Craig Feinstein wrote:
[snip irrelevent drivel]

Now, I guess since we are modern people, we are immune to such
nonsense, right? Wrong. You will see that our society has an illness
very similar to idolatry - namely belief in the big bang (also a more
chronic illness is belief in evolution but this is a physics post, so
I'll stick to the big bang).

No need. You've already revealed yourself as a creationist imbecile, and
the rest of your post can be predicted to a high degree of accuracy.

1) The theory states that there was a giant explosion in the beginning
of time which resulted in a relatively ordered universe. But
explosions never result in order whatsoever. Explosions take place in
wars and terrorist attacks, but what do they bring? Destruction and
disorder. Not order. Therefore, if a giant explosion did occur in
the beginning then it could not have produce the relatively ordered
world that we live in today.

Here you simply take the creationists' chronic misconceptions regarding
thermodynamics and apply them to the evolution of the entire Universe,
rather than restricting yourself to living organisms. It's the same
argument, and it's just as wrong.

2) The observations made through the telescopes yielded data which is
very accurate. However, the data has been interpreted with the
assumption that the laws of the universe way out there in space are
the same as they are here, without actually going out in space and
taking measurements there.

And how do you propose we do that? Answer: you don't. Rather than have
us make a few eminently reasonable assumptions about the way the
Universe works, so that we can do science, you would prefer us to sit
still and read the Bible.

It is certainly conceivable that our
interpretations of the telescope observations are wrong and the laws
of the universe distant from us are different than what we experience
here. In fact, this is not only conceivable but probable. We have
observed many weird things in the universe and it is not a simple
thing to understand. So for instance, it is probable that these
universal constants are not really so universal.

Why is this 'probable'? Give one example that supports your contention.

--
Pyriform