You only show that you have no real concept of what the Big Bang (a euphemistic nickname created by a scientist who disagreed with the theory) really was. Science does not support something coming from nothing. The Big Bang is included in this.
"Earlier versions of the Big Bang theory had the universe originating from a singularity (a point of zero volume and infinite density, where the laws of physics have no meaning).
This has been replaced by the idea that the universe originated from literally nothing at all. According to quantum theory, matter and antimatter particles are created in pairs all the time out of nothing (i.e. vacuum) and cancel each other out with no effect on the universe. They are therefore called virtual particles). At the Big Bang, however, massive amounts of matter and antimatter were created and although much of it was similarly cancelled out with a huge release of energy, matter won the day and spawned the universe as we know it. "
http://www.kheper.net/cosmos/universe/Big_Bang.htm
This one from astronomists:
"The Big Bang was not an explosion of matter into space, rather it was an explosion of space ITSELF, and since space and time are interconnected, we really have to say it was an explosion of space AND time, or space-time.
So, the Big Bang wasn’t an explosion of stuff like atoms or molecules, it was an explosion of a place and instance, it was the creation of when and where.
Before the Big Bang there was simply nothing, there was no ‘where’ nor was there a ‘when’. It doesn’t even make sense to say ‘before the Big Bang’."
http://www.astronomybuff.com/the-big-bang-was-an-explosion-of-space-not-in-space/
Now that person who derided the big bang theory was Hoyle and he said that before the discovery of the background radiation which clinched the big bang theory as the best we have.
When the background radiation was discovered it not only clinched the BB theory as the best but it also prompted these quotes:
“The big bang theory requires a recent origin of the Universe that openly invites the concept of creation.”
Fred Hoyle
The Intelligent Universe
New York: Holt, Rinehard, and Winston, 1983), p. 13
“If we accept the big bang theory, and most cosmologists now do, then a ‘creation’ of some sort is forced upon us.”
Barry Parker
Creation—the Story of the Origin and Evolution of the Universe
New York & London: Plenum Press, 1988, p. 202
Compared to the alternative of supposing that matter and energy somehow always existed, British physicist Edmund Whittaker says, “It is simpler to postulate creation ex nihilo—Divine will constituting Nature from nothingness.”
Edmund Whittaker cited in
Fred Heeren
Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God
Day Star Publications, 2000, pp. 121
Einstein later chided himself for introducing his famous fudge factor in order to make his theory fit. He called the addition of his cosmological constant “the greatest blunder of my life.” (cited by Richard Morris, The Fate of the Universe, New York: Playboy Press, 1982, p. 28) He wrote: “The mathematician Friedmann found a way out of the dilemma. His results then found a surprising confirmation by Hubble’s discovery of the expansion (of the universe).” (cited by Barry Parker, Creation—the Story of the Origin and Evolution of the Universe, New York & London: Plenum Press, 1988, pp. 53-54). After this Einstein wrote not only of the necessity for a beginning, but of his desire “to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thought, the rest are details.” (cited by Nick Herbert, Quantum Reality—Beyond the New Physics, Garden City, New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1985, p. 177).
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
Sir Fred Hoyle
"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Robert Jastrow
“Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me … I should like to find a genuine loophole.”
Arthur Eddington
I would like you to note that all of these men were scientist and they were talking about the scientific evidence. furthermore for some of them they were opposed to any religious explanation prior to the discovery of the background radiation but had to accept the notion as the best explanation of the facts.
And furthermore, while Hoyle rejected the BB theory in favor of the steady state theory, the steady state theory proposes that matter is created from nothing on a continual bases and not just at the big bang.
