I feel a point-by-point coming on...
In order for something to be scientific it needs to be demonstrated.
No, there is no onus on big bang theorists to create a second big bang to prove their theory. Predictions of the BBT have been confirmed many times by later observations.
Now,with that being said,why is it that no big bang explosion(such as war bombings,911,etc..)has ever designed anything?
"Big Bang" is a handy, and informal, name for a theory of physics. It does not imply that any big enough bang is equivalent, even in part, to the processes that went on in the first three minutes of the universe.
That said, this is still wrong. Mythbusters once showed someone making diamonds from graphite and an obscene amount of explosives.
Why is it that when bombs,firecrackers,etc.. go off that they cannot create things?
They create light, sound, debris and - in the case of fireworks - pretty patterns in the sky. Just like they were intended to.
Like another sun,moon,stars,planets,animals,people?
The only people who ever raise the claim that explosions are supposed to have created stars, planets and living organisms are creationists. That explosions do not create these things simple demonstrates that it is you that are wrong.
If the Big Bang is true then why do explosions only cause destruction?
Explosions do not only cause destruction, and the Big Bang was not an explosion.
