I said:

Quote
A few of the things that were predicted would be that the cosmic background radiation would be highly uniform and a perfect blackbody, that there would be an abundance of light elements early in the universe, and that the universe would exhibit large-scale homogeneity.


All of these things have been observed, as I stated. The CMB is highly, though not perfectly, uniform; and the universe does exhibit large-scale homogeneity -- it is the same in all directions, with matter more or less equally distributed. The big bang is the likeliest model we have so far of how the universe formed because it explains a lot of the evidence, though there are still question marks about aspects. This is science in action and it's fascinating to read about. However, you seem to be saying that what I stated above is false in some way (please explain how), and presumably by default this disproves the entire big bang theory and proves that creationism must be right. I don't see the logic there.

Quote
Why do you mention astronomers?


Because Bex brought the subject up.

Quote
I've given no indication that I intend to buy an internally inconsistent story


Please re-read what I re-stated above and tell me how it is internally inconsistent. Would this be the same thinking you are using to claim that circular reasoning also exists where it doesn't?

Quote
even if 100% of the cosmologists agree thereupon. No more than I'll buy any such claim held to be true by 100% of all Voodoo witch-doctors.


The fact that you hold all scientists in such low regard is patently obvious.

Here is a nice FAQ on the subject which should clarify things for you.