No offense, but reading through their bibliographies just makes me want to tear my eyes out. And I wish I was kidding, too.
The Big Bang consistently explains every observable cosmological phenomenon with absolutely no evidence pointing in another direction, in much the same way evolution consistently explains the way that life on earth operates- it works, plain and simple. Otherwise it wouldn't be a scientific theory.
Oh, I wouldn't say that. The theory contradicts a number of scientific laws which include laws of thermodynamics and some other issues that come up which include personal bias in the studies theorized and a number of recent discoveries that ring in flaws to the theory as a whole which include cosmic phenomena that surpass the age of the universe and the length of the universe as a whole being too short of a time to have been created in 20 billion years (the approximate amount of time believed for our universe to have taken to be created according to the theory).
- Seriously, you can't base one argument against The Big Bang Theory on Hubble's redshifting (an immediate side-effect from astronomical objects moving away or towards us) and then claim that " Static universe models fit observational data better than expanding universe models.". That's just a gigantic contradiction.
- Applying classical principles like the Laws of Thermodynamics into a level where even the smallest ray of light can change the very nature of atomic particles is... quaint, would be a... "nice" way of putting it.
@SilverGalford: With all due respect, you do know that there are more ways to prove Egyptians, pharaohs, Herod, etc, right?