So this is oldish and mostly answered. Only adding some analysis:
Since biological evolution and the big bang are not very related, except as origin explanations that have removed the human from the center of the universe, when both are challenged together, the creationist motivation is exposed.
"Forget the big bang that is your idea and it has been rejected it was a theory and it failed"
The "you" or "your idea" really is a "just someone's story or opinion" strawman presented instead of the evidence-based scientific community. It may be voluntarily misleading, or simply written by someone very confused, since what they know of, like origin myths, are only stories. Thus the suggested equivalence is a false one. Of course, as others pointed out, in science, a scientific theory is not just a story, guess or opinion, but a working model to explain evidence, make predictions, etc.
"I am not posting explanations that is your job."
If this acknowledges that scientists attempt to discover the best explanations for the observations, then the above may be voluntary and motivated, but also self-defeating.
Then the incoherent sentence that could be interpreted in many ways:
And Natural selection has a key word information so what intelligence decides the information is it accidental.
The useful "information" in actual biology, contrary to the "information" of pseudoscientists, would be the genetic code, allowing descent with modification. Or the theory, the model encapsulating what has been discovered. As far as we know, evolution happens through processes but without direction, unlike the artificial selection in eugenism or animal breeding. As for accidental, it is unclear if it's a claim that evolution is "random chance", if it's accidental who decides what is "real", etc.
