A model depicting the BB and zero event must be compatible with the observable basic laws of science.
The difficulty here is that you do not understand the basic laws of science.
You have had (to be said in voice of Cmdnt Lassaired) many, many, people try to explain these basic laws and still you seem unable to understand what is being told to you.
BB advocates assume uniformity in that things in the observable Universe are expanding. There is no model to show that that has been so from the beginning of space and time in the alleged zero event.
Inflation cosmology. But you wont' understand that because you haven't, yet.
OTO there are models depicting things expanding and contracting via intelligently designed work.
You do not know the difference between 'model' and assertion; as this statement points out.
Edited by Larni, : Crazy formatting.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
™ Version 4.2
(1)