Why do people deny evolution?

You have some serious misconceptions about BB Theory. It's about the early evolution of the universe.

Observed expansion is what led to the hypothesis, further observations and necessary inferences (mathematical calculations) based on those observations.

No, let's not accept any such thing, because it's nonsense. The BB hasn't expanded, the universe has.

Nothing has "arrived here."

Dude. Pay attention. The BB was an event.

You're conflating it with the universe as a whole.

or you're disingenuously twisting words so that you can slip your Bronze Age myth in there.

But the fact remains that you're trying to treat the BB as if it were an entity, which the theory doesn't.

The way you keep putting scare quotes around the word 'theory' seriously suggests that you don't know the meaning of the word

Speak for yourself, hoss. You have no way of knowing what I know and don't know. You don't have access to my mind.

As for the "huge gaps" of information, that's the pot calling the kettle black if I ever heard it

I'm not sure if it's even possible to have a bigger gap in your god theory, since there's no evidence whatsoever to support it.

Usually yes but not in the case of Queho, who is a 'special' evolution denier in the sense that he is not religious. I see him as the hyper-skeptic par excellence, a mega-giga-skeptic who doubts EVERYTHING THAT IS CONSENSUAL IN HIS SOCIETY, starting with anything you learn at school (a result of academic failure?).

It's primarily religious' belief that puts fear into their psyche. That's the reason why they find every excuse in trying to deny evolution. As we have seen, there's plenty of similar thinking 'nuts' out there that pushes their creationist persuasion. They just can't answer one simple question; prove your god exists.

Thanks, that's very cool. But it only makes the case of Queho mentioning it more typical of a denier blinded to facts. He said he read Milton's book which you say disagrees with the classic neo-darwinian MECHANISMS of evolution BUT AGREES WITH EVOLUTION ITSELF. He reads that book (?) and concludes that the book disagrees with evolution... Disingenuous at worse, or at best totally blinded to facts. Unable to SEE them even...

Obviously - early evolution suggests there has to be there late evolution as well. Do you claim that at present there is no Big Bang in operation anywhere, and that the evolution of the stars may continue without or without the Big Bang on auto-pilot, controlled by stochastics?

Any model of representation is inaccurate (by various reasons, incl. misinterpretation of previous inferences) ... and the models that are based on fake or missing or mind-blowing assumptions are the most inaccurate of all.

... and when it has stopped expanding, also how and why?

This is definitely not true. The radio telescope detects EM signals coming from outer space and...

... that has created (that nobody has ever proved) the Universe out of the Hyperspace (the existence of which is unverifiable) and out of the dark energy, where in astrophysics 'dark' means unknown as structure, source and properties. What kind of an event is that, which can make impossible things ... out of unknowable assumptions?

I am not combining it with anything...

You cannot slip my 'Bronze Age myth' in the 'Scientific Age myth' ... and BTW how did you come to know that the Bronze Age Myth is mine? I am agnostic.

You and people like you are claiming that you know everything about the Hyperspace, and also about the sources of Dark Energy that the Big Bang has been using - it is not me.

The theory that information might have been lost in the Universe is not mine - this issue is set forth by S. Hawking...

Science is evidence-based

Maybe read the book.

It doesn't matter what it implies. BB Theory is about an event in the early universe.

BB Universe.

The premise that there might be a BB out there somewhere "in operation" is absurd from its foundations

Nobody claims that current cosmology is final or absolute. Theists do that sort of thing, not scientists.

At least the science is evidence-based instead of blind faith-based.

Talk about "fake," "missing," and "mind-blowing" assumptions, religions take the cake there.

You don't seem to be current on this topic. Not only has it not stopped expanding, it's doing so at an accelerating rate.

The statement to which I replied was, "...the events that are observed along the 'edges' of the visible Universe are Big Bang in action and 'in real time' - what has arrived here 13.7 Bya later." You seem to have a mental model in which "here" existed when the BB happened, and it has taken 13.7 billion years for its effects to arrive "here."

Wow. You really don't understand it, do you? The model does not have the BB happening inside some hyperspace, using dark energy or anything else. You should really try to get a grasp of the basics before taking on such a topic.

I say YOU should read it again. Pay attention this time.

Educate yourself. It's not my job. I've got my own university students to educate. If you're willing to match your exorbitant demands for empirical evidence and necessary inference in defense of the tentative and ongoing scientific position with equally challenging demands for empirical evidence and necessary inference in defense of your supernatural god-claim, then let's go evidence-for-evidence. I've already provided links to evidence for the scientific position, which you carefully ignored/elided from your subsequent posts. So. What is your evidence for the existence of your god? Show me something. Something solid that can be tested. Got anything? Anything at all?

Who needs to read a book 5 times?

So do you agree with Milton that earth is much younger than 4.5 bl yrs?