EVERYTHING in science is 'just a theory'. Using that as a counterpoint in any argument is like saying "Yo, what up. I don't know science."
Also, to call it an 'explosion' is a bit disingenuous. The worst thing about the big bang theory is its fucking name. So much misconception thanks to that name. Seriously.
The big bang theory says that the universe was very very very hot and very very very small, and then it expanded very very very quickly and it was no longer as hot or small.
If you read further than the first couple words of my post, you'd know that my counterpoint wasn't that everything in science is a theory, it was that not only has it not been proven yet, but the fact that there is evidence of a, uh, "bang" doesn't mean that matter and energy were created during it.
Citing it as fact is incorrect, especially incorrect if it's proving that matter and energy were created during it, which there is no real evidence of at all, other than their existence. Matter and energy would have actually had to exist before the "bang" in order for them to have been "propelled" in the ways they were, especially if that matter was to be pushed by oh, right, energy, which is generally how it works.
Second, don't worry, it's ok, really, I know the theory pretty well. Forgive me for putting the label "explosion" on "giant, unoriginable, matter propelling force." I hope you find my word labeling system better this time.
Thirdly, sorry for the slight derailment. On topic>> What makes me wonder though, is what the difference is between viruses and sentient beings. They sort of live, but they don't really. So the whole evolution thing makes me wonder which one came first, while creationism and intelligent design pretty much explain it flat out.