminate in their own expressed confusion and false bravado...
Sure, why not? When someone can choose to interpret a book any way they please, then they can make it mean whatever they wish. The sky's the limit. Imagination is a truly wonderful thing.
People like you choose to interpret science, so what is the difference? The sky is the limit to the science fiction writers, the scientific theorists. Imagination is a truly wonderful thing... What else but pure unadulterated science fiction could come up with a big bang? LOL!!!
A modicum of evidence coupled with a smudge of systematic critical thinking and perhaps some peer review. However much you choose to scoff at it, it has gotten us this far. Had everything been assigned to god and his will, I suspect we'd still be living in huts and caves. Few bible scholars are at the cutting edge of innovation. Except as it relates to interpreting the bible to accommodate what is known today.
Peer review? Do you understand the fundamental circular logic in that concept? "Had everything been assigned to god and his will, I suspect we'd still be living in huts and caves." Man thinking he is superior to God and God's will...the same man afraid to even capitalize the proper name God.
I'll accept the so-called circularity of peer review as long as it keeps the whackos and charlatans in check. I'll leave you to your wider net. Note that the (honorary) PhD guy who is referred to in the opening post did not have his Earth dating "science" peer reviewed.