You should read a bit more. The big bang theory (there are variants) is strongly supported by evidence. First there's the very visible evidence of the redshift of distant galaxies, which increases with distance. Then there's the cosmic background radiation, predicted by the initial big bang theory, and spectacularly consistent with it. There's a separate line of evidence regarding the proportion of hydrogen and helium in the early universe, again, seen to be consistent with the theory. I'm not up on the 4th line of evidence (galaxy formation and large scale structure) but experts say this too is consistent with (and predicted by) the big bang theory.
There is really no competing theory which can so handily explain all this evidence. I don't care what you think the agenda of all this may be. Take away your alleged agenda, and the evidence remains. What's your theory to explain all these separate lines of evidence?
I deal with the Big Bang the same way I deal with global warming. Here we are, 4-6 Billion years away from an event and we think that what we see here and now explains what happened then. Taking recent historical temperature data has allowed us to go from global cooling to global warming to whatever is next when the data adjusts again. Just as Earth's environment is in a constant state of flux and has shown wide diversity over time, I suspect the universe itelf could too. There are billions upon billions of sun-sized nuclear explosions every second across the galaxy (let alone the universe), that could give a bit of dynamism over the millenia.
I've seen your "evidence" but it's nothing but a snap shot of a water molecule and you're trying to explain Niagra Falls.