I see: So any theory about who invented baseball must also explain how the universe got started!The point is, you keep bringing up arguments against the Big Bang as if they were arguments against biological evolution. Evolution got started when the first replicating self-contained biochemical set ("protocell" or whatever) first split in two. That was something like 10 billion years after the universe came into existence.I don't follow what you are saying here.
Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe! If the universe came about because of a Big Bang, then evolution would still be the best scientific explanation available, given the clear evidence before our eyes. If the universe always existed (the steady state theory), evolution would still be the best scientific explanation available, given the clear evidence before our eyes. If the Big Bang came about as a result of a prior Big Crunch, in an infinite progression of Big Bangs/Big Crunches, then evolution would still be the best scientific explanation available, given the clear evidence before our eyes.
So why do you insist on arguing against biological evolution in an area in which it says nothing? It's like thinking you can discredit some mainstream theory of the origin of baseball by discrediting the Big Bang. (Was baseball invented by Abner Doubleday? No, because the Big Bang never happened, so there!)