Thumping, you're showing some clear, basic misunderstandings about the nature of science, not least regarding the scientific definition of the word "theory." We do not, for example, have to actually observe something happening in order to consider it "observed"; observing effects and determining that they could not be explained any other way (and I assure you, while creationists think they have explanations for the evidence, what they have is "God did it")--or at least, that this is a very good way of explaining it that hasn't been contradicted so far. If a better explanation came along, it would supplant the Big Bang. Better explanations don't supplant "God did it" in the eyes of a creationist, because that's all they need.

However, Big Bang cosmology, contrary to certain people's belief, has nothing to do with evolution. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, really. Evolution starts after that.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"