Replies

"The redshift of light from distant galaxies is evidence that the universe is expanding. It is also evidence of the big bang origin of the universe. Cosmologists currently estimate the age of the universe at something like 14 billion years. Exactly how they came up with that estimate is beyond me, but Hugh Ross is an expert on it."

The above bold is an example of faulty logic.

For example(paraphrased from Refuting Compromise):
Theory T predicts observation O;
O is observed;
Therefor, T is true.

To show how this is faulty:
If I had just eaten a whole pizza, I would feel very full;
I feel very full;
Therefor, I have just eaten a whole pizza.

Just because I'm full does not mean I just ate a whole pizza (I might have eaten a dozen hamburgers) and because the universe is expanding is not evidence of the big bang.

The right way to to verify a theory would be:
Theory T predicts O will not be observed;
O is observed;
Therefore, T is false.

So lets try this out on real data:
Theory "Big Bang" predicts observation "cosmic microwave radiation indicating constant temperature throughout space to within 1 part in 100,00032", will not be observed.
Observation "cosmic microwave radiation indicating constant temperature throughout space to within 1 part in 100,00032", is observed.
Therefore, Theory "Big Bang", is False.

English astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle had this to say: "Big-Bang cosmology refers to an epoch that cannot be reached by any form of astronomy, and, in more than two decades, it has not produced a single successful prediction."

And assuming Schroeder did get it wrong, who is to say there only two choices?
What if there is a third choice, namely, that the majority of those in the scientific community are wrong about the origins of the earth and that the Bible is indeed correct concerning 6, 24 hour days?
Does it not then come down to a question of faith?
Whether it be me placing my faith in the Bible, or you placing your faith in astronomers?