The Big Bang is currently the most credible scientific theory on the evolution of the early Universe

Also, I wanted to first make it clear, that even though I've mentioned Young Earth Creationism, doesn't mean that I'm arguing for it, nor does it mean that it is what I believe. 1. The Cosmic microwave background radiationThe CMBR of the Universe, as KaFkaF stated, is basically the different temperatures of the Universe, or in this case, the one temperature the Universe is now. The Pro argued that an early homogenous universe is proof for the Big Bang-- however, it could also be used as a statement in the alternate direction. When we see now, different cosmic backgrounds at different locations and temperatures in the Universe, the question arises as to how these extremely seperated CMB were close enough to signal a light velocity travel. And how would they have been capable of having a homogenous temperature, being so far apart? Or in simpler words, on one side of the Earth, we see CMBR; and to the other side, we see CMBR, at the same exact temperature as the other side. But as a diameter, the distance between to two sides is an approximated 28 billion light years. All of this, naturally, can be explained by "inflation" or,2. The expansion of the UniverseWhich for one, doesn't always fit as evidence for the Big Bang theory. I am not stupid, like a lot of other people on this website, and I am not going to argue against the obvious. The Universe is apparently expanding, yes, but that does not mean it was ever infinitely small; and it doesn't mean that this expansion was caused by a big bang. It is the natural assumption, sure, but not the only solution. 3. The abundance of light elements(Hydrogen, Helium)Any creationist could easily use this as evidence for Young Earth creationism. It is even claimed that a God used Hydrogen and Helium as "building blocks",that the different metallicities of stars represents the variety of "creation",and how the sudden appearance of Hydrogen and Helium was a product and result of a universe created by a supreme being.4. The large scale structure of the UniverseSame as number 3; could be used to counter the big bang theory by creationists. You could even argue now, that just because somebody could use a piece of evidence for a positive and negative standpoint, it doesn't make the evidence wrong. That is completely true, however, even you stated, a positive amount of something plus a negative amount of something with the same absolute value, will ultimately equal zero. Therefore, I am meaning to say that any evidence that be used by both sides to counter each other, is insufficient evidence for either side of an argument. To blatantly prove the superior credibility of the Big Bang Theory, you must have solid, unfaltering evidence that could never, in a million years be used for Young Earth creationism as well. Quote: "Second, just because a particular theory has many variants does not make it less credible. "Let me briefly define the word "credible" for you: ": able to be believed : reasonable to trust or believe :" [5]I am arguing that the Big Bang theory is NOT the most credible theory on the evolution of the early universe,and the reason being because of the faltering and shifting evidence it provides, along with the variation of the theory over time, which decreases it's reasonability to trust or believe. Imagine if a person you know lended money to you. After a while, you both forget how much money was loaned in the first place, so this person decides to give you an estimate. Last year, he said it was only 5 dollars. A couple months ago, he claimed this loaned amount to be 100 dollars. Weeks ago, it became 6,000 dollars. And just yesterday, it was made known you now owe him one million dollars. Certainly you would lose crediblility and belief in this person you know, for three reasons:1) What kind of person wouldn't mind paying up to a million dollars, after only owing $5?2) This person's constant indecisiveness, you could say, would lose anybody's faith!3) If neither of you could remember, what proof does he have that you owe now, 1 million dollars? I know it seems as if I'm beating around the bush, but my point is:A) Yes, variants and altercations do make theories less credible. and,B) Were you there, to know exactly what happened at the dawn of the Universe. Also, when I say "varied", or "variation", I mean two things. The one, where there are different kinds of the same theory CURRENTLY,and the "varied" where there one kind of the theory differs OVER TIME. Which leads to my over all point:We started, as far back as we can tell, believing that a supreme being created everything. Then we "learned" that the origin of everything was sparked by nothing at all. I know what science is. And science says another step is coming soon. Science, as we all know it, is not just experimenting and deducing and finding new problems and new evidence to solve every altercation. Science means to encompass new ideas, find evidence that supports it, and then continue to use evidence to back up the theories we like. . http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...https://answersingenesis.org... [5] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...;http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu...;http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu...http://www.cnn.com...;