Pseudo-science and Other Errors

Big Bang
I was just viewing a couple of YouTube videos about the Q'ran and - of all things, how it supports the Big Bang Theory. Of course nothing can prove the Big Bang because it is utter, unmitigated nonsense, a modern example of Medieval thinking. There are so many things wrong with this cockamamie idea, it beggars the mind to know where to begin.

Let's begin right here, on the earth which, if the Big Bang were true, would be once again at the center of the universe (our universe, that is: there are many others). This is because the so-called "expanding universe" is expanding at a uniform distance in every direction from us. Copious astronomical data shows that we inhabit a remote region on one of our galaxy's spiral arms, of which there are twelve. Observations have also shown that the universe and everything in it is in constant motion. There is no center to the universe; it keeps evolving, and the known universe is 286 billion light-years wide; how did it reach such proportions in only 15 billion years.

Then there's the problem with the Hubble Number, an index that measures the velocity at which the farthest-flung galaxy is moving away from us. Calculations based on the 15 billion year-old universe and some other details of the theory, provide that the Hubble Number should be somewhere around 85. Observations show that it doesn't even come close, and the margin for error is a whopping ±17! Readings vary from the low thirties to the high 40's and everyone who computes this variable comes up with a different answer. Other calculations, more accurate and time-tested indicate that our 15 billion year-old universe contains stars that are 17- to 24 billion years old.

Finally, it's just poor science to begin with a conclusion and then to set about trying to prove it. This is just Creationism, a discredited bit of Medieval ideology based on the "literal interpretation" of the Bible which, in itself is nonsense. If you fill a glass half full of water you literally have a half glass of water; whether the glass is half full or half empty is an interpretation.

Time Travel
Another bit of delusional wool gathering that occupies otherwise vacant minds is the idea that we can go backward in time. Crackpots are working to design time machines when the fact is that time machines already exist: they're called clocks. Time also exists, but it is a concept, not a naturally occurring phenomenon. Ever seen clocks hanging from trees in the woods primeval? Ever see a squirrel or a raccoon wearing a wristwatch? Ever have a pigeon stop you on a downtown street and ask you for the correct time?
Time is a standard that measures change, and goes forward, never backward. In fact, any statistical conclusion based on time is false. For example; if you set a piece of raw iron down in your back yard and wait a year, it will be completely coated with rust. It isn't the time that causes the rust, but the chemical action of the atmosphere working on the iron. The same holds true for the human body; the false information that self-interested parties (doctors, drug companies, etc.) are spreading is that after a certain age (40?) you start to slow down. You become liable for heart trouble, hardening of the arteries, back pain, arthritis, and a whole slew of other disabilities. But the fact is, time has nothing whatsoever to do with it; the telling factor is the state of your health. Your body doesn't know how old it is. Choose a healthy, nutritious diet, get plenty of exercise, adequate rest, and keep in fit spiritual condition and your body will serve you well, warding off infection, healing minor injuries, and taking you wherever you want to go without a walker or electric scooter.
Finally, as time measures change, to go back to the past would involve unchanging everything that has changed between the present and the target historical date. This would involve two events, the original change and the un-change; like unscrambling an egg. Want to go back in time? Watch old movies.

The Zero Dilemma
I'm sure you've seen this in math books; 1/0 = ∞ ( a number divided by zero is infinity ). No it isn't. The reason is simple: zero is not a number. It is a symbol that represents a concept, just like the symbol of infinity; in one instance, Nothing, and in the other, Too Many. In mathematical studies of limits, functions involving maximaa and minima, the range shown under the Σ symbol is always as x ─> 0 (as x approaches zero: it never gets there).
The correct form is; 1/0 = 1. If zero represents "nothing" then by logical inference dividing by nothing is the same as not dividing by something, and if something is not divided by something else it remains unchanged.

I welcome any arguments.