But, think about it. The theory is faulty from its very beginning because can't explain how that microscopic particle in the middle of nothing started to expand. Theories of science. the real ones, provide the required explanation as demanded by the scientific method. The Big Bang theory is not science. The Big Bang theory doesn't need a replacement but just to be discarded because its lack of explanation and evidence. Who told you the universe today is more complex than it is beginning? How can you prove it? You don't understand that everything you just said belongs to the imagination of someone else, and you are writing it here as if that imagination is a fact. Come on, what you say is simply unacceptable. You just manipulate numbers and can obtain a result that the universe comes from "nothing" but such are just playing with numbers. Numbers can't explain nothing, numbers are just amounts, and we play with those. In order for those numbers to work properly, you first must have sufficient data, like to say, you must have at hand the current size of the universe. Do you have it? If yes, then give me the data, you don't need to put decimals, just whole numbers, but the accurate figure. When you use Google or any online search service, you will read lots of conjectures as if they were facts. We barely know the universe as it is right now and you are pretending you know how it was at its beginning... come on, give me a break. If no "center" where is expanding from? Excuse me, but without an epicenter your theory is based on magic. Sure, galaxies moving away from one another. Collision of galaxies right below. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! How can you believe in a theory which lack of explanation and evidence? Lets resume here, you are the one supporting a belief that the entire universe was formed from a microscopic particle in the middle of nothing, that without knowing the cause of such expansion the place in the middle of nothing is not an epicenter, and worst, you use mathematics based on incomplete data, like the current size of the universe. And you want me to accept your belief based on such poor collection of data without evidence to support it? After a supernova, microwave background is left as well, and detecting it is the most plausible explanation of its presence, so forget about the "explosion" of a microscopic particle in the middle of nothing leaving microwave background, the most this particle can left if microscopic background.. lol Naahh, this is not about feelings, this is about knowledge. And it seems you know a lot about Big Bang but know nothing about physics. Point is, that science can't replace religion when science itself has been invaded with lots of theories invented in base of imagination alone. I love science, and I don't accept some theories because their fame but because their lack of sure evidence or fact or observation as their base foundation. Every theory which started with numerical calculations and with arguments like "imagine that..." for sure those do not belong to science but to fiction. My regards.