[narby]

On the other hand, I have been to 3 or 4 big bang theory sites and they all have from 5 to 10 items at the bottom that describe the problems associated with the big-bang theory.

That's because there are considerable problems with big-bang. It was originally proposed by a religious astronomer as a way to explain how God created the universe. Science adopted it after Hubble's red shift data, but no doubt some scientists were religiously motivated back then, and now it's contradictions are catching up.

I never really bought into it, although I don't know enough about it to argue the subject.

Evolution on the other hand is obvious on it's face, and is supported in many cross correlating manners. So why should evolutionists "admit to/show the problems" where there aren't any?

[microgood]

Evolution on the other hand is obvious on it's face, and is supported in many cross correlating manners. So why should evolutionists "admit to/show the problems" where there aren't any?

Just stating that it is really impossible to know what happened 100 million years ago on this planet is a good start. All historical sciences (evolution, big bang, continental drift, etc.) should have a big disclaimer on them since their results cannot be directly tested or verified.

And it is not the fault of the science. It is just the reality of the situation. If we have a theory about gravity we can test it today. If we state we all evolved from a single celled organism, we cannot test that.