Creationists say that Evolution and the Big-bang theory suffer from the fact that no one was either around at the beginning or cannot be around for eons in order to be a witness.Firstly,let us point out that no one alive today saw Jesus die or "come back to life" - we are relying on hearsay testimony of people who were not educated in the sciences of today and were not schooled in how the mind could be tricked - even today people are regularly hoodwinked by the likes of Derren Brown - who plays upon their ignorance of how the mind works and their lack of maths ability to confuse people. Even so the Big-bang DOES have evidence that does not need anyone to be around at the beginning - if creationists only UNDERSTOOD things rather than spat vitriol at things they cannot comprehend -they would realise that the evidence for such a theory is around today - and they personally can go and look at it - or at least understand it from the comfort of their armchair.One only need read lay-science publications to come to see that the big-bang is a direct result of working backwards from what one sees NOW,and if one reads further one understands how it all happened without need of a prime mover. Evolution not only has hundreds of years of fossils as evidence but living evidence today which backs it up. The sheer fact that animals that are similar to each other share DNA is circumstantial support of Evolution - no one can deny that things have evolved over time - Dinosaurs no longer exist and yet we have their bones - and we have the remnants of the Burgess Shale creatures - moreover we can witness evolution happening on smaller time scales with such things as viruses - which evade our capacity to deal with them with drugs my updating themselves - because the one's we kill leave the one's behind we didn't kill to make the next generation - natural selection - the fittest survive.The Genesis account of Adam and Eve is plain wrong - there is no evidence of a God,in all the fossils we see - nor of divine creation. What creationists see is something that LOOKS like it was designed and so simple-mindedly presume a designer -what they fail to understand is how complex the natural laws are - and why even those laws do not need a lawmaker  -they are working to a notion of Cause and Effect that breaks down in fundamental physics. It is also a known fact that eye-witnesses will "in-between" - that is - add on information in their mind that was not actually their experience - how much more likely is this when their experience is of something they have never seen before?