The theory that has come to be known as "The Big Bang" was originally proposed by a Catholic Priest, to make the Bible Scientific. Critics of the Big Bang theory have subsequently referred to this theory as "religion masquerading as science." Nevertheless, the Big Bang model is the generally accepted theory for the origin of universe. Nonetheless, findings in observational astronomy and revelations in the field of fundamental physics over the past two decades question the validity of the 'Big Bang' model as a viable theory for the origin of the universe. There are numerous factors which undermine the theory of the Big Bang, including the organization of galactic superstructures, the Cosmic Microwave Background, distant galaxies, gravitational waves, red shifts, and the age of local galaxies.Admittedly, the Big Bang research program has been successful in generating fruitful scientific hypotheses and tests, and there has been some confirmation for many hypotheses. However, outstanding questions remain and substantial alternative cosmology models, which also have been fruitful, remain viable and continue to evolve. Unfortunately, there has been a concerted effort to prevent research into alternate cosmologies. The Big Bang has become a "sacred cow" which must not be questioned.One of the greatest challenges facing astrophysics is derivation of remoteness in cosmological objects. At large scales, it is almost entirely dependent upon the Hubble relationship between apparent brightness and spectral redshift for large luminous objects. However, this data has questionable validity. The assumption of scale invariance and universality of the Hubble law allowed the adoption of redshift as a standard calibration of cosmological distance. However, there have been several fields of study in observational astronomy that consistently give apparently anomalous results from ever-larger statistical samples, and would thus seem to require further careful investigation. A major problem is that the Big Ba Big Bang model implies the existence of a creator. Why the Universe should have had a beginning, or why it would have been created, cannot be explained by classical or quantum physics. To support the Big Bang, estimates of the age and size of the cosmos, including claims of an accelerating universe, are based on an Earth-centered universe with the Earth as the measure of all things, exactly as dictated by religious theology. However, distance from Earth is not a measure of the age of far away galaxies. The Big Bang cannot explain why there are galaxies older than the Big Bang, why fully formed galaxies continue to be discovered at distances of over 13 billion light years from Earth, when according to Big Bang theory, no galaxies should exist at these distances. To support the Big Bang, red shifts are purposefully misinterpreted based on Pre-Copernican geo-centrism with Earth serving as ground zero. However, red shifts are variable, effected by numerous factors, and do not provide measures of time, age or distance. Nor can Big Bang theory explain why galaxies collide, why rivers of galaxies flow in the "wrong" direction, why galaxies clump together creating great walls of galaxies which took from 80 billion to 150 billion years to form. Big Bang theory requires phantom forces, constantly adjusted parameters, and ad hoc theorizing to explain away and to cover up the numerous holes in this theory. Finally, if at first there was a "singularity" then the Big Bang was not a beginning, but a continuation.