The big bang is supported by a great deal of evidence:
Einstein's general theory of relativity implies that the universe cannot be static; it must be either expanding or contracting.
The more distant a galaxy is, the faster it is receding from us (the Hubble law). This indicates that the universe is expanding. An expanding universe implies that the universe was small and compact in the distant past.
The big bang model predicts that cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation should appear in all directions, with a blackbody spectrum and temperature about 3 degrees K. We observe an exact blackbody spectrum with a temperature of 2.73 degrees K.
The CMB is even to about one part in 100,000. There should be a slight unevenness to account for the uneven distribution of matter in the universe today. Such unevenness is observed, and at a predicted amount.
The big bang predicts the observed abundances of primordial hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium. No other models have been able to do so.
The big bang predicts that the universe changes through time. Because the speed of light is finite, looking at large distances allows us to look into the past. We see, among other changes, that quasars were more common and stars were bluer when the universe was younger.
Note that most of these points are not simply observations that fit with the theory; the big bang theory predicted them.
I look at this body of evidence and I accept that the big bang is the most likely explanation. Do you have an alternative model which explains it better?
I don't know how or why. I don't know what would have existed before. I don't know if our universe is a little bubble in a bigger universe. All I can do -- all anyone can do -- is look at the evidence and interpret it accordingly.
Why do the arguments against evolution seem to be growing rather than being silenced by fact?
The whole religious right movement has been growing, but I don't see that as evidence of people finding truth. In my opinion it is a reaction against various directions in which our society is perceived to be headed, and there are those who think that a return to the past is an ideal response.
Scientists also don't help their cause much sometimes. Believe it or not, I have been locked in my own debates with them on other sites and some of them are insufferable. The majority of them say that anecdotal evidence is useless and that most people are mistaken or lying about their reported experiences. This does nothing to endear the public to science -- which actually is founded on experience and which should indeed take account of those of the public as well as scientists. Within limits, of course. I wouldn't say that denial of evidence counts as an experience that can be reported, though things like the power of prayer can be.
It doesn't work that way. I think the way a person interprets the evidence also has a huge impact on what we're being "told". You can interpret a fossil anyway you like, but the only thing you can definitely say about it is "it died". Apart from that, it's up for interpretation and bias for the most part. And there's plenty of it
I disagree. I've just said that people's experiences should count -- mind you, I didn't say their
interpretations of those experiences should be assumed to be correct. There is a lot more that you can say about a fossil apart from the fact that it died. Where it is found can reveal a vast amount of information, including how long ago the organism died and in what kind of environment it lived. If you deny this then you need to find an alternative explanation of the sorting of the fossil record. You can also compare the fossil to other existing ones to determine whether you're looking at a new species, a probably ancestor to an existing one, etc. I think any paleontologist or archaeologist could elaborate on this. Are they just wasting their time; do you think they haven't learned anything but lies in years of study?
