Ok so I was thinking a while ago about the big bang and all religious ties to it and said to myself, bullshit. I can give a huge argument about how there is nothing religious or god-like about the big bang. So I wanted to run it by anyone that can be bothered to listen (or read) and see what the views of others was.

So you know how the bible says `First god created the earth` Well there's the first cock-up. Space and the sun was created before the earth because the Earth came from collisions.

Now is my whole `theory` of how the big bang happened.
So you know that anti-matter? Yeah? Well don't you think that it's possible that before the big bang, there was just anti-matter and nothing else, then through a random specific (if you get what I mean) mutation, matter was introduced. And because there was such a huge amount of anti-matter, the explosion was so huge that it mutated more matter and then our solar system and life as we know it evolved from those pieces of matter?

Feedback please and if it's worth anything I would like to say that this was solely my idea and I will not appreciate any copy-cats. Be as criticizing as you want. :-)

Define the "Big Bang", as you understand it...

The popular theory is a centrally-located, instantaneous dissemination of matter - sending products of the event in all directions. Do you agree with it, or not?

From where/whom does the notion of anti-matter originate?

To be quite honest I'm not sure, I have only watched the occasional documentary on it and from what I gathered, I came to this... I guess for me it was really a case of proving it wasn't anything to do with god.

In order to successfully argue for an alternative to a religious explanation, one has to recognize the limitations to a purely scientific/secular theory.

Several points must be agreed to as the basis for a discussion to continue intelligently:
(1) The universe we occupy is physical in nature, and adheres to a consistent ruleset. These rules are test repeatable, but are only describable in terms of the five senses which we use to sample it.
(2) Scientific tools that we use (to test such a universe) are merely extensions of our basic senses, progressively increasing the precision with which observations are made.
(3) A God of infinite abilities is not necessarily constrained to existence within a universe He's alleged to have created. That makes Him meta-physical - existing in a condition which is a super-set, of which our physical universe would be part.
(4) Science, although able to verify certain basic behaviors fundamental to our portion of the universe, is constrained to theorizing about qualities existing at the limits of our senses (or the scientific extensions we have constructed) and which are not "directly" verifiable.

Having agreed to these concepts, certain conclusions can be made about the human ability to "isolate a God evidential sampling"... Interested?

Biggest lie big bang theory can be disprove by nature of light, universe is a large scale structure of an atom.