Re-Problems With The Big Bang Theory

It appears to be you that is not getting it. Nobody is denying that science involves observation. However simply observing things and explaining them is not scientific investigation. It is the testing of hypotheses that makes scientific investigation the powerful tool that it is.Without the test of theories against the facts of nature we simply have untested hypotheses at best, and subjectively derived philosophically biased wishful thinking at worst.Whilst I would defend current cosmological models specifically with regard to having been tested against nature by means of prediction this is kind of off topic. As such I will propose a new topic on this subject more generally sometime soon.

Of course you can. It is called prediction and verification.
A method of objective testing that is woefully lacking in any creationist methodologies and which you are conveniently ignoring.
Can you explain how the predicted existence and value of the CMB, for example, is not an objective test of theory? You seem to be ignorant of the wealth of observational and predictive physical evidence on which BBT is founded. What laws are you talking about? What proof are you on about? Science is not in the business of proof or even definites so I am not sure what form of investigation you are undertaking. This sounds like a theistic preconceived conclusion to me.
On what basis are you so sure of this foundation? Common sense? Is it common sense that you (and all other macroscopic objects) are 99.9999% empty space? If common sense answered all questions there would be little need for scientific enquiry.The rest of your post amounts to an unnecessarily long winded and frankly not very articulate argument of incredulity. The conclusions of science suggest that omplex things evolve from less complex things slowly and gradually.
The physical, predicted and tested evidence strongly implies this.
What is your alternative and, other than incredulity, what is your argument or evidence in favour of this alternative?

Actually most of the elements have been created in stars via a process of nuclear fusion. We are, as they say, all made of stardust.Only the very lightest elements formed as a dierct consequence of the BB alone. Planets are formed when the various heavier elements gravitationally attract to form more massive bodies. Your description is nonsensical. What process are you talking about here? I am unaware that lumps of gold will spontaneaously vaporise in space...... What are you talking about? You seem to be under the misapprehension that the chemical elemenets A) Make up the fabric of spacetime and B) Were directly created in the BB. Neither is true.As for dating - Radiometric dating techniques depend on the relative abundance of the decaying element and the stable element that this decays into. They are thus not subject to the initial assumption of age you seem to be implying. If we know the half life of a substance and can measure the amount of the substance as compared to the amount of the post decay isotope we can determine the age of an object.In short your whole post is a mish mash of misunderstanding.