evolution\big bang

Science leads to God In my opinion many scientist are too proud to say creationism is a possibility. The ones that do are pushed out, Many scientist are made to accept evolution, to even be in the field of science. I have to big questions for Evolution The big bang, now scientifically if you hear a small bang there is going to be a reason why you heard it, it dosenï¿½t just happen someone or something made it. Now how should it be any different for a big bang. I have not found any logical way this could occur, without an outside force. I think the big bang is a okay idea, but should not be considerd science. Second, sure, we see small or mini evolution this dog is white, this dog has spots, if you want to call that evolution. Or even the butterfly example, were all the white moths were wiped out and the black ones were left, but that's not evolution that's just the disappearance of the white ones and the black ones were there before, so it really wasn't related to evolution at all. Maybe there is a little back up for micro evolution, but the first sign of life, there is no explanation. Now there was a test done by Miller who created an environment of the early earth, and ran electricity through it. Out came amino acids the building blocks for cells. Many people bought it, put it in school text books and called it science, but when we dig down deeper we find it well, "....it was interesting historically, but not terribly relevant to how life actually developed." Miller Did not use the environment, that scientist later calculated, but used ammonia, methane, and hydrogen, they used things they knew would provide a positive out come. The earth was filled with nitrogen and carbon dioxide, gases that wonï¿½t react. This is what scientist have later discovered. Not only does that make the test no longer valid, as scientist dig deeper, they find it even more complex, amino acids are just the building blocks, and need to be put together by chance, for the whole evolution theory to survive. I am now discussing the jump from nonliving to living. The diffrence between a nonliving and a living thing, is that living things must do three things, process energy, store information, and replicate. Darwin thought, a single celled organism would be rather simple, well much more simpler then scientist later found out about single celled organisms. Now for a one celled organism to come from, "warm little ponds", has such an extremly small chance, so small no one can even be close to wrap their head around the number, that it is easier to say it can not happen at all. Even giving more and more time, does not take away that fact that it is practicaly imposible, and that is science. Many scientist have moved on from random chance, to chemical affinity, self ordering tendencies, seeding from space, vents in the ocean, and life from clay, all theories that have little or no back up. Scientist are just hanging on to evolution by a thread, the ones who know this much, just believe there must be another way, while others have found there is no way to explain with out God in the picture. I have to say, I am glad for those that read this and are trying to find the truth, because I find so many people, who just don't want to discuss it, "make them mad". Thank you If this was found interesting I sugest digging deeper in a book called The case for faith, authored by Lee Strobel about a man who asks difficult questions on some of the hardest issues of Christianity. Iï¿½m just like any of you, you can be my friend even if we don't agree. but please don't stop searching till you find the truth. Don't end with gaps. :)