Yes, we were debating the big bang theory, not the Genesis account of creation, which your #1-3 refers to. Please note the disclaimer at the bottom of our Genesis Account of Creation page:
"We are not advocating the teaching of the Account of Creation as fact in science education. But, to preserve the integrity of science education, teaching the unscientific Theory of Evolution as a fact serves no one but those who have an agenda to indoctrinate students into their religion of Humanism."
And, again, we are not talking about evolution. Why, why oh why do you keep trying to bring "evolution" into this? This is cosmology, not biology, there is a difference. And we are not really "debating" anything - YOU posted an article making testable claims, I showed that, when tested, those claims fall apart. Now you are claiming that you can't be held to any kind of standard of accuracy because you don't advocate teaching your beliefs in schools. Well good for you. . .and what does that have to do with anything? Your claims are still wrong and the big bang model of the universe is still the best explanation of observable phenomena that we have.
Since we are NOT proposing that creation be taught as fact in science education, we have NO burden of proof to substantiate it. You may choose to believe it, or not.
OK. . .so why do you bother with those ponderously error filled articles on your website trying to support your model?
Since the naturalistic creation of the universe is taught as fact in science education, the burden of proof is on you to provide empirical scientific evidence to substantiate it ... not for us to substantiate creationism.
For one, it's not taught as fact - it's taught as the leading theory because it does the best job of explaining the largest number of observable phenomena. That is our standard for a "good" theory. If you have a problem with that kind of standard then try coming up with a theory that does a better job explaining observation.
Being as you are such a Biblical scholar, I'm surprised that you didn't know that what is "being understood" refers to understanding "His eternal power and divine nature" by visibly seeing His creation.
How you equate that to, "that he did, in fact, work within the confines of what human beings can understand" is interesting but not surprising when you consider the following verses:
"... because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen."
Yes and? None of my implied sinfulness for not adhering to you views does anything to change the fundamental principle that the bible claims that god specifically and intentionally created the universe in such a way that human minds could understand him (god) better by seeing (observing) "what he had made". If god didn't work within the confines of what human beings could understand then how are human beings supposed to understand him by looking at his work? You are advocating a direct theological paradox, I suggest trying again.