The cosmogenesis of the Big Bang is a flawed construct.

When they realized that cosmic redshift increases proportional to distance in all directions, it either meant we are at the exact center of the universe, or the redshift is an optical effect. Since there didn't seem to be any medium otherwise interfering with the light, ie, tired light, it was then proposed that space itself expands, based on Einstein's concept of spacetime, as the basis for the math of General Relativity.

What seems to be overlooked is the essential concept behind spacetime, is the speed of light is measured as a constant in any frame. So if the frame of intergalactic space expands, the speed of the corresponding light would have to increase.

Yet that is not what is proposed. To use the popular inchworm crawling on an expanding ballon analogy, the inchworm doesn't speed up, as the ballon expands.

Basically two metrics are being derived from he same light. One based on the speed, one based on the spectrum. If the speed were the numerator, it would be a tired light theory, but as an expanding space theory, the speed is still the explicit denominator. The "ruler" used to measure the expanding space.

Though there is apparently one way light redshifts over distance, as multi spectrum "packets," as the higher frequencies dissipate faster. Yet that would mean we are sampling a wave front and so the quantification of the light is an artifact of its absorption and measurement. Basically a loading, or threshold theory. Which is also not popular in some circles.

I wrote an essay on this, when the Webb was launched;

https://medium.com/predict/the-webb-is-cast-72f2b8ab067d

Predicting that not only would they keep finding ever further and older galaxies, but they would keep coming up with ways to shoehorn them in current theory, both of which are occurring. The BBT can only be patched, never falsified. Which is why we have Inflation, Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

The same debates were occurring with the Hubble, but status quo prevails;

https://www.americanscientist.org/article/modern-cosmology-science-or-folktale

When I try bringing this up in cosmology discussions, I tend to get the same response as when I point out in religiously political discussions that a spiritual absolute would be the essence from which we rise, not an ideal from which we fell. They drop the conversation, if not cancel me.

One time, may years ago, a Catholic priest and future in-law tried to interrogate me on the meaning of the Trinity, given I am Episcopalian. After about 5 minutes, he crossed himself and walked away.

That's the sense I get in a lot of conversations.