I've read a fair few articles recently about the big bang being utter fiction and that there is ALOT more evidence to disprove it than to prove it. Obviously it could never be entirely proved but to my mind the evidence against it should be enough to disprove it. Do we just stick to the big bang theory because its the widely accepted theory or because we have no viable alternatives? Some of the evidence against it I've found include: 1. The idea that some superclusters and voids are older the universe. If, generally, galaxies move at around less than a thousand km/s and there are some superclusters that are a few hundred million lightyears across, then they would have taken around 20 billion years to form.. 2. Part of Sir Arthur Eddington's 1926 work showed that one of the biggest pieces of evidence for the big bang, the CMBR, could be explained by radiation from distant stars. 3. The second law of thermodynamics means that the universe should tend towards increasing entropy and disorder yet the universe isn't so. 4. Early stars in distant galaxies observed in the Hubble Deep Field shouldn't show such a high amount of metal elements since these are created in a supernova, yet.. they do. These are for the most part incredibly simple. I don't understand why these things aren't more widely discussed when the idea of the big bang comes up. Thoughts?