I'll preface my retort with the fact that I am not a practicing member of any religion. However, I believe in the existence of some kind of omniscient creator. If one would like to refer to that as God, then that's fine.

First of all, 'Ancient book of nonsense' is not, in itself, a valid argument. That's essentially saying "Here's what I think, so I'm right".

Historical evidence has shown that key events in the Christian bible indisputably occurred in the past, and many of these are unanimously agreed upon by religious and non-religious scientists, anthropologists, archaeologists and historians alike. These unanimously agreed upon events include a genocidal flood that consumed the earth; the torture, crucifixion, and unexplainable resurrection of Jesus; A significant amount of historical accounts chronicling the life of families that stretched for generations, including lines that are not unbroken as of today.

Let me ask a probing question, why does the concept of an omniscient creator make no sense to you, while the concept of the universe being created 'because it did' correlates to facts and logic? Currently, there are no proven theories of how or why the 'big bang' happened. The scientific community has never not been deadlocked on this issue. And yes, there is no physical or tangible evidence that there is an omniscient creator (citing to the argument of 'God exists because the universe' is not an accepted argument, and not one I would make). However, attempting to call one thing a factually and logically incorrect ideology, while secular creationism is also not proven/accepted by fact or logic renders your argument invalid.

Secular creationists are consistently switching the fundamentals of their respective ideologies in order to fit with the ever-growing historical evidence and accuracy of biblical events, as well as making desperate appeals to the most unscientific notions imaginable. Lee Smolin (cosmologist) suggests that the only way to solve the big bang's scientific problems is to argue that 'the laws of physics were different in the past.' How is that a sensible argument?

Additionally, leading secular creationism researchers Paul Davies and Stuart Kauffman readily admit that no observed natural processes can produce life from non-sentience. But they also assert that the required natural processes existed at one time anyway and, for some reason, we just haven’t yet discovered them. That line of thinking sounds an awful lot like belief in a faceless, omniscient creator, wouldn't you say? All either side is doing is believing in something without a guarantee.