The Big Bang is NOT Scientific

Hello Skylar and everyone,my first post.
Skylar you mentioned 3 general observations,im afraid my list of observations would exceed many thousands,ill shall refrain from braking the world record for longest post and limit my own observations to the most obvious.
1.Observable "early "stars.The first stars formed, appear to be composed almost purely of hydrogen/helium,that is,they are virtually absent of heavier elements due to the fact that these heavier elements are only produced by dying stars.
2.Latest obervations of galaxies show a supermassive black hole at the centre,where a mass has been measured,it is directly proportional to the mass of the galaxy.The latest explanation centres around early gas clumping predicted by BBT,the centres of which collapsed under huge gravational forces forming these black holes.Galaxy formation is still very much research in progress,but is seems like these supermassive black holes played an essential role in forming every galaxy and may have played a role in the intial "igniting or excitation"of gas around it to start star formation.
I will add more points if this tread continues.I want to stop at this point to guage the response if any.
I would just like to add that i have a great deal of points regarding this CVE argument to make that i dont think anyone on this forum or any other has really considered,particularly relating to the creational issue.