The evidence that is use isn't solid, but speculatory. There is nothing tangible, just a series of mathematical formulas that all have flaws in them. The "standard model" is the basis of the big bang theory, and is derived from Einstein's E=Mc2. It's flaw came when it didn't jibe with the uniformity of the universe in every direction. So it was the "expansion theory" to the rescue. It hinges on the big bang being actually a little bang that didn't explode outward at great speeds, but stayed more confined which explains the uniformity of temperatures we see today. Then all of the sudden everything expanded a quadrillion quadrillion times in the blink of an eye, and so precisely controlled that it did blow the universe completely apart. The math when practically tested through observation, came out nearly perfect with what was observed by cosmologists. It's flaw unfortunately, is a major one. It seems they have no idea where the unfathomable amount of energy required to facilitate that huge expansion could have possibly come from. They are so dumbfounded by this, that very few in the scientific community will even venture a wild guess as to it origins. I've already addressed dark matter and dark energy, both of which were scientific concocted in order to fix the gaping flaws in the standard model.
What all of that plainly shows, is that everything that is presented as evidence for the big bang, are nothing but mathematic theories that have such major flaws in them that scientists work diligently to come up with new equations to fix those theories, which in the end, also end up being flawed.
If you want to talk about the multiverse theory that was dreamed up by scientists to explain the nearly incomprehensible precision of gravity and the laws of physics, just let me know... That one makes me laugh out loud, so I would be glad to discuss it with you.
