I understand the theory.
That's really in doubt, hideousmonster, and furthermore, it's a red herring. We weren't talking about whether you understand the theory. We were talking about your claim that you understood the evidence
and it is clear that you do not.
I understand the evidence we use to back up the big bang theory...
In fact, despite having claimed to have an understanding of the evidence, the truth is that you haven't even looked at the evidence. I consider myself a fairly smart person, but even I know better than to claim that I would understand a mathematical proof written by an astrophysicist without even looking at it. Are you REALLY that smart, hideousmonster? Do you REALLY understand the Big Bang Theory that well, that you already know what Hawking's proof contains without even reading it? I think not. So, why is it that you insist on claiming this knowledge that anyone can see you have zero chance of understanding at all? The notion that you have an innate understanding of the evidence presented in Hawking's proof without even reading it is such an obvious lie that if it didn't reflect such utter immaturity on your part, surely we'd have to be insulted.
There is a friend of my family that habitually tells lies like this. He'll tell you about the 75 pound spiny lobster he pulled out of the water last season. Now, the world record spiny lobster is only 26 pounds, but this guy will swear up and down that he really pulled a 75 pound bug out of the rocks. He tells lies like this routinely. There's no reason to get too upset because it's obviously some sort of psychological compulsion involved, telling lies that have zero chance of being believed by anyone. You don't understand the evidence, hideousmonster. You haven't even looked at it. You may understand the broad strokes of the theory, and I emphasize "may", but you haven't even looked at the evidence, so please don't say you understand it. When you use "understand" to describe your relationship with the evidence when it's crystal clear that you haven't even read it, how can we help but doubt you when you also claim to "understand" the theory?
So, the simple solution is for you to retract your claim about understanding the evidence. You don't understand it, that's as plain as day, because it's not possible because you haven't even looked at it. I don't know why you seem unwilling to retract what is the equivalent of telling us you caught a 75 pound lobster last week. If you refuse to retract the claim, then what are we left with? A crazy, crazy, crazy lie that you refuse to back away from. A claim on par with Biblical miracles, and of course, completely devoid of any hint of anything to back it up. If it is entertaining to you to engender underestimation of yourself by periodically telling gargantuan tall tales, then maybe you should see a shrink.