Lets talk about the big bang.

Then I suppose those of us who have an understanding of science should expect those who are estranged from it to constantly get scientific details wrong?

This was Hovinds "strawman arguement"

That is a complete and utter nonsense claim about the Universe spinning.  You will find rotation about every possible axis across the Universe: the idea that all galaxies are even in the same plane is easily seen to be nonsense in any image of multiple galaxies. This is just an example of the fact that Hovind is incompetent on scientific subjects.

Here is an example, the Hubble deep field image:

 Thank you for the post, Elroch.

But I am not sure that that addressed Hovind's point directly.

Here is Hovind's argument, as I understand it:

Given

A) galaxies are observed to spin on many different axes, and given

B) his disparity in spin does not match what would be expected by the Thoery of Big Bang, and given

C) Big Bang Thoery supporters cannot explain this disparity, therefore

D) Big Bang Theory must be incorrect.

@Trump2020

Was that a correct synopsis of Hovind's argument?

Thanks for the pic. I love pictures of space

Cosmologists base their theories of how the Universe formed from observation & theoretical analysis, including creating computer models on which they run simulations.

Unlike other branches of science you can't bring the Universe into a laboratory to conduct experiments on it! And by the way, in the context of Cosmology, it's referred to simply as 'inflation'. At least that's the way I've heard them use it in discussions.

Religious texts written down in the late Bronze Age are no more than the creation myths of the people of that time & nothing can be usefully inferred from them. That some supposed magical super-being 'thought' the Cosmos into existence is outside of science & doesn't belong on the same page.

It belongs in the realms of myth & superstition.

Except for the fact that many of the words used in the original texts describing creation are very unique and describe exactly what took place, not theoretically... And, the 'magical super-being' didn't 'think' the universe into existence, he spoke it into existence.

Seriously? From your post above:

"Genesis ch1 v3 reads 'Let there be light.'

In the original Hebrew, the word for light here is 'owr' ( ore) and means to 'illuminate.' Celestial, sky or universe beyond earth's atmosphere.

The bible does say the Lord created the sun,moon, and stars, ( 1 v 14-18, specifically vs16 " 2 great lights" ) but here the word used is 'meorah' ( meh-o-raw ) which is luminous body, luminary light. So vs 3 cannot be talking about the sun."

We can be extremely confident that the Universe was completely dark for a very long time. Light or illumination only began when the very hot plasma cooled, allowing matter to form & that matter had a chance to form stars. This took at least hundreds of millions of years!

There was no light of any kind at the beginning of the Universe.

If such translations of the OT were so very inaccurate, why were they accepted for so many hundreds of years?

Who says they're inaccurate? The language speaks to specifics. Scientific experiments speak to theory.

Genesis ch1 v3 reads 'Let there be light.'

In the original Hebrew, the word for light here is 'owr' ( ore) and means to 'illuminate.' Celestial, sky or universe beyond earth's atmosphere.

Well if the original meant 'Let there be light' & that's supposed to refer to the beginning of the Universe, it's false because we know there wasn't any light. Physics is very clear that light is produced under certain circumstances & those circumstances didn't exist for many millions of years.

There can't have been light at the beginning of the Universe if conditions for the creation of light didn't exist for a further 100 million years & more!

Again Stephen, the language is spot on. It's specific and differentiates between the types of light / lighting mentioned in Genesis chapter 1. Seems more divinely inspired than say a group of Jewish nomads sitting around the campfire in the middle of a desert conjuring up the story.

Science on the other hand can only ( and i'll use two words you have used during discussions under similar topics / discussions in the OD ) 'strongly suggest ' what might be, or might have been.

But we know that the first light was generated by the nuclear fusion within the first stars, some hundreds of millions of years after the beginning of the Universe.

So Genesis tells us that at some indeterminate point in time, the first light was generated but it was generated within stars, not as a result of the will of some deity!

All creation myths, no matter how fantastic, refer to the beginning of the world & the heavens, so there's nothing remarkable about this in the OT.

The bible says stars fall to Earth, because people believed stars were small things in those days, and had no source of wisdom to correct this guess.

I wouldn't use this argument, as when the Universe was a hot plasma it was constantly full of thermal photons as well as all the other stuff. So until the temperature fell below red heat, it was full of radiant light simply from being hot. This time was roughly a million years.

This in no sense agrees with what Genesis says, because this has the creation of "the heavens and the Earth" first, while the latter was over 8 billion years later.

Where is this found?

Several places, included in this list:

https://www.openbible.info/topics/falling_stars

Yes, I know but I've heard Cosmologists say that the density of the early Universe was such that no radiation could escape, having the effect of making it utterly dark. Is that not true?

And of course the phrase "Let there be light" could hardly be taken to mean let there be thermal photons in the plasma!

No, that is not true, and I think you have somewhat misrepresented what is said.

Before 380,000 years after the Big Bang, the Universe consisted of ionised gas at around 3000K (hotter as you go back further). The result of this was that it was very brightly shining everywhere and opaque. Just before the time of last scattering the Universe looked like the surface of Betelgeuse everywhere (which happens to be a star whose surface is at 3000K, compared to 6000K for the Sun), and had a similar constitution. 

So there was visible light before the first stars came into being? If so, that seems to contradict what I thought I remember Cosmologists say on the subject but next time I'll make a more careful note!