Creationists don't deny the 'big bang' occurred.
I think, then, you need to make a distinction between types of Creationists, because Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort and tons of other *very popular* Creationists would love to disagree. "6000 years or bust" for these guys.
You would, then, fall into the "old-earth-creation" category? If so, we have a LOT more to discuss.
The issue is what caused it:
Nothing ... or God?
No, your statements on the web site don't question "cause". Your statements question "origin". What was it *created from*, not what *began the process* of the Big Bang.
If you are accepting the origin of all matter from the singularity, then your statements on the site are misleading.
Also noteworthy: since the laws of physics and the laws of space break down the closer you get to the Big Bang, the laws of time also break down. It's hard for me to understand whether time would have "slowed down", or *appeared* to "slow down", or perhaps vice versa, but you have to admit that at the point of the Big Bang, there was more than likely no such thing as "time" at all. There may not be the possibility of a "before", since there was no such thing as "time" at the singularity.
While you claim that this is too 'oversimplified' for you, it's either one or the other.
Why the dichotomy?
Why couldn't the answer be "the result of an atomic collision in an alternate universe by two particles combined in such a way as to start another universe, either annihilating, assimilating or is encompassed by an already existing universe"?
Why the "nothing" or "God" solely? Surely, there's other possibilities, aren't there? I just came up with that one by myself just now...