Lets talk about the big bang.

I have not heard too much evidence for evolution that I cant explain with creation but I have not heard any evidence for the BB. could someone explain the science and evidence for the theory please? 

In 1927, the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître proposed an expanding model for the universe to explain the observed redshifts of spiral nebulae, and calculated the Hubble law. This model would later come to be known as the "Big Bang."

While there is much evidence for the Big Bang, the most blatant evidence is, the universe is expanding. That is to say, all the other galaxies are flying away from our own. And from each other. (And we are talking over 150 million such galaxies, catalogued to date. With plenty more still to discover.) So, expansion.

This really hurt Steady State models (much to the chagrin of more secular scientists) and was perfectly in keeping with the Big Bang.

The next boon to this model was discovery of C.B.R., Cosmic Background Radiation, in 1965. This Radiation is believed to be the afterglow of an earlier, hotter, denser universe. And the discovery of this radiation was predicted by only one theory.

That's right. The Big Bang.

After this discovery, even the Atheists needed to abandon their beloved Steady State universe models, and accept that the universe was in fact "created." (Now they are trying to say it was created through natural means. But have not as of yet been able to explain how.)

And finally, we have modern, ultra-powerful orbiting telescopes. Such as the Hubble, and WMAP telescopes. Telescopes which allow us to peer very far not only through space, but also through time. To look into the past. over 13B years into the past. Almost to the very beginning of the universe.

And what does the Universe look like, as we look back through time?

The further back in time we look, it gets hotter. And it gets denser.

Much hotter. much denser.

Just like any good Big Bang universe would.

So, if the question is ever asked "Why is the Big Bang Theory so popular in science today?" you need only answer with three words: Demonstrable Predictive Power.

thx

That prompts me to ask what kind of material you've been seeing? What were you taught in your school/college regarding Cosmology & the possible origins of our Universe?

Observations tell us that most galaxies are moving apart at an accelerating pace (not allowing for those that are in the process of colliding of course!) & that logically leads to the conclusion that they're all speeding away from some common point of origin.

This theory is reinforced by the discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation which is the echo of an extremely high temperature beginning to our Universe.

Haven't you become aware of any of these ideas before?

I'm home schooled and have Christian curriculum so obviously I have never much about the BB.

Also, I have heard of the red shift and I do not think anyone knows why that is. When God created the universe there must of been a lot of power theremail so maybe that has something to do with it

I meant *so maybe* not theremail.

Cosmologists have a really excellent understanding of issues like red shift of galaxies. All of the data is consistent with the fact that it is due to everything moving apart on a very large scale. The effect is a variant of the Doppler effect you can detect with your ears as a vehicle goes past you - when moving towards you the sound is higher pitched (like bluer light) and when moving away it is lower pitched (like redder light).

It should really be called "long shift", because visible light is only a tiny part of the spectrum, from 400-700 nm. For very distant objects, most of the light is shifted way into the infrared.

That redshift is called "the Doppler effect"

Weathermen use it every day, on their radar.

I'd never have guessed!

Redshift in cosmology is what is called the relativistic Doppler effect. The formula gives the same answers for small velocities, but diverges for large ones.

The mathematical difference is intriguing. If you combine doppler effects, (say from a car driving along the top of a plane) you simply add the corrections. If you combine relativistic doppler effects (eg two galaxies in the same direction, with B having a redshift to A and C having a redshift to B) then you multiply the two corrections.

Here is exciting news from the cosmology department.

Astronomers Found The Brightest Object From The Universe's Infancy

In July 2018, astronomers discovered the brightest object in our universe. The discovered quasar, named PSO J352.4034-15.3373 (P352-15 for short), is 13 billion light-years away from Earth and started when the universe was only 7% of its age today.
A quasar is an object in space, such as a galaxy, that is fueled by a supermassive black hole. They can be up to a billion times as big as our Sun. Quasars absorb materials and then spew them back out in the form of blinding plasma, which is why scientists are able to detect them with sophisticated telescopes. Scientists can continue studying this quasar in an attempt to further understand the universe and its beginnings.
"This quasar’s brightness and its great distance make it a unique tool to study the conditions and processes that prevailed in the first galaxies in the universe. We look forward to unraveling more of its mysteries," said astrophysicist Chris Carilli of NRAO.

https://www.sciencealert.com/brightest-quasar-early-universe-13-billion-light-years-pso-j352-4034-15-3373-p352-15

If the BB where true then wouldn't all matter be evenly distributed through out the universe? It's not. Also what about some planets spinning the wrong direction? There are even moons and galaxies spinning the wrong direction.

The theory of the expanding Universe ('Big Bang') predicted that residual radiation should still exist due to the extraordinarily high temperature of the very early Universe. This Cosmic Background Radiation was detected (by accident in fact) in the 1960's.

How do you account for the radiation if not due to the initial state of our Universe?

Computer modelling of the expansion has shown that 'lumpiness' of the kind we see today is entirely consistent with the tiny asymmetry in the initial event. That's to say, there's nothing contradictory about the irregular nature of our Universe.

As for "some planets spinning the wrong direction? There are even moons and galaxies spinning the wrong direction" - care to give some examples?

Stephen, Venus and Uranus are the ones that spin backwards. I'm not making stuff up

Uranus, hahahahahahahahahaha! I don't know who named that planet but he must be funny

That kind of comment prompts me to ask how old you are - 12/13/14 perhaps?

A moment's search would have answered your question..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus

"Uranus (from the Latin name Ūranus for the Greek god Οὐρανός) is the seventh planet from the Sun"

"Uranus is the only planet whose name is derived directly from a figure from Greek mythology, from the Latinised version of the Greek god of the sky Ouranos."

I know that & didn't mean to imply that it was false - I just couldn't remember which planet(s) has an irregular orientation or spin.

But this isn't so unusual because it's believed that over geological time, some of the planets have passed very close to other planets & this has disturbed their direction & angle of spin. It's not indicative of anything supernatural.

This is interesting ....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_and_prograde_motion

The retrograde rotation of Venus is believed to be due to the simple mechanism of the collision of a fairly large asteroid early in its history.