Your statement was "cosmic radiation, red shift, etc -> Big Bang did it". Now what that mean?
What does it mean to you? Nothing. Empty. No meaning at all.
It means a drowning monster grabbing at straws to keep him afloat.
You read the phrase and you hear that it "did" something... and you deny it, because you don´t believe that "big bang" is only "hypothetical" - which means "non existent" for you - and thus cannot "do" anything.
What I heard is: Cosmic radiation, red shift, etc. --> Big Bang did it.
What I believe is: The universe, life, etc. --> God did it.
Your evidence for Big Bang = Cosmic radiation, red shift, etc.
My evidence for God = The universe, life, etc.
We are on par so far.
What does it mean to me? It is an explanatory model meant to fit together observations, search for corrobating evidence and combine them into a working model (in two meanings: a model for working with as well as a model that works).
A model that works because mathematical dark fairies are invoked to make it work.
God did it doesnt require mathematical dark fairies to work.
Because scientists have a hard time admitting they dont know.
How did the Big Bang "do" red shift? What did it "do"? Paint stars red? Embarass stellar objects? No.
Exactly. It did nothing. It never happened. Its all a made up story. A myth.
Red shift is an observed physical phenomenon. It is the observation that objects don´t (seem to the observer to) send out light of the wavelength they should, according to their chemical makeup. It is tested, calculated and verified. It is real.
It was real even before scientists discovered it and added their flawed interpretation to it.
This phenomenon is caused by the change in the wavelength of light observed between moving objects. This again, the explanation for this observation, is tested, calculated and verified. In the case of red shift, the relative movement of the observer and the observed object is one of getting further away. If object and observer would be getting closer, the shift would be towards the blue end of the spectrum.
Now if objects are observed to show this red shift, a reasonable conclusion is that they are moving away from the observer.
It is only reasonable if you have a myopic view of the universe, which you obviously have.
If they are moving away, they must have been closer together in the past.
The thing is, they are not all moving away, and some of them are even connected to each other despite having different redshifts:
Four different redshift objects connected by a luminous plasma bridge.
It is observations like these that falsifies the Big Bang. This is why Consensus Cosmology tend to ignore them.
Now the question is "how close"?
If it has been observed that they are not all moving away, then this question is irrelevant.
As there is no observable explanation for any stage, one possible answer is "really, really, really close" - the hypothetical singularity.
Your faith is obviously stronger than mine if you believe in this hypothetical nonsense.
Thats the problem with the Big Bang; for it to work you have to keep making up fairytales.
Now we do the reasoning process in the opposite direction: if such a singularity existed, and expanded to form what we observe now, it could have done it in a certain way, based on what we know / can observe now. This certain way would leave certain results observable now.
Only if you took something observable and pretend it was produced by a Big Bang that never happened.
It is amusing to see the extent to which some people will go to convince themselves that something happened that never happened.
Can we find these results?
Considering the Big Bang never happened, nope.
And it is indeed that proposed results - like the cosmic background radiation - have been observed. Strengthening the hypothesis of the "big bang".
Cosmic background radiation has been predicted many times before with a high degree of accuracy, and it had nothing to do with a Big Bang, so you are late on that one.
You cannot expect to come last and lay claim to it. It has already been predicted by others for other sources other than Big Bang radiation.
This is the why and how of the Big Bang "doing" things.
Yes, I can clearly see why and how it does things.
It would make for a very good science fiction documentary.
Can you do the same for "God did it"?
Nope. God is not into science fiction. Sorry.
Yes, there is a potential explanation for redshift by "tiring of light". The problem is though that this cannot explain the opposite phenomenon: blueshift.
Nor does it explain this:
Four different redshift objects connected by a luminous plasma bridge.