I'm just gonna touch on one thing you said, because time restricts me today.. Sorry about that Blunt; but you did say..
So the Bible supports the Big Bang?
In order to make an explosion, you must have a positive and a negative charge, This is physics 1 on 1 pretty easy stuff. Well tell me Blunt where did the positive and negative charge come from? In order to make this charge, energy must have already been present. So where did this energy come from?
In 1989 the NASA orbited a satellite named COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) to try to measure irregularities in the "background radiation''. This radiation (also called "three degrees Kelvin cosmic radiation'' or "Big Bang echo'') is nothing but radio waves coming from all directions, and it is known since 1965, when it was first detected with a microwave receiver.
In the same way a detective verifies the identity of a person comparing his fingerprints, the background radiation gives the astronomer data on the primitive history of the universe; specifically on the times were the galaxies began to form. As this irregularities are very small, it was not possible to measure them from Earth because of the atmosphere and the interferences, so the NASA sent a satellite to detect them from space.
We can now ask ourselves what does all this have to do with the Big Bang:
After having elaborated the General Theory of Relativity, Einstein was determined to use it in order to understand what the cosmos were like. His calculations indicated that the universe could not be stable: It should be either expanding or collapsing. As Einstein believed that the universe was stable, he proposed the existence of a force opposed to gravity that would enable the universe to be stable. The physicist and mathematician Alexander Friedmann kept on working in the right direction, accepting the consequences of General Relativity and elaborated, in 1922, models that described the universe in expansion.
The vision of the cosmos we had at the beginning of the XX century was that we were part of a flat system that contained all the stars. In 1924 the astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that certain astronomic objects known as "spiral nebulae'' were in fact other galaxies (in those days they would use the terminology "island universes'') each one formed by thousands of millions of stars located at enormous distances. In the following years he studied their distances and velocities and discovered that the galaxies were getting further from one another: In other words he discovered that the universe was expanding (paradoxically, Friedmann's works were not known in the west until 1935).
Having discovered that the cosmos was expanding, the astronomers asked themselves how this expansion had begun. The same physics that today allows us to understand why stars shine, what the origins of mankind were or why there is no air on the moon indicated that the universe must have had a very hot beginning and that part of that initial heat could still be detected in the microwave band. Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson detected it for the fist time in 1965, discovery that awarded them the Nobel Prize.
So then: Did the cosmos really begin to exist because of a great explosion?
The translations of scientific theories to everyday language are not very trustworthy. To say "everything started with a great explosion'' is not very different from saying "everything came from a big cosmic egg'' or anything of the sort. When we are told such a story we can only believe that it is true or believe that it is false (but we cannot possibly know it). But scientific theories are not true or false, they just fit to the observed phenomenon . Those that do not fit are left out.
Those that do adjust are useful until a discrepant observation is done. In that case, we should elaborate a new theory that fits with the reality and we will have learnt something about the world that surrounds us.
Science is not based on complicated mathematical equations: These are a mere tool. Science is based on the attitude of being ready to change our previous ideas when facts show us that they are not exactly true.
It has also been said that the Big Bang theory has theological connotations. It is true that some have a religious vision of science: Some people "believe'' and others "do not believe'' in Big Bang. Even the church officially proclaimed in 1951 that the Big Bang theory agreed with the Bible!
However, since then, new things have been learnt. The 1951 theory is not like today's. In particular there is not a unique Big Bang theory, the data provided by the COBE was used to select the one that best suits the facts (known as Standard Cosmological Model) and rule out others.
Should we then believe in Big-Bang?
It is true that in 1929 Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding.
It is true that in 1965 Penzias and Wilson discovered the background radiation (the "Big Bang echo'').
But to believe that a certain theory, fable or myth is the definitive truth is to refuse to learn anything new about the world around us.
NOTE: I have always used the word "theory'' and never "hypothesis''. The Big Bang is not a hypothesis. The hypothesis in which it is based are:
The same physics applies in any part of the universe.
The universe presents the same aspect as seen from anywhere.
Until now we have used physics with success to understand phenomena that occur on Earth as well as on Saturn, the Sun the stars or the most remote galaxies.
The second hypothesis means that the galaxy to which we belong to does not occupy any "special place'' in the cosmos. It is only speculation, but since we started to observe the sky we have discovered first that the Earth is not in the centre of the universe, then that the Sun is on the edge of a galaxy which is just one more among hundreds of thousands of millions.
Perhaps this has taught us to be more humble.
