I have always found it odd that scientists conclude that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, and yet they maintain that it all began in one gigantic bang. If the universe is in fact expanding faster and faster, then wouldn't it be far more likely that it all began in a slow burn? Well, they believe the universe is expanding in this way because of their adherence to the idea of red shift describing acceleration, rather than distance itself, as perturbed by a different kind of gravity - (perhaps gravity as a "repulsive force"). Based on their assumption, they are forced to come up the concepts of dark matter and dark energy, things they cannot see, but have faith are there, as scientists once believed in the Ether. It's the same old mistake, all over again. I am sure they will come up with measurements proving these surreal forces. But, I would still maintain: only as an alternative to other possibilities than a big bang. I think various versions are compatible, depending on your perspective. But to insist only on one big bang, well, that is as narcissistic as claiming there is one god and nothing else. All other believers be damned.
And it isn't theology which has me taking this stance. There are big bangs happening all over the current universe, and there are all sorts of other extreme phenomena, and there are universes beyond our own. So what is this fixation on a single big bang? I would give hearing to anyone who also maintained that the world began not in a bang but in a whisper. Makes at least as much sense to me. The universe is mainly cold - and raise your hand if you've ever woken up in the morning hearing the sun roaring? And, speaking of theology, wasn't it the bible which said that, in the beginning was the word, not the bang? lol. Jeez, what is this, some kind of competitive space race? On your marks. Get set. Go!