I presume from the name Christian and the other references made to the 'Answers in Genesis' site that you have a point you are trying to make. The problem is, the scientific community has already seen the claims made by, for lack of a better term, the evangelical community. They supposedly offer scientific challenges to major scientific theories that challenge the Bible's account of how we all got to this point in time.

There are four major themes in the challenges. One is the pseudo-science route. Many claims made are patently incorrect. The persons who think the challenges make sense are only those who do not have a thorough command of the science being challenged. Challenges to some dating techniques are examples.

The second theme is to challenge pieces of evidence and disregard supporting evidence. An example would be challenging a dating technique while ignoring the fact that there are many dating techniques, as well as an overwhelming amount of supporting evidence like the geological record.

The third theme has been referred to as the 'god of the gaps' argument. If there are any places in the theory that have not been accounted for, the evangelical community, (not every individual), claim that makes the theory invalid. Gaps in data do not invalidate theories. Unexplained data does not invalidate a theory. It merely makes the theory incomplete. There is a big difference between incomplete and incorrect.

The fourth theme is to use the argument that sceintific conclusions and theories have been shown to be incorrect in the past. Therefore they are unreliable now. This again, is only convincing if you have a poor understanding of science. There is no expectation that scientific conclusions are in their final form. The amount of supporting evidence is on a continuum from possibly to overwhelmingly concluded.

So back to the big bang model, what happened before is not yet known and some say cannot ever be known. There is overwhelming evidence the Universe is expanding but many of the details are not yet known. If the Universe is expanding, then one should be able to calculate where all the matter and energy was at least to a certain point in the past. Beyond that we have a very small fraction of a second where the calculations cannot tell us enough to describe what the Universe was like in that first tiny fraction of a second nor earlier.

None of the uncertainty negates the big bang model. The evidence supporting the model is pretty strong. There are some alternative models but they are not very popular.

You may think when reading or hearing arguments based on the four themes I described above that you have learned how major scientific theories that do not support the Bible's description of creation are fallible. But the reality is the evangelical community's attempts to challenge science are just not valid. And, the scientific community has addressed the challenges fully.

Again I say, unless you take the time to learn more about the scientific theories you are challenging, you will continue to be vulnerable to believing that you have learned some magical thing that makes the whole scientific community wrong and a few undereducated believers right.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.