Please don't take HN threads on generic tangents, definitely not flamewar tangents, and especially definitely not religious flamewar tangents. That's the last thing we need here.
Why couldn't god have created the big bang? Science has nothing to do with religion.
A scientific theory cannot really be "confirmed." The word choice is suspect. The Big Bang Theory is consistent with many properties of the known universe, but cannot adequately explain others. Claiming it is the ground truth takes a leap of faith, which however small compared to religion, requires a measure of faith as implied.
What does that have to do with atheism? You don't think that people who believe in God sometimes makes mistakes when picking words?
It begs the question as to whether the author of the title actually believes the Big Bang is confirmed from a scientific point of view. That would suggest an atheistic belief.
You're conflating confirmation with some type of irrefutable proof which is both pedantic and plain wrong.
The job of people who write titles like this is to be very pedantic about word choice. I’ll have to disagree with you on this being a “plain wrong” interpretation of the given wording.
It's not the job of the people who write titles to be pedantic although it is reasonable of them to expect most readers to know the difference between confirmation and absolute proof. The problem here is not with the title.
If they were targeting an adequately scientifically trained audience, sure. I don’t think they are.
That doesn't have much to do with it, you're just mistaken about the (fairly common) usage 'confirms theory'.
The Bible states that God created light, stars and earth in seven days; on day 3 He created the earth, on day 4 the stars.
That seems rather incompatible with the big bang theory.