What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

Answer 1

The chief pieces of evidence for the Big Bang are

[1] the expansion of the universe as demonstrated by Edwin Hubble when he discovered that all distant galaxies have their light red-shifted due to their recession from us, and the farther away they are, the faster they are receding,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble

and

[2] the background radio (micro)wave length radiation coming from deep space from every direction at very, very, very nearly equal intensity, the radiation that a black object just 2.7 degrees Kelvin (almost absolute zero) would radiate, which represents the one-time decoupling of matter and radiation that occured when plasma became atoms. The universe was just under 400,000 years old at that time.

http://snipurl.com/1tikq

and

[3] The Big Bang theory predicts that the atoms of ordinary matter in the universe should be about three quarters hydrogen gas, with most of the rest being helium gas, and a very small amount of heavier atoms - exactly the composition discovered in large gas clouds in space.

(Note: I added this third entry for completeness' sake after reading georgeishere's post below mine. I had forgotten this fact)

Answer 2

Yaybob's got it right, but I'd like to point out that you can actually see the Big Bang. If you look out 13.7 lightyears, you see the Universe as it was 13.7 lightyears ago, and so you see the Big Bang. (Slight complication: the Universe did not become transparent until 400,000 years after the Big Bang, and so what you see is the last opaque surface, as it became transparent. That last opaque surface IS the cosmic microwave background radiation, the "surface of last scattering").

If you look slightly less far than 13.7 billion lightyears away, say 13 billion lightyears, you see the first stars and the first galaxies form, in a Universe that was much more dense and hot than the Universe today. If you look 7 billion lightyears away, you see big galaxies forming by absorbing small galaxies, and most of the stars that exist today being born.

In other words, you can see the Universe evolve from a hot and dense plasma, over time, to become the galaxies and stars we see today. That's the Big Bang theory.

Answer 3

according to the Begy theory and the nature of gravity there was no big bang, since the whole of the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate (hence the illusion of attraction of bodies) time is constantly distorted. As we look back from our point in time it would appear that the universe is some 12-15 billion years old, however if we turned time back to the "big bang" time would be compressed until it still appeared that the universe was 12-15 billion years old.
Some what like moving half the distance to a wall over and over, you would never reach the wall.

P.S. Most scientist have a firm belief in God and are constantly in awe of His work, hence there interest in science.

Answer 4

radiation, as the guy above me said, and the fact that the universe is expanding outwardly in all directions rapidly from a central point.

The 'Big Bang' is the theory on the beginnings of the universe. It is science based, but even so, doesnt irradicate the existence of God. It just depends what way you look at it.

Within the 'cosmic egg' was the fundamentals of subatomic particles that were the precursors of our universe.
The particles were in motion and thusly, because of the infintesimal size rubbed against one another causing friction; once these particles heated up to a certain degree the 'egg' exploded.
What caused the initial movement of these particles and the eventual explosion was sound waves; the sound waves caused the particles to 'move' and thusly caused the 'explosion' which created photon energy to burst forth from the bubble at a speed of 186, 282.397 miles per second. So LIGHT was the very first thing that was created, or that was the result of the Big Bang. Light is essential to the expanse of the universe, as well as the formation and sustaining of life, of all kinds in the universe.

The fact that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, only redistributed negates the accidental theory, that the particles created themselves. Someone or something had to put them there; so although the explanation of the initial "Bang" is accurate and scientific, it negates the concepts of those initial patricles being eternal , or creating themselves.

So as i said, it depends with what attitude you look at it. ♥

*edit* the answers below me are very good as well.

*edit* TO GEORGEISHERE: what do you live under a rock?
I happen to be a Christain (an AG christian) and think my God is VERY cool, and that he created the universe. But the idea of the "Big Bang" is extrememly scientific, and accurate, and is Not anti-God. it is actually very accurate, and much in line with the biblical account of creation to some degree; there are slight discrepancies, but it depends on how you interpret the Bible. As well as how open-minded you are to scientific discovery. Science is not evil or anti-God!
But evolution and the big bang theory are not evil. Did you know that there are TWO kinds of evolution, one in which the bible actually agrees with? Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution. ** No offense intended to you (as we're probably of the same faith) but You should learn to think for yourself. It might do you some good.
♥ Science is your friend! It is not anti-God, my friend!! Don't be a hater. lol ♥
*edit* BUTCHtroll: this is true. Most scientists are in favour of special creation, not accidental spontaneous generation as is the theory of macroE.

Answer 5

The biggest "proof"of the big bang was the discovery of the background radiation,a year AFTER it was predicted by George Gamow.At that time,the only competing theory was called the "steady state"theory,which posited that hydrogen atoms were spontaneously formed at a rate equal to the expansion of the universe,resulting in an eternal,"steady state"
What is puzzling is the reaction of theists today,who would love to blindly reject the notion.Actually,theists were quite elated when the BB theory was proposed,as it showed there was indeed a "moment of creation"as opposed to the steady state theory which preceded it,which did not allow for a moment of creation.How this elation has been lost and is now opposed by the "Jesus Camp"youth is a sad commentary on the degeneration of education in this country.They do not even realize that the BB theory gives SOME substance to their claims of "creation",albeit on a longer time scale.Sad,very sad indeed.

As for the semantic nonsense of "micro:and "macro".It is simply that,nonsense.Enough "micro"equals "macro".A very SIMPLE concept,for what reason people reject it is beyond me.Complete speciation HAS been observed in field mice,evolution was successfully PREDICTED in lizards.There is no difference in "micro" and "macro" except degree.Enough pennies and you get a million dollars.How can anyone accept one but not the other?Willful blindness

Answer 6

Theres a history channel documentary about the Universe its called Beyond the Big Bang

Answer 7

By studying distant galaxies we can see that they are all receeding from us. Everything is receeding as if the whole universe is expanding. By calculating backwards it seem that everything was at one point gathered into the same place. The universe was incredibly hot and dense. It could not have been like this if the laws of nature were at work as they are now. Now, matter gathered in one point like this is trapped forever in black holes. Or there may not have been any matter at all, just energy. Anyway, the expansion that began (for reasons unknown) in this infinately hot singularity would still be measured as some kind of background radiation. If our universe is as old as we think, some 13-14 bilion years old, then it should be seen and have a temperature of a few degrees kelvin. This cosmic background radiation can actually be observed and it is within the range suggested by theoretical models. No shadows of any gods imprinted in this radiation have been found however...

Answer 8

God has spoke back 1400 years in the past interior the Holy Quran, financial disaster 21 verse 30 "Did the disbelievers no longer word that the heavens and the earth have been closed, then We opened them? And We made out of water each living element. could they nevertheless no longer have faith?" the important premise of the enormous Bang concept is that the universe become as quickly as in an exceedingly warm and dense state that bigger directly (a "enormous Bang"). This speedy growth led to the extra youthful universe to relax and ended in its modern continuously increasing state. enormous bang concept become proposed purely some many years in the past, yet Allah has printed the reality plenty plenty earlier that.

Answer 9

Yes there is evidence for it. One guy ( if forget who it was) has discovered that the universe is moving outwards, (expanding). Which means that if you followed it all the way back to when it started expanding, it would all lead back to a single point. (a quantum singularity)

And here's a little bill nye thing to do to see for yourself. Go turn on your T.V. to a channel without picture. Do you see that static? That static is radiation. Now radiation has to come from somewhere. And it did, that radiation you see on your television is left over from the big bang.

Answer 10

The presence of hydrogen and helium in abundant quantities throughout the universe (~74%). The heavier elements were then later created within stars and subsequent explosions.

The normalized temperature throughout the universe suggests that there was a massive amount of energy released in a short period of time, thus allowing for the basic appearance of our currently known universe and its constantly expanding state; its theorized that the energy had to travel at a speed faster then light at that time.

The radiation resulting form the initial "big bang" allowed us to form a picture of the universe; that picture forms the basic structure of our known universe today almost perfectly.