The Big Bang is currently the most credible scientific theory on the evolution of the early Universe

The Cosmic microwave background radiation"Or in simpler words, on one side of the Earth, we see CMBR; and to the other side, we see CMBR, at the same exact temperature as the other side. But as a diameter, the distance between to two sides is an approximated 28 billion light years. "The Universe is relatively homogeneous when viewed at a large enough scale even today. The fact that these two portions of the CMB are(or were) very distant from each other is irrelevant since the Universe shows a very similar structure everywhere even today. The reason why the Universe was so homogeneous in the past is because the Universe supposedly started out completely homogeneous, and the only things which could cause asymmetry were quantum fluctuations. The changes caused by these quantum fluctuations were so small that it took a very long time until gravity and other forces started actually making noticeable asymmetry.2. The expansion of the Universe"The Universe is apparently expanding, yes, but that does not mean it was ever infinitely small; and it doesn't mean that this expansion was caused by a big bang. "Technically, it does. If the Universe started expanding only at some point and was previously just 'standing still' it would mean that it eternally existed before that and it has been proven that the Universe didn't eternally exist.3. The abundance of light elements(Hydrogen, Helium)"Any creationist could easily use this as evidence for Young Earth creationism. It is even claimed that a God used Hydrogen and Helium as "building blocks",that the different metallicities of stars represents the variety of "creation",and how the sudden appearance of Hydrogen and Helium was a product and result of a universe created by a supreme being. "Irrelevant. First of all, YEC is completely scientifically inaccurate, which can be proven through radiometric dating, the distances to other galaxies, etc. (not to go into too much detail, since that is not what the topic is about). Second, this does not undermine the fact that the abundance of light elements is evidence for the Big Bang, so it does not undermine the Big Bang theory either.4. The large scale structure of the Universe"Same as number 3; could be used to counter the big bang theory by creationists. "Again, irrelevant. Creationists could not use it to counter the Big Bang theory, they could only use it as evidence for their own hypothesis, which has much less evidence anyway. Again, you cannot just try to "disprove" any scientific theory with the logic "God did it". YEC has so much evidence that disproves it that it is not a valid scientific theory. The Big Bang theory, on the other hand, has practically no evidence against it, and evidence for it just keeps pilling up. I could also say that gravity does not exist and that an undetectable, magic spaghetti monster is in fact just pulling the objects down to the ground itself. Can you prove that statement wrong? No. But can it qualify as a scientific theory? No. I apologize for being so blunt, but this is a debate, after all. As for the rest of your arguments, I am not going to respond to them since they were supposed to be presented in the 4th round, and it would be unfair if I tried to refute them now.