Since proponents of the Big Bang are unlikely to entertain any problems to the theory, merely dismissing them as objections to ultimately be resolved, it is unlikely that any proofs will make it through the labyrinth of biases and deliberate blindness.
Yet...
Oh and by the way, your arguments contradict each other. 5 doesn't make sense in the light of 2 or 3, right?
If 5 were true, how can snowflakes be formed in a cloud? Order from disorder, right? And 4? Just a bad argument. Whoever thought it up has no concept of gravity, or just how long billions of years is. That's not surprising, since whoever thought these arguments up has no problem limiting God to a little book written by men thousands of years ago.
1. The primordial explosion should have propelled all the matter/energy of the cosmos out radially from its center,....
The Big Bang ("BB") Cosmology posits no "explosion," nor any center to the universe. Whoever wrote this doesn't understand the theory he's arguing against.
.... and by the principle of conservation of angular momentum, none of it could ever thereafter have acquired any kind of curvilinear motion. Yet there are all kinds of curving and orbiting motions of the stars and galaxies of the cosmos, a situation that seems quite impossible if the universe began with the Big Bang.
Only someone who doesn't understand the BB theory and what conservation of angular momentum actually means could have written something like this. Conservation of Angular Momentum in no way poses an impediment to orbital motion of stars, galaxies, or anything else.
2. Sensitive measurements in recent years have increasingly been showing that the background radiation is not homogeneous and isotropic (that is, the same in all directions), as it should be if it had been produced by the Big Bang, but is anisotropic in all directions.
The author blunders again. The CMBR IS isotropic down to a relatively fine level of temperature resolution, below which point the Inflationary Model of the BB specifically predicts an amount, and distribution, of anisotropy that is exquisitely in agreement with the most recent observations of the W-MAP probe. Contrary to what the author proposes, the currently accepted BB theory (the Inflationary Model) predicts exactly what has been confirmed observationally.
3. The universe is anything but uniform in large-scale structure, as both the Big Bang and Steady State theories require, but instead is full of huge agglomerations of matter in some regions and vast empty spaces in others, scattered around the cosmos in far from any uniform manner.
The author errs again. On a Cosmological scale, the OBSERVED distribution of matter is homogeneous; it is only on smaller scales that the clumpiness is noted, but at cosmological distances, the clumpiness averages out, just as the BB theory predicts.
..... Some astronomers are now trying somehow to to imagine a primeval lumpy Big Bang.
The author appears to not understand, or misrepresents the degree of "lumpiness" in the early Universe. The subtle anisotropies observed by the W-MAP probe (as mentioned in my response to your item #2 above) are all that is needed to "seed" the universe for galaxy formation. So, in fact, the lumpiness WAS predicted, and has been found to be in agreement with the predictions of the BB theory.
4. In the context of the primeval fireball it is hard to justify the accumulation of any amount of matter in any one location such as a star.
It is not even clear what the author means by this statement.
.... If the explosion is driving all galaxies apart in the resulting expansion, how could it fail to drive all atoms apart before they came together in galaxies?
Again, the author implies the BB is some sort of "explosion" -- it wasn't. Secondly, he suggests that the BB is "driving the galaxies apart" when, in fact, under the BB theory, galaxy formation didn't take place for several million or even a billion years afterwards. He also seems to believe that the expansion of the Universe somehow imparts momentum to objects within it, which is NOT the case.
5. And saving the best for last, the most serious objection comes back to the second law of thermodynamics. Explosions produce disorder, not order. The primordial superexplosion surely would have produced absolute chaos and the most utter disorder.
Once more, the author incorrectly characterizes the BB as an "explosion."
.... If the universe is indeed a closed system as evolutionary cosmogonists allege, then how in the name of sense and science could this primeval chaotic disorder have possibly generated the beautifully organized and complexly ordered universe that we now have?
The author clearly doesn't understand thermodynamics any better than he understands the BB theory. Adiabatic expansion is isentropic, and there is nothing about the Second Law of thermo that precludes localized decreases in entropy as long as the net entropy of the system and its surroundings increases.
If you are interseted in learning about what the BB theory actually is, I suggest you abandon the website from which you plagerized your response, and check this out instead:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
It is written by a real astronomer who is knowledgeable in the subject.
You do know that the big bang is an expansion of space-time and is not an explosion, don't you?