Micaiah said:
Here a quotation from the AIG site which highlights some of the differences between the Big Bang Theory and the historical narrative of Scripture.
Well first to some of the problems with AiGs description.
65. Was there a Big Bang?
The Big Bang is usually defined as a random, chance event.
Which is the normal scientific vocabulary for "we don't know of a natural cause for this." It does not mean there is no cause and it certainly does not exclude God as a cause.
As noted in the previous question, some instability supposedly developed in an original "kernel" of mass energy, and the universe ballooned outward. However, Scripture clearly rules out such an accidental origin.
How so? If it was God's action that initiated the instability, would it not look accidental to scientific investigators who cannot see what God is doing? Scripture only rules it out if the role of God is denied. The inability of science to perceive God is not equivalent to denying God.
A modified version of the Big Bang theory says that when the explosive event happened, it was directed by God.
So AiG is not aware that the big bang was not an explosion.
This is the theistic-evolution approach, an attempt to compromise the Bible with evolutionary theories, and it, too, must be rejected because of its many conflicts with the order of events in Genesis. Table 6 contrasts some of the chronological discrepancies between the Bible's creation account and the Big Bang hypothesis.
This is an ad hominem argument. It is saying big bang theory must be rejected because theistic evolutionists, who have what AiG considers an unbiblical view on evolution, often agree with big bang theory. What anyone believes about evolution has no relevance to what a Christian may believe about big bang theory. They are two separate theories which do not depend on each other.
Creationists maintain that what really happened at the time of creation is that God spoke and the earth appeared he commanded and the heavens stood firm (Ps. 33:9)! All the many stars appeared suddenly and supernaturally in space.
And this is based on a human interpretation of the scriptures. An interpretation which is not in accord with the evidence.
Scripture does not imply an explosion,
And neither does big bang theory.
Perhaps some of the astronomical data that seems supportive of the Big Bang theory, such as redshift and background radiation, needs to be looked at instead as evidence of a rapid creation.
Now if they gave us some reasons why.....
One secular variation of the Big Bang theory refers to an "inflationary" Big Bang, the suggestion being that the universe developed and matured very quickly in its first moments.
This is not what the inflationary period is about, nor what it implies.
1. Missing Origin. ... However, an energy source is still needed. Actually, there is no secular origin theory, since every idea is based on preexisting matter or energy.
Why is an energy source needed? Why do matter and energy (same thing really) need to be created? Why does God not need to be created?
2. Missing Fuse. What ignited the Big Bang? The mass concentration proposed in this theory would remain forever as a universal black hole. Gravity would prevent it from expanding outward.
Again presuming that the big bang was an explosion.
3. Missing Star Formation. No natural way has been found to explain the formation of planets, stars, and galaxies. An explosion should produce, at best, an outward spray of gas and radiation. This gas should continue expanding, not form intricate planets, stars, and entire galaxies.
Again presuming the big bang was an explosion. And not taking the force of gravity into account.
4. Missing Antimatter. Some versions of the Big Bang theory require an equal production of matter and antimatter. However, only small traces of antimatter (positrons, antiprotons) are found in space.
Matter and antimatter annihilate each other on contact. No significant amount of antimatter can exist in a universe composed of matter for any length of time.
5. Missing Time. Some experiments indicate that the universe may be young, on the order of 10,000 years old.
Which experiments?
6. Missing Mass. Many scientists assume that the universe will eventually stop expanding and begin to collapse inward. Then it will again explode,
Still another reference to the non-existent explosion. Current information seems to rule out an oscillating universe.
7. Missing Life. In an evolving universe, life should have developed everywhere. Space should be filled with radio signals from intelligent life forms. Where is everybody?
Everywhere that conditions suitable to life exist, yes. How many planets have we found so far where such conditions exist? What percentage of planets would one expect to have such conditions? And even if life exists and evolves on other planets, why should we expect it to evolve into intelligent life? Evolution does not aim to produce intelligent life, and earth got along for a long time without an intelligent, self-aware species capable of sending out radio signals. If life exists on other planets, what percentage of them would have not only life, but intelligent life?
Just a few reasons why AiG is a poor source of information about the big bang. The only thing they got right was the discrepancy in the chronological order of origins.
I have also recently purchased a book sold by AIG called "Dismantling the Big Bang" by Alex Williams and Dr John Hartnett. This book will also be a useful reference on the topic and starts of with a heading:
"Four reasons to reject the big-bang theory. They are as follows:"
1. It doesn't work.
2. The theory flacks a credible and consistent mechanism.
3 Chemical evolution of life (eventually leading to intelligent life, an essential ingredient of and evolutionary cosmology) is clearly excluded by the evidence.
4. Science cannot produce any final answers on the subject of origins.
Naturally no comment can be made on the major theses without reading the book, but I thought I would point out these items:
#3 It is disingenuous to use the term "chemical evolution of life" rather than "abiogenesis". This is an attempt to smuggle abiogenesis into the theory of evolution, when they are two different processes.
Furthermore, no theory of abiogenesis is relevant to the big bang, so whether or not it is clearly excluded by the evidence says nothing about the evidence for the big bang, which is based on a completely different set of observations.
#4 And science does not claim to either.
From what I've read, even those who promote the Big Bang recognise it is based on a number of arbitrary assumptions.
Not unless the red shift of galaxies is an arbitrary assumption. I was under the impression that it was an observation.
At least he said it was an ineffable explosion. 
