The phenomenon of existence is the source of cause and effect not the result of it and although a few of the more astute cosmologists have backed away from the claim that Big Bang created the universe, even that minority doesn't seem to take seriously any contention that the cosmos is eternal.

Big Bang theory depends upon the interpretation of the observed 'red shift' of elemental absorption markers in spectra from distant galaxies being Doppler related. Strangely, it seems the more distant the galaxy, the greater the shift appears and at the very 'fringes of the Universe', the red shift indicates galaxies are moving away from us at a pace faster than the speed of light...and accelerating.

This is a burdensome inconvenience to contemporary cosmologists, and they have tried to explain it away by proposing that the seemingly extra-logical phenomenon is an illusion caused by the self-same cosmological expansion they seek to substantiate. Furthermore, the cosmic expension premise relies heavily on the presumed existence of two hypothetical elements called dark energy and matter. Their existence is pure speculation. This is sloppy science at best. The mathematical incongruities of any falsely premised theory can easily be reconciled by the use of additional false premises and calculations reverse engineered to force the correct results.

If you drop a white cue ball into a tub of cranberry juice, the deeper the tub, the redder it appears - but the cue ball is NOT accelerating. If there exists some yet undiscovered property of space or the nature of light, itself, that incrementally shifts the wavelengths of absorption markers to the red end of the spectrum over vast distances, it would explain why the red shift seems to be intensifying at greater distances instead of being constant. When dealing with distances in the billions of light years, we have no idea what subtle nuances of nature might produce startling effects.

Astronomers tend to presume that between any given source and observer, all light travels the same distance at the same speed. But light bends in the presence of gravity. Observe a simple prism and you'll see the red wavelength bends less than violet. Forget stars and planets, how many mass-laden Hydrogen atoms are there in a billion light years? Light at lower wavelengths has a more distant trajectory from source to observer when repeatedly exposed to gravity and would take longer to traverse the distance. Could 'wavelength lag' alter elemental absorption markers toward the red end of the scale (graduate level thesis anyone)? The website Redshift with Distance offers an alternative to the Doppler theory. This and other theories explore how the absorption spikes perceived from light sources billions of light years away might be altered.

I have little argument with the data Big Bangers cite, but I have a BIG problem with their interpretation of that data. The sound of galloping hooves doesn't mean the Unicorns are stampeding.