Oh, you again. As far as the “Big Bang” goes, pseudoscientists were forced to accept the clear evidence that started to pour in when Hubble first discovered red shift. Also, my point stands since your interjection here is anachronistic.
Your premise with respect to Newton is reversed, since he was a firm believer in God. Newton’s words with respect to God were “masterful creator” and “universal ruler”. He had a strong interest in end-time prophecy also.
?
Olog-hai: "As far as the “Big Bang” goes, pseudoscientists were forced to accept the clear evidence that started to pour in when Hubble first discovered red shift."
"pseudoscientists"? What kind of talk is that?
Scientists, the real thing, accepted the Big Bang idea when and only when it was confirmed by strong lines of evidence -- just as they accept every other confirmed scientific theory.
That's how science works, that's what scientists do.
So what is this "pseudoscientist" rubbish?
I remember the debates with Fred Hoyle (who coined the term "Big Bang") & others in the 1960s.
Steady-staters lost then and their ideas have not been seriously defended since.
Even Hoyle's 1993 updated "Quasi-steady State Model" found very little support.
Olog-hai: "Also, my point stands since your interjection here is anachronistic."
What point?
What anachronism?
Olog-hai: "Your premise with respect to Newton is reversed..."
Now I "get" it -- you have zero reading comprehension, that part of your brain has atrophied and so you just substitute whatever idea pops into your head for what I actually posted.
My suggestion to you is a healthier diet, exercise and maybe even supplements to help you with cognition.
Then try to understand what was posted before you embarrass yourself again.