Didn't read my link I see.
No, I sure didn't. I don't need your link to tell me the opposite of what I've tested myself. I know the law, I know science. I don't need theory that can't explain things it should be able to account for. Things like, if an explosion happens in a frictionless environmnet, why isn't everything in the universe still travelling from a central point at the same unrestricted speed given the absence of friction. I mean, in a frictionless environment, things all will move at the same rate regardless of mass as in the laws of gravity. You could therefore not ever have a collision of spacial bodies.. it would be literally impossible. The problem is you assume the big bang though it's unsupportable in and of itself. It's a shell game. You guys evidently never learned that the more assumptions you pile up, the less reliable your conclusions. And yet you balk when people have no confidence in your conclusions - it's because there is no authority behind them. If you presented a book and advised it was written by one of the apostles, yet has glaring contradictions to the NT in it, has no greek original text and has never been heard of before, it would be rejected out of hand for lack of authority among other things. Kinda funny that we've more respect for method than you guys. How do you suppose that happens.