The Big Bang theory is not a sufficient explanation for creation.

"According to the Big Bang model, the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. A common and useful analogy explains that space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it, like raisins in a rising loaf of bread." The analogy is a bit off as the typography of the universe is somewhat flatter than that. "One, the creation of this primordial matter is not explained. If it just has always been there, then it would pretty much be going against all of common knowledge, and physics. There had to be a beginning, and if the matter has always existed, than there would be no beginning." Big Bang Theory does NOT state matter has "always existed". This is how it formed: In the beginning (sorry, little joke, I couldn't resist), there was not yet any matter. There was however a lot of energy in the form of light, which comes in discrete parcels (photons). When photons have enough energy, they spontaneously decay into a particle and an antiparticle. An antiparticle is the exact opposite of the corresponding particle. For example, a proton has charge +e, so an antiproton has charge -e. We observe this today. Gamma rays have enough energy to create measurable electron-anti-electron pairs (the anti-electron is a positron). The photon is just one of a class of particles, labelled bosons that decay in this manner. Many of the bosons from just after the big bang were energetic enough that they could decay into much more massive particles such as protons ( E=mc^2, so to make a particle with a large mass m, you need a boson with a high energy E). The mass in the universe came from such decays. Protons and neutrons are particles called baryons. Baryogenesis is the creation of baryons. The current understanding of particle physics (called the standard model) , tells us that nowadays the number of baryons is nearly constant, with only a small variation due to quantum mechanical tunnelling. In the early universe, the temperatures were much higher, therefore this tunnelling was commonplace and a large number of baryons would have been created. Electroweak refers to the time period in question. When the electromagnetic and weak forces were decoupling from a single force into 2 separate forces between 10^-12 and 10^-6 seconds after the big bang, (matter -antimatter asymmetry probably would have formed towards the end). An additional source of baryons is due to leptons (another type of particle, including electrons) can be converted into baryons at this epoch. In our universe, the first few minutes were hot and dense enough for protons and neutrons (baryons) to fuse to create deuterium, helium and lithium. These elements have density, density produces gravity, and gravity draws other elements together, which in turn increases density/gravity i.e. star making super factories. Can we see baryons? Yes we can. Thanks to Hubble and Cassini the "missing" baryons in the universe have been shown to exist where we thought they would be - in the space between galaxies. (As an aside, much jumping and partying was to be had upon this discovery, it was quite an important feat. :D) "Also, the creation of nonphysical properties is not explained by the Big Bang model. Logic, the laws of physics, did they burst out of the mass as well. I think not." Well yes and no. Physical constants are measurable forces/ attributes of this set universe. A theory that can explain the formation of the universe by default explains the presence of those components in the set universe. To forestall any anthropomorphic principle arguments let me explain by example: I have a coin in front of me. The probability that the next coin I toss will be heads is 50 percent. The probability that the last one I tossed was heads is zero. No calculation or theory is necessary: I toss it 20 times and I arrive at t,t,h,t,h,t,h,t,h,h,h,t,t,h,h,h,t,t,h,h. The chances of that particular sequence were around 1/1ooo ooo before I did it. Now it has happened and the probability is one. If I had flipped differently, then I could have produced a different series, also with a prior probability of one in a million. The same goes for the natural laws of this universe. If the conditions of the early universe had been such that stars never condensed, or if the strong force didn't exist and the periodic table had fewer entries, or if anything else had been different, then we may not be here. It however makes little sense to talk about the universe being improbable after the event. The conditional probability of the universe being as it is, given the existence of observers to marvel at it, that conditional probability is either exactly one or near enough to not matter. Can an observer exist without the physical constants as they are? Most probably. The "fine tuned universe" is somewhat of a myth. For example, the weak force is responsible for the radioactive beta decay of atomic nuclei and is held essential for a complex universe like ours. Take it away, and you might expect the 'weakless' universe to be vastly different from our own. Modelling shows the forging of elements in the big bang, the powering of stars and supernovae explosions in a weakless universe is still capable of supporting observers. In fact by changing several parameters simultaneously it’s found that entirely new processes - such as different mechanisms for stellar burning come into play (possible super symmetry). How exactly can Big Bang Theory NOT explain physical/cosmological constants? The burden lies not only with me. Pro must show, through physics as he as requested, that the laws of the universe are inconsistent with Big Bang Theory. “Nah they just couldn't isn't an argument. You asked for a physics debate, let's see it then. Simply because something is a constant does not necessitate its formation as impossible through natural processes. I can in the next round, if you like, show you "theories of everything", explore quantum physics with our readers, and delve into singularities, multitudes of universes and constants. However until you can show why Big Bang Theory fails to explain our own, I see no point. Back to you.