What evidence can scientists provide to support the Big Bang theory?

There is cosmic background radiation that is thought to be the "smoke" after the big bang which can still be measured in space today. This is low energy radio waves (which we pick up as static) that can be detected at about the same level wherever we look, leading scientists to think that it is the result of the entire universe having expanded from a single point. Then there is a specific ratio of the elements. After the Big Bang, it is believed only the simpler elements, such as hydrogen and helium, existed and that all other elements were created in the high energy environment of stars.

==================================

Once again, the question has the whole thing backwards.

Scientists do not get together at the coffee shop to dream up a theory, and then

go out looking for evidence to support it. That's not how it works. Scientists make

measurements and observations that describe what is, and then work to assemble

a theory that can explain the evidence they already have.

From that point, their job is to tell a good theory from a bad one. Any theory that

seems to explain what has already been seen also predicts things that have not

been seen yet, and that leads to the other half of the scientists' job ... testing

the predictions of the theory. NOT looking for evidence to support it, but testing

the predictions it makes to see whether they're true ... Or not. If most of them

are true, then the theory survives, with possibly a few changes. If most of them

are not true, then the theory is out. The evidence is still there, along with the

new evidence that came from testing the predictions, but the theory itself is as

good as gone.

Scientists are human people, which leads to the inconvenient fact that there are

good scientists and poor ones. The scientists who go around looking for evidence

to support their favorite theory are generally not the good ones.