This is just too easy. Misunderstanding physics 101.
The Big Bang Explosion
The Big Bang "explosion" is not, and has not been theorized by anyone save evolution deniers and creationists who haven't the slightest idea what they are talking about.
1 - The Big Bang theory is based on theoretical extremes. It may look good in math calculations, but it can’t actually happen.
And you know this to be a fact how? How is it you, not a physicist, has been able to work it all out? If you had you'd be angleing for a Nobel Prize, not posring it on an evolution denial website.
A tiny bit of nothing packed so tightly together that it blew up and produced all the matter in the universe.
You fail right there. No one (By that I mean people who know what they are talking about in the first place.) has theorized that "nothing" exploded and "created" all matter and energy in the universe. The Big Bang Theory postulates that all matter and energy already existed in the form of a singularity in the instant just prior to the expansion known as the "Big Bang". Your entire rebuttal of the theory is based upon a fiction that you say the theory states.
Seriously now, this is a fairy tale. It is a bunch of armchair calculations, and nothing else. It is easy to theorize on paper. The Big Bang is a theoretical extreme, just as is a black hole. It is easy to theorize that something is true, when it has never been seen and there is no definitive evidence that it exists or ever happened. Let us not mistake Disneyland theories for science.
You're right lets not mistake fairy tales for science, so what is it you are using fairy tales to try to invalidate science?
2 - Nothingness cannot pack together. It would have no way to push itself into a pile.
The theory doesn't state that "nothingness" packed together, It states that all matter and energy was in a state of singulaity in the moment prior to the big bang, before that nothing can be known.
3 - A vacuum has no density. It is said that the nothingness got very dense, and that is why it exploded. But a total vacuum is the opposite of total density
The singularity was neither a vacum nor in a vacum, such states did not exist in that moment. At this time nothing is, or can be known about the medium that the singularity existed in.
4 - There would be no ignition to explode nothingness. No fire and no match. It could not be a chemical explosion, for no chemicals existed. It could not be a nuclear explosion, for there were no atoms!
The theory does not postulate an "explosion" but rather an expansion. You would know this if you had actually investigated the theory itself and not just what you were told that it claimed. You are rebutting a fiction of the Big Bang theory, not the actual theory itself.
5 - There is no way to expand it. How can you expand what isn’t there? Even if that magical vacuum could somehow be pulled together by gravity, what would then cause the pile of emptiness to push outward? The "gravity" which brought it together would keep it from expanding.
Once again you are arguing against a fictional theory. This "emptiness" or "nothingness" that you speak of is not in any way postulated or claimed by the big bang theory.
6 - Nothingness cannot produce heat. The intense heat caused by the exploding nothingness is said to have changed the nothingness into protons, neutrons, and electrons.
There was no "nothingness. All matter and energy existant in the universe was present at the big bang. There was no change from "nothingness" into anything it existed prior to the expansion and composed the expansion.
First, an empty vacuum in the extreme cold of outer space cannot get hot by itself
There was no outer space. The space you speak of did not exist prior to, or for hundreds of millions of years after the big bang itself.
Second, an empty void cannot magically change itself into matter.
There was no "empty void". There was a super hot, super dense singularity containg and matter and energy existent in our current universe. There was no changing "nothingness" into matter, but changing energy into matter.
Third, there can be no heat without an energy source
The singularity was already super heated. It is not possible to know the state of the universe before that moment.
7 The calculations are too exacting.
And you know this how? I do not see you name attatched to any peer reviewed phyusics papers. So why should I uncritically accept that you have a better and more complete grasp of theoretical physics than every other legitimate phyisicist in the world? After all, if you did then you wouldn't be reduced to spouting your shit on an evolution denial website.
Too perfect an explosion would be required
No "explosion" is either required or postulated. You are arguing against a non-existant fiction that you pretend is the Big Bang theory.
On many points, the theoretical mathematical calculations needed to turn a Big Bang into stars and our planet cannot be worked out; in others they are too exacting
Physics is not a complete science. There are things that factor into physics that are not currently known, but there is no truly competing theory at the current time other than "magic man did it", a "theory" in name only that conform to nothing that is known of of astrophysics. Nor does your fiction of the big bang theory conform to the physical forces that are know, quantifiable, and present in the moment after the big bang and still in effect today.
Knowledgeable scientists call them "too perfect."
Name them? Name them, their qualifications, and provide a list of peer reviewed works authored by them.l Until you do so i have no reason to not believe that they are cranks who cling to the same fictional model of physics that you do and are therefore not credible in the least. Just saying "scientists" wsay something doesn't mean that the do unless you can provide who these "scientists" are, and where they said it.
Mathematical limitations would have to be met which would be next to impossible to achieve. The limits for success are simply too narrow.
So you are a world renowned mathematician too? How can you say that the mathematical limitation are immpossible to achieve when you don't even know what they are? Without an immpossibly complete knowledge of condition both before and after the Big Bang you cannot possible say the chances for sucess are too anything. Besides, you are not arguing against the Big Bang theory, you are arguing against a starwman version of the theory based on what you think the theory states without having actually researched the theory itself. Nor would sucessfully refuting the theory make what I can only assume your view, that "magic man did it" true. You can hammer away at a theory till you die, but unless you can put forward a competing theory then you have done nothing.