First of all

 

Always remember this:

The big bang 

has three distinct streams of evidence 

pointing in its direction

that nobody 

in over 70 years 

has been able to put a dent in

let alone,

DISPROVE.

1) The abundance of light elements

in the early universe

Helium and Hydrogen

These combined to make the first stars

which, when they exploded

gave us the rest of the elements.

This is why those two elements 

are at the top of the periodic table,

they came first.

2) Redshift of the galaxys

it proves the universe's expansion, 

(just like the bible said it was numerous times

1000's of years before we knew it was.)

showing distant galaxies receding

(moving farther away)

Meaning at one point in time

everything was condensed together.

3) And this one is unescapable.

Cosmic Background Radiation

You can literally see it

on your TV.

Leftover light from the event itself.

To anybody that doesn't believe 

the big bang happened?

Then where is that coming from then?

Okay so three different evidentiary streams

all pointing to the one same conclusion.

No other theory 

of our universes creation

even comes close

to having all of that.

And ever since they found 

Cosmic Background Radiation?

Scientist have hated this theory

as it proves our universe 

had a creation moment.

For seventy years they have been trying to find a way around what they dont like seeing and have not been able to do so.

Compare that to string theory

(in any of its variants)

which hasnt produced

ONE

predicted result

and yet forty years later

still has people

promoting it as valid.

(Personally I think it is

but it will never be proven.)

Are you seeing how this cult 

of scientism works now?

"Oh that has three streams of evidence 

we don't like seeing 

so we have got to keep on 

till we find a way around it somehow."

As opposed to:

"Oh not one lick of evidence 

supporting what we do like? 

Even after 40 years? 

Well no need to go back

to the drawing board

lets just keep on searching."

It's just absurd 

and it is not being 

the least bit 

intellectually honest.

The whole reason for all of that

was this:

THAT IS WHY YOU SEE

ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE:

Is the Big Bang a Myth? Part 3: 

The Splitting of the Forces

universetoday.com 12/14/25

in the first place.

Here is my favorite quote 

from the article above:

"I can’t emphasize strongly enough how strange the earliest moments of the universe were. All the forces that we know of were gone. So were all the particles. There were no electrons, no quarks, no neutrinos, no dark matter, no photons, no gluons.

There was…something else. We’re not sure yet what that something else, but it was, in many ways, pure. An essence that suffused all of reality, existing in a state of graceful equilibrium and homogeneity."

"We’re not sure yet 

what that something else..."

Speak for yourselves.

This community knows what it was.

“Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”

― 

Robert Jastrow

"In 1958, he joined the newly formed National Aeronautics and Space Administration as head of its theoretical division. In 1961, he became the founding director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and served as its director until his retirement from NASA in 1981. Concurrently, he was a professor of Geophysics at Columbia University."

“Far from disproving the existence of God, astronomers may be finding more circumstantial evidence that God exists.”

― 

Robert Jastrow

"There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe. Every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event; every effect must have its cause, there is no First Cause. … This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover.

― 

Robert Jastrow

("every effect must have its cause, 

there is no First Cause."

Anything but a God much?

"Causeless effects is bad logic"

(Unger)

And bad logic

never results in good science.)

“Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the Biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and Biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”

― 

Robert Jastrow, 

(Its over forty years later

and they are still fighting 

against the the truth

they themselves proved.)

“The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole."

Arno Penzias

(Co-discover 

of Cosmic Background Radiation)