The Big-Bang theory contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The very idea that a primeval cosmic explosion could somehow generate a
highly ordered and complex universe is preposterous on the very face of it.
Explosions produce disorder, and this ultimate explosion would surely have
generated the ultimate disorder, as the primeval state of the universe.

The hypothetical initial state of the universe may have been energized, but
it was also totally unorganized. there is no "information" in randomly
moving particles, and no "structure" in an explosion. To the evolutionist,
the universe is a closed system, with no external agent to organize it into
its present infinite array of complex galaxies and suns, and, at least on
one planet, a marvelous variety of living systems. By the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, there is absolutely no natural way that such a completely
isolated sytem as the universe could increase in information and organized
complexity. British astronomer, Paul Davies, has said:

" The greatest puzzle is where all the in the universe came from originaly.
How did the cosmos get wound up, if the second law of thermodynamics
predicts asymmetric unwinding towards disorder?....

There is good evidence that the primeval universe was not ordered, but
highly chaotic; a relic of the primordial chaos survives in a curious
radiation from space, believed to be the last fading remnant of the
primeval heat, and the characteristics of its spectrum reveal that in the
earliest moments fo the universe the cosmological material was completely
unstructured."

The Big Bang theory and the Steady-State Theory is repudiated by one of the
most basic principles of science, the Second Law. This Law indicates that
since the universe is "running down," it must have been "woundup," or
created. The First Law testifies that the universe could not have created
itself.

The laws of thermodynamics are science; the evolutionary theories of cosmic
origins are mere philosophical speculations which have been devised
essentially for avoiding the testimony of true science, which points
specifically and directly to true prieval creation. And yet evolutionists
have the nerve to say that creation is based on religion, while evolution
is based on science!! The real situation is exactly reverse.

The testimony of the true facts of science is thus in full support of the
Creation Model. That is, at some point of time, say T0, the Space/Mass/Time
cosmos was simply CREATED, brought into existence in fully developed and
functioning form right at the beginning. The complex structures of its
immense variety of stars and galaxies did not evolve at all. They were
simply created, with any changes since that time limited to processes of
decay, NOT developement.

As can be observed, stars, galaxies, have been
stable, with no evolutionary changes since the beginning of recorded
history. All observed changes (e.g., novas, meteorites, etc.) represent
disintegration processes, not evolutionay process.

As I've stated many times. Neither Creation or Evolution can be
scientifically proven, but Creation has a stronger case.