The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
It just doesn't come across as an attempt to communicate with anyone else.
I'm not sure if Alfred Maddenstein is a creationist, because I have no idea what he thinks except that he's angry at science for no coherent reason. I'd like to nominate him for this:
That sub-atomic quantum chaos is miraculously assumed to be the point of lowest universal entropy. Another bit of ludicrous absolutism I was talking about in my previous post. For that assumes that purported Planck unit allegedly well alone in existence at the mythical time zero to be a point of highest possible disorder and the state of highest possible order all in an absolute once.
I reckon that people who are not creationist are not creationists.
I also reckon that it is possible for someone who is not a creationist to agree with someone who is a creationist on some point (even on some cosmological point such as, to take an example at random, the existence of the sun, moon, and stars) without hypocrisy.
While citing IamJoseph here is about as sporting as shooting a large fish in a small barrel, I thought that this magnificent contribution should not go unrecognized.
And the funny thing is, it's not as though the scientific-minded person needs to study Genesis, because it's not as though the creationist will ever argue for it. You could talk to a hundred creationists for a week and never once hear the words "talking snake".