Hi LoneShaman
I gotta admit, if this discussion is going to sound like a conspiracy theory discussion, I'm going to lose interest fast. More importantly, it is reminding me of our skeptic/proponent psi discussions. You have a rich phenomenon like NDEs and folks are ready to dismiss the whole thing because of an anomalous flash of brain activity after death, despite all the other evidence in support of NDEs. Or, reincarnation being dismissed due to the population problem, despite Stevenson's work. Many theories/phenomenon have anomalies across their set of observations. More often than not this usually means we don't fully understand the theory/phenomenon (like psi, Big Bang, Climate Science, etc) rather than all the science behind the idea being dead wrong.
Anyhow, I mentioned several effects and lines of evidence that support the Big Bang, but it looks like we're not going to talk about any of that, most of which is difficult to dismiss (anomalies, or not). I also mentioned how tightly wrapped up the predictions and experimental verifications of General Relativity are with Big Bang Theory, and how dropping the Big Bang could be tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but doesn't look like we're going to discuss that either.
I mean, if we're going to ignore all that, how are we any better than the skeptics who want to dismiss psi based on anomalies? BBT evidence (which has statistical significance on par with some psi phenomenon, when it is statistical in nature) is even backed up with some physical theory and physical insight, unlike psi, so maybe it's even worse to dismiss it. Not only that, we would be knowingly (and unknowingly!) dismissing (verified!) science we don't understand just like we claim the skeptics do with psi.
So, I'm probably just going to wrap it up by saying this, which hopefully will get the point across I've attempted to make before a little better. I think this is the more reasonable stance to take on the issue when looking for a resolution.
In my experience, the anomalies you are talking about (and others!) have been known about and have been openly discussed, in general. However, they don't always get the attention they deserve and they surely have had vociferous opponents. Science doesn't escape the human experience of there being an a-hole in every crowd. (These anomalies aren't the biggest problems with the Big Bang, in my opinion, and we've barely even touched upon these others!) Anyhow, here's a simple analogy that represents what I think is what you can expect to happen in resolution to some of the problems.
Newton's lay says F=ma. No free parameters here, you just have to determine the mass from observation/experiment and you know the Force/Acceleration relationship. But, let's say you discover electricity and realize that F=ma=qE which you confirm over and over again. But, then these other guys come along who have been experimenting differently and they find these anomalous areas where the equation breaks down. Folks start screaming to throw out the F=ma relationship, despite all the evidence backing up F=ma in other areas like celestial mechanics, fluid dynamics, etc. People suppress evidence against the F=ma=qE theory in an effort to protect their careers. It turns into a big mess. (This may very well be the situation we're in right now)
But, then some smart guy comes along and realizes the solution lies in realizing we've been missing part of the picture. The electric field is just one way the Electromagnetic Field can manifest itself. The anomaly was magnetism rearing its ugly head! The equation is updated by adding an extra term, F=ma=qE + ( qV cross B), and ... phew, problem solved. We now have the Lorentz force law and the full picture.
This is akin to General Relativity. One simple equation is behind the entire theory from Black Holes, to gravity waves, to the GPS on your smart phone. The equation is:
G_mu_nu = 8*pi*T_mu_nu,
Once again, no free parameters. T is the stress-energy tensor and replaces the mass term in the Newtonian equation, which shows up in the T_00 index of the tensor, but also includes terms representing energy, pressure, etc. So, instead of just measuring mass we now have to account for mass-energy content.
Similar to F=ma, this equation has had too much success at too high level of accuracies to just throw it out. Here's the problem. Although it doesn't provide a lot of details on the Big Bang on its own, it does indeed predict the Universe heads into a Big-Bang-like condition earlier in its history GIVEN a specific range of mass-energy content for the Universe, which of course comes from observation. Ignore this and you might as well think your smart phone GPS works on magic - it's the same equation!
So, as I see it there are two paths we'll end up taking:
(1) Observation is wrong when it comes to the Universe mass-energy content and/or wrong in various other manners. We already know this is true to some extent, but perhaps the anomalies (like anomalous red shifts, extra clumpiness) are hinting at even more of a problem. However, the observed mass-energy content falls pretty far within the area on the plots I mentioned above that requires a Big-Bang-like condition earlier in the history of the Universe, so it's going to be hard to pull it out of that region. There is also too much evidence in support of observations to drop the whole set now just because of the anomalies - at this point, anyhow.
But, keep in mind, nothing in (1) says General Relativity is wrong, specifically G=8*pi*T. It says our observations are wrong and therefore our determination of T, the stress-energy tensor. It also doesn't imply the Big Bang definitely didn't happen, just that we're coming at it from the wrong angle, if it did happen.
(2) We need to modify gravity in a way analogous to how we modified the F=qE equation above. This is in essence what most of the alternatives/modifications to GR I mentioned earlier are trying to do. It looks and sounds more complicated, but that's what it is - an acknowledgment we're potentially missing part of the picture at the larger cosmological scales with our vanilla-flavored GR,
But, keep in mind, (2) still realizes how fantastically successful G=8*pi*T has been at other scales so it doesn't make sense to throw the entire thing out, thereby throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Nor does (2) say the Big Bang definitely didn't happen. Unfortunately, there are still no alternative theories that work as well as GR across the board. (i.e. we're sill looking for that extra term in F=qe+[qV cross B] )
To me, this is the more reasonable stance to take. (i) It recognizes where the science has been correct/successful and avoids hasty moves of accidentally throwing the baby out with the bath water. (ii) It also doesn't summarily dismiss evidence that supports aspects of the Big Bang Theory, similar to the psi analogy above. (iii) It also recognizes that both sides of the debate are shortsighted on the issue to some extent (like our F=ma=qE buddies above)
If the discussion goes along these lines and doesn't ignore confirmed theory and/or evidence that does support aspects of cosmology, I'll find that interesting and will probably participate more.
Don't get me wrong, I'm almost always with you guys on alternative medicine and psi, etc. Even on the climate change debate there is much David and Michael have said that I am in strong agreement with, even though I lean a little more to the other side of the debate. I mean, in some of these areas, there has been next to zero scientific research in the mainstream. But, this particular discussion is verging on wanting to dismiss a ton of science/evidence that has had decades of intense scrutiny, so I just gotta part ways a bit here on this particular discussion if goes down that route.
