vidar - you asked in response to phenobarbara's post:<br /><br />What evidence favoured the Big Bang theory over the Steady State theory?<br /><br />Other posters have given some of the evidence, I will add more.<br /><br />First, to review: <br /><br />1. red shift indicates expansion from a starting point.<br /><br />2. CMBR is consistent with a starting point (in time and space).<br /><br />Here are a few additional points:<br /><br />A. Radioactive elements - compare radiometric dating - prove earth had a beginning - supporting Genesis 1:1. While this does not pin down the specific big bang theory, it certainly favors the big bang theory over the steady state theory.<br /><br />B. Thermodynamics. Entropy continues, but it stems from a hot origin in a small space - many studies in astrophysics support this.<br /><br />If the universe always existed, one would have to ask why it possesses its current thermodynamic properties.<br /><br />C. Spectroscopic studies - notably the lyman-alpha forest in quasar spectra - show a history of the IGM (intergalactic medium) that is not steady state by any means - it is consistent with a hot origin, but it also shows reheating not predicted by the big bang.<br /><br />There is more, but I will await response.<br /><br />On thread theme, note that Genesis 1:1 is a scientifically accurate statement.<br /><br />I don't know I would call Genesis 1:1 religious dogma, however.<br /><br />Unless belief that God created the heavens and earth at a beginning is necessarily religious dogma rather than simply scientific belief based on solid scientific evidence. <br /><br />Please note, for example, that my belief, like Isaac Newton's, is based both on science and the Bible.<br /><br />Therefore, to say my belief is religious would ignore the scientific basis - simply: it is not a case of either - or, but rather: both.<br /><br />Note also that Genesis 1:1 is not specifically the Big Bang model - it is consistent with that model which, as Saiph accurately notes, need