[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by troutman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

The earliest and most direct kinds of observational evidence are the Hubble-type expansion seen in the redshifts of galaxies, the detailed measurements of the cosmic microwave background, and the abundance of light elements (see Big Bang nucleosynthesis). These are sometimes called the three pillars of the big bang theory. Many other lines of evidence now support the picture, notably various properties of the large-scale structure of the cosmos which are predicted to occur due to gravitational growth of structure in the standard Big Bang theory.

And there is much evidence that doesn't support it (such as the horizon problem, and the lack of dark matter).

Like I said, the Big Bang theory is full of hypotheticals. Since many aspects of it do not meet the laws of physics as we know them, scientists have pretty much stated that "if" laws of physics were slightly different at the beginning of exapansion, then that would account for the horizon problem and lack of dark matter.

But the thing is, no one has yet come up with theories that explain why or how those properties would be different... yet to make the Big Bang theory work for them, they have calcualted that into their models. Again, that is a faith issue, not a science one.

New Scientist magazine had a little bit on this a couple of years ago that explains it better:

http://space.newscientist.com/articl...mg18524911.600