Heusdens, you have a penchant for lumping a lot of misinformation into one thought and declaring yourself the winner. For example, you seem to think that Dark Matter is a problem for Big Bang Cosmology. It most assuredly isn't. The Dark Matter is an observational quandary. Big Bang doesn't REQUIRE the universe to have Dark Matter, it is simply something we observe and fit into the model. And the model works incredibly well for predicting the Large Scale Structure, the CMB anisotropy, and nuclear abundances to name a few. I think you need to just get a better understanding of astronomical observations before you begin taking on cosmology. All theory is based on observation, science doesn't proceed the other way around. To that end, may I recommend you go through an introductory astronomy text to get a foundation in observational evidence?

YOu mention Marmet's ideas and why they are not tenable. Ned Wright's page is as good as any site for debunking the non-expansion ideas surrounding redshift. Especially the bottom of the page.

You say there are problems with the Big Bang but can only name one out of six that has any relevance (the singularity problem) that has possible solutions within the paradigm. What other problems do you have that are not addressed by the Big Bang? Don't be shy. Tell us about them. I have a feeling you just are not listening or do not want to listen that most of your "issues" are simply non-issues, but you refuse to dialog on these facts. Please, have you found any errors in my posts? Then what is unconvincing about the Big Bang?