No it isn't, the big bang is based on much more than that. The red shifts of stars are even necessarily relevant as some are blue shifted as well. I encourage you to read a little about some of the primary lines of evidence for the big bang (which are numerous), which includes the prediction of the CMB. This site may help you:
Evidence for the Big Bang
I'm confused, can you please explain what you're saying here a bit more clearly for me? I'm having trouble figuring out what it is you're trying to convey and what the point is.
These creationist arguments always misrepresent or misunderstand how evolution works. You're ignoring the most important force within evolution; natural selection. Natural selection is certainly not random by any stretch. Natural selection chooses the combinations that work best and allow the next generation to try again.
Your math from this point of your argument on is considerably wrong, and I'll tell you why.
Firstly, as I said above, your math is wrong here, thus giving you a large number to compare to other large numbers in an attempt to make it seem too improbable, thus God must have done it. That in and of itself is flawed thinking, but lets take a look at this.
Going off of your example for a minute, 4^160000 would indicate you multiply 4 by itself 160,000 times. Why in the world would you be doing that?
Evolution has taken place over billions of years (~4 billion) and mutations don't work precisely as you think they do or at least how you're alluding to them. For instance a large portion of a genome of an organism can be duplicated due to an error. You aren't simply adding one base at a time and hoping it turns out right. Also, as I said above you've disregarded the most important force in evolution being natural selection.
But lets entertain this and consider an example. Let's start at 0 bases with the goal being 160,000, and only add one base at a time. Let's ignore what would be statistically predicted if we're just choosing random bases and say it takes 5,000 years to get just one base right (were only assuming this for this simulation, it would actually only take around 4 years on average).
So that's 160,000*5,000 = 8*10^8 = 800,000,000
Only 800,000,000 million years when we have around ~4 billion to work with here.
This is just flat out wrong by an extremely large factor. Estimates vary from paper to paper, but the number of hydrogen
atoms in our
observable universe are around 10^82 by most results. Which actually ignores many possible atom sources such as intergalactic gas.
But more importantly, as I've alluded to with the two above bolds these estimates are of
A) The observable universe, what we currently know of and can observe and make estimations of.
and
B) Atoms not protons, neutrons, and elections, which I'm sure you're aware are the constituents of an atom. Your calculation has not only disregarded multiplying your result by 3 to account for this (protons, neutrons, and electrons) but also ignores isotopes of hydrogen (deuterium and tritium) as well as every other type of atom which all have wildly varying values of protons, neutrons, and electrons, such as carbon, neon, iron, helium and so on.
There wasn't anything rational about this post. Even though I responded to it fully, the fact of the matter is that the entire thing was an argument from ignorance, meaning, that if it seems highly unlikely or if you don't understand how it could have happened then the conclusion must have therefore been god, or that the unlikeliness of it happening adds credibility to the "God did it" claim. It doesn't. This is a logical fallacy. I realize its a popular creationst argument to try to throw out the biggest numbers possible based upon wrong calculations and then try to trot them out to those who don't understand how those numbers could have been come to or what exactly they mean, thus convincing them that God must have done it, and its disappointing to see this kind of thought promoted.
