Originally posted by apathist
You overthink my joke. But seriously, if we understand what 'evidence' means well enough to accept big bang theory, some other conclusions that must be drawn are:
> the 'yesterday' before the big bang is beyond the limits of our current science and is in the realm of philosophy, which does happen to be where theism resides;
> therefore science and rel ...[text shortened]... stic musings which wander all over the map, and deserves no special place for the rational human
You almost have it, but you have yet to make the final leap. Don't get me wrong, I'm not holding my breath.
the 'yesterday' before the big bang is beyond the limits of our current science and is in the realm of philosophy, which does happen to be where theism resides;
Yes, but I wouldn't conflate religion with philosophy. Religion is more than some mere 'thought exercise'. In its proper place and scale, it can be the basis for a "life well lived", which Jesus described as life lived "more abundantly".
therefore science and religion are not necessarily contradicting each other;
I agree, but this is not a "therefore". The point stands on its own.
the types of evidence which we've accepted in order to understand the big bang theory also contradict the Biblical account of creation;
No, it contradicts a 'fundamentalist', 'literal' Biblical account of creation. Another view is that the Big Bang IS 'creation'.
therefore the Bible is relegated to being a mere entry in a huge stack of theistic musings which wander all over the map, and deserves no special place for the rational human
This doesn't necessarily follow at all. Depending on your definition of 'rational', faith is merely another type of knowledge, one not bending to evidentiary, logical 'musings'.