the big bang is just another unrealistic theory

Hi! Thanks again for starting this debate.Just to clear up definitions...[0.1] Unrealistic - Based on what is wanted or hoped for rather than on what is possible or likely; not sensible and appropriate.[0.2] Realistic - Iinterested in, concerned with, or based on what is real or practical.Emphasis on practical. Always remember, improbable is different from impossible. Even if you cannot grasp the concept of all matter in the universe existing in a millimeter of space, that doesn't make it impossible. Take black holes for example [1], stars multiple times the size of our Sun squeezed and packed to be several miles in diameter. That's a big difference. So to dismiss the idea that an even stronger force exists somewhere, or did exist at some time, which contained all matter in the universe, isn't very reasonable, as this is how we even begin our hypothesis regarding space and time - we witness and examine events taking place in the observable universe, and use our understandings of small events and use them to predict what could have happened, or what might happen on a much, much larger scale. And like I said at the beginning, improbable =/= impossible.Another example of some crazy stuff happening in the universe that is incredibly hard to wrap our heads around is dark flow [3]. We don't know what's past the horizon, but it's speculated that it's another universe altogether. Imagine that. Where we live, our universe, is where all space and time is contained, where every single thing in existence exists... and there's possibly more than one of these. WHOA, RIGHT?Anyway, let's address your arguments against the theory of the Big Bang, which, just to clear things up, is estimated to have taken place between 12 and 14 billion years ago - this may come in handy later.I would also appreciate some sources, if you have them. An expanding universeI like Halton Arp's theory, and I'm glad you brought it up, as I probably would have mentioned him and the lack of credibility the red shift theory has. However; red shift having a direct relation with the age of the star instead of the speed or distance is simply a minor speed bump in the theory of the Big Bang. This idea simply discredits the red shift theory and it's impact on the Big Bang theory. I found a great little article about Arp's ideas [4], and it was a good read, yet it claimed the Big Bang theory is ridiculous simply because we have a possibly incorrect way on judging the speed stars are travelling or distance they are from Earth. I can find several determining factors related to the Big Bang theory that don't even mention red shift - a rather old space website [5], Nasa's website [6], Space.com [7], and more, but I won't bother posting dozens of articles, as I hope you get the idea - the red shift theory is not a necessary model for "proving" the Big Bang, and it sure isn't going to disprove the Big Bang Theory.So I agree the red shift theory isn't the greatest, but disproving this one theory doesn't take much credibility away from the Big bang theory at all.Cosmic background radiationYour argument is that this could just be a condition of the universe. Well that's great and all, but it really doesn't disprove or discredit the theory of the Big Bang. Simply put, the uniformity of CBR is astonishing, and presents lots of possibilities. However the main use of this is detecting fluctuations in temperatures, which ultimately helps incredibly with detecting larger galaxies, or even the parameters of the Big Bang [8]. When the radiation has been getting cooler in general, but staying hot around larger galaxies, it makes sense to assume it was even hotter at one point [9], as it's cooling off from something, right? Like we've both understood - it's a theory - but one that actually has validity.First law of ThermodynamicsThe main idea of the big bang is that it was originally infinitely densely packed matter, so right away it didn't create matter out of nothing. And it's widely accepted that energy has always existed, and before you ask about dark matter, remember we just currently don't understand it to our fullest ability, let alone prove that it actually exists. As Stephen Hawking says [10], (I'll paraphrase) we can't test what happened before the Big Bang, but we have a pretty good understanding that all matter was infinitely dense as a singularity at a time - we're just unsure how it all got there, and that's why we have theories such as the Big Bang to try and figure out why anything exists.Your example is much like one of a creationist - the laws of physics and reality most likely didn't apply before the Big Bang. But as I already mentioned, we don't know what happened before, and that's what we're trying to figure out. My house was not made out of an explosion, and judging by our current understanding of physics, gravity, reality, particle separation, etc, we can rule that this would be impossible. A singularity erupting, creating planets and suns and solar systems is much different, as a planet isn't a design, as in it hasn't been created by something with the intent of it being that thing - it's a rock with a possible atmosphere and elements. Just because something is a theory doesn't make it less rational or realistic. There are theories about everything, like evolution for example. If I were to say over hundreds of millions of years, different organisms adapted to their environments and the next generations gradually mutated over long periods of time and their cells divided in different ways to keep them safe from their environments, would that make sense? It's just a theory, right? What if I said a moose and a frog mated and a wolf was born, would that be a theory as well? Of course, but a much less probable one. The Big Bang theory is anything but improbable, as it makes sense.Thanks so far, I'm looking forward to a good end to this, although I kind of wish it was more than three rounds.[0.1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [0.2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [1] http://science.nasa.gov...[2] http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov... [3] http://www.newscientist.com... [4] http://electric-cosmos.org... [5] http://burro.astr.cwru.edu... [6] http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov... [7] http://www.space.com... [8] http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov... [9] http://www.space.com... [10] http://www.hawking.org.uk...