In article , jacob navia
writes:

"To give the maximum leeway to the BB theory, we look at work that
assumes some explosive mechanism created the voids, which would be much
faster than if they were formed by gravitational attraction. For a cold
dark matter Big Bang model, the time T in years, of formation of a void
R cm in diameter in matter with density n/cm3 and final, present-day,
velocity V cm/s is[ J.J. Levin et al, Astrophys J. vol 389, p464]:

T=1.03n-1/4V-1/2 R1/2

For V=220Km/sec, R=85 Mpc and n =2.4x10-7 /cm3 (assuming the ratio of
baryons to photons, h=6.14x 10-10), T= 158Gy. This is 11.6 times as long
as the Hubble time. Even if we increase n to reflect current assumptions
about dark matter being some 6 times as abundant as ordinary matter, we
still get 100 Gy, or 7.4 times the Hubble time. This is actually a bit
worse than the figure we arrive at by just diving the distance moved by
the current velocity, which ends up as 6.3 time the Hubble time.

Since Levin, Freese and Spergel are not sceptical of the big bang, my
assumption is that this analysis misunderstands their work, uses it in a
regime where it is not valid, or deliberately misrepresents it. If this
is really a killer argument against the standard ideas of structure
formation, people who believe it should put their effort in getting a
statement from one or more of these authors: why do they still believe
the standard cosmological model if their own work suggests otherwise?
Unless such a statement is forthcoming, or a documented refusal to
comment, my default explanation will be the one in the first sentence of
this paragraph.