I fondly remember a book written by Prestin Cloud,
Cosmos, Earth, and Man. It started with the Big Bang, describing, with the knowledge of that time, the conditions the universe in its first seconds, went on to nucleosynthesis, initial galaxy formation, formation of the sun and earth, beginnings of life on earth, and the evolutionary history of life on earht, culminating in the evolution of humans.
Terribly out of date by now, but it was a fun book that basically had the major events of the history of the universe (if you consider human evolution to be a major event) laid out nicely. There was a later book that tried to do the same thing, but Dr. Cloud's book was far better written, in my opinion.
The problem that creationists have with Big Bang and the theory of evolution is that they explain a history of the universe that is at odds with the ancient Middle Eastern creation myth that they, for some unfathomable reason, cherish.
The linkage that the creationists try to pull off is that they think that if they can successfully refute Big Bang or Abiogenesis, then the Theory of Evolution will be refuted, and vice versa. This is incorrect. The reason that these theories are not linked in the way that creationists wish them to be linked is that the data that supports each of these theories are obtained interpreted independently of one another.
Suppose that abiogenesis is shown to be impossible. This in no way refutes the abundance of evidence that life has existed for at least three and half billion years on this planet, that species have evolved from previous, very different species, and that all known species have evolved from one (or a very small number of) original species. At most, all we will be able to say is we don't know how life first came to be, but we will still be very confident that all known life has evolved from a small number (perhaps only one) ancestral species over the course of three and half billion years.
The same can be said if the Big Bang theory is overturned. Likewise, if it can be shown that "macroevolution" is impossible, that in no way refutes the evidence from physics and astronomy that the universe is thirteen billion years old, at least, and that the earth has existed for four and a half billion years.
If the creationists want to "prove" that the earth is only about 6000 years old, then they need to disprove Big Bang and the Theory of Evolution separately. Their attempts to disprove the age of the universe by focusing only on one of these issues indicates either a misunderstanding of the science, or perhaps laziness.
Suppose that the Big Bang theory is
™ Version 4.2