The “big bang” story aims to explain the universe’s origin without God and simultaneously fails to align with either the Bible & established scientific findings.

It’s often been said in cosmology circles that data should never get in the way of a good model.

Many believers try harmonizing the Bible’s account of supernatural creation with the big bang’s naturalistic story of the universe’s origins. Can both be true?

Quote from Burbidge, G., in Scientific American.

A reader questions our claim that the big bang is an attempt to explain the universe without God. Dr. Jason Lisle, AiG–U.S., responds.

According to the ‘big bang’ theory for the origin of the universe, equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have formed. Antimatter is the same as matter except that each has the opposite charge.

The big bang model has proven to be quite pliable, morphing to adapt to each new problem. Are these changes true improvements or rescuing devices?

Why astronomers believe in an expanding universe, how the universe isn’t “expanding into” anything, and the reasons biblical creationists should be careful when arguing against the big bang

The light-travel–time argument cannot be used to reject the Bible in favour of the big bang, with its billions of years. This is because the big bang model also has a light-travel–time problem.