Hello, sog.
I'm afraid that there are a few misconceptions in you post.
quote:
For over a century, efforts have been made to explain scientific discoveries by mid-19th century theory, known as "evolution."
Evolution is merely a word. It means "change", usually with a connotation that there is some definite history in the change. It is a fact that things change: you changed from an unborn fetus to an adult, my political views have changed over my life, the boundaries and demographic make-up of the U.S. has changed over time.
Evolution is an appropriate word to use in these situations.
So, it is not a surprise that this word,
evolution, meaning change, should be used to describe, or as titles, of various theories that describe or explain changes. Darwin postulated that all living species have descended from a small number of ancestral species, and that successive generations of populations exhibit minute changes over ancestral ones, leading large changes in the morphology of the species. That is, species change over time, hence we call Darwin's theory the theory of evolution.
Astronomers can model the history of stars on a computer, using the known laws of physics. They note that over the life-time of a star it will undergo predictable changes in its composition, appearance, and other characteristics. So we talk about stellar evolution.
Cosmologists have presented a theory for the history of the universe. According to this theory, the nature of the very early universe was very different than the universe now. That is, the universe has changed over time. So we can speak of the evolution of the universe.
However, this word is the only thing that these theories have in common. They are not in any way connected, except that the theories try to account for the changes in their respective subjects.
--
It theorizes that a large quantity of nothing decided to pack tightly together and, then, explode outward into hydrogen and helium.
This is false. The Big Bang Theory says, as of yet, nothing about how the universe originated. Our present knowledge of the laws of physics are insufficient to understand what was happening in the first 10 to the minus 14th of a second of the history of the universe. Here is the Big Bang Theory in a nut shell:
We observe that distant galaxies are receding from ours. There further away a galaxy is, the faster it is moving away. This is most simply explained by saying the universe is expanding -- in fact, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, in its simplest form, states that the universe should either be expanding or contracting.
If we extrapolate backwards in time, about 14 billion years ago or so, all the matter in the known universe would have been crowded together, so much so that stars could not have existed. It should have been much hotter -- inconceivably hot. The further back in time one goes, the denser and hotter the universe was.
Using the known laws of physics, we can determine what the character of the early universe should have been. There are several scenarios possible as to what the universe was like in its early period. Using the laws of physics, we can then determine what the later universe would have been like under the various scenarios -- by comparing these determination with what we actually observe we can rule out various scenarios.
This is the Big Bang Theory.
--
quote:
It is easy to theorize that something is true, when it has never been seen anf there is no definitive evidence that it exists or happened.
What matters is the predictions that can be made from the theory. According to the Big Bang Theory, the entire known universe was in a very hot and dense state. There should have been a lot of electromagnetic radiation due to this heat. As the universe expanded, this radiation should still be here, but should exist as background microwave radiation. So, according to Big Bang, it was predicted that there should be a more or less uniform background microwave radiation. Sure enough, this radiation was detected
after it was predicted that it should exist.
Big Bang is not simply a bunch of armchair theories. One can use it, and the known laws of physics, to predict what we should be able to observe
today if we know what to look for. The past always leaves evidence in the present -- and the Big Bang predicts the nature of the evidence that should exist now, and this evidence is observed.
--
This is why the Big Bang is not a fairy tale. It makes predictions, like the existence of the microwave background radiation, that is then observed. It is repeatedly tested, and it passes its tests. The Big Bang is
not about the origin of the universe -- that is presently unknowable, and may always be unknowable although people are working in it right now. It is a description of the history of the universe starting at a very hot and dense state.
™ Version 4.2