[longshadow]

So the concept of a Big Bang has been around about as long as humanity.

No; what you've just shown is the notion of the Universe having a finite age has been around for a long time, not that the Big Bang Cosmology's advocates have had "over a hundred years" to explain it. None of the ideas you presented, from Moses to Newton, are capable of making specific predictions of the observed characteristics of the Universe, as has been done by the BB Cosmology.

The term, however, is a little less than a hundred years old.

Once again, you are incorrect. Hoyle, father of the Steady-State Cosmology, coined the term "Big Bang" in the 1950's as a disparagement of the alternative Cosmology.

The point being that until the early 1960's relatively few Cosmologists subscribed to the Big Bang Cosmology; most were Steady Staters. It was only after Penzias and Wilson discovered the predicted CMBR that the BB Cosmology received wide-spread acceptance. Most of the scrutiny of BB Cosmology has occurred since that time, roughly 40 years, far less time than the advocates of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have had to defend their theories.

[gitmo]

OK. I concede I should have been using the phrase "finite age of the universe" rather than "Big Bang". I was using the term to refer to a specific event creating the Universe.

But my original thesis still stands: it is the scientific community that has continually modified its theories rather than the creationists.

And, as I stated in my original post (#233) that is the nature of the scientific process and is no surprise. The fact that the Big Bang has been around a shorter time than I stated further bolsters that assertion. It also highlights the fact that I'm not a physicist, but a biologist. :o)