tangible evidence for the existence of God

Most of the traditional proofs for the existence of God do not rely on any sort of empirical evidence because the existence of God, in many arguments for theism, is not an empirical proposition. God is not something in the universe to be explained but something that explains the universe.

human morality is merely a product of evolution and a society with a certain moral code is better able to survive.

An argument of the structure, "Our system of evaluative judgments is thoroughly saturated with evolutionary influence and natural selection shaped those dispositions simply according to which variations best contributed to the biological fitness of our hominin ancestors, rather than in ways that would be expected to track independent moral truths" while I won't say is inherently a bad argument, is obviously not that convincing. The scientific evidence to support such strong claims about the etiology of 'our' moral beliefs is just not there. Even if there is significant evolutionary influence on the content of many of our moral beliefs, it remains possible that many of our moral beliefs are arrived at partly (or in some cases wholly) through autonomous moral reflection and reasoning, just as with our mathematical, scientific and philosophical beliefs. Your friends seem to be implicitly denying the existence of moral truths before they argue for that conclusion. And unless they give supplementary reasons for the non-existence of moral truths, I believe your beliefs are not going to be undercut by an evolutionary explanation. Because if we don't presuppose the non-existence of moral truths, and instead, hold that there are moral rights and wrongs, then it seems plausible that we grasped many of them through autonomous exercises of our capacities for moral reflection, whereby we come to recognize good reasons for thinking certain moral propositions to be true, by correctly grasping that certain features of actions are wrong-making. A good counter-argument to make for their skepticism about evolution undercutting our belief in moral truths is that it is self-defeating. If natural selection does not directly select for true beliefs, but rather for advantageous behaviours, then all our beliefs produced by our cognitive faculties should be called into question, not simply our moral beliefs. This makes the belief that natural selection selects simply for advantageous behavior and not reliable cognitive faculties, then we have no reason to believe in any proposition. It would seem the position one need hold to undercut reason in moral deliberation would also undercut their own beliefs, and so, be prone to self-defeat.

the Big Bang is just a theory but what if we did find a way somehow that something could come from nothing.

The Big Bang theory does not state that "something came from nothing". It simply describes the initial state of the universe. "Ex nihilo, nihil fit" is a metaphysical position, not a scientific one. Science is in the business of looking for causes. The reasons for accepting or doubting the causal principle mostly amount to a) it has no ontological justification, but practical utility or b) we must accept the causal principle because it is necessary to make the universe intelligible. I personally don't accept the causal principle, but a defense that may interest you is that its truth is the best explanation of the success of science and other such rational endeavors. Skepticism of this sort makes the success of all rational endeavor a miracle. I'll leave it to you to decide whether or not this is enough to justify belief in a causal principle.

Then I recently learned that there isn't actual evidence for the Exodus? No Egyptian records or anything and then numbers in the Bible would have been unlikely. That hit me hard and if the very beginning of the Bible could be untrue doesn't that discredit a lot of everything else?

You are correct that the Exodus did not happen in the way the Bible described. The Exodus is an amalgamation over many different events and periods, some real and some fictional. No, the literary and mythological embellishment does not discredit the Bible. It simply cements the fact that the Bible contains literature, history, poetry, and mythology, as Christians have been aware of for many years.

But is it true that there isn't any 100% solid evidence of Jesus Christ besides the Apostolic letters? Some article said there were multiple reports and not evidence that one single Jesus existed or the miracles occurred.

There is overwhelming evidence that Jesus existed. There is exactly how much evidence that Jesus performed miracles as, given the belief that Jesus was miraculous, as we'd expect to find; zero Jesus' time on Earth was a one-time non-repeatable event. We can't say the miraculously unlikely things Jesus did because miraculously unlikely events are not something that is methodologically acceptable by the historical method. That isn't because they did or did not happen. It is because historians have to exclude such explanations, not because they didn't happen.

Life on Earth. I agree that it's crazy to think that a hot rock turned into bacteria by a strike of lightning or by chemical compounds forming and that's how life began but I fear that one day this too will be able to be explained by science.

That is obviously not what scientists who are work in origin of life studies think happened. The origin of life is irrelevant to the existence of God or the truth of Christian teachings. Unless the Bible taught life did not begin by a naturalistic mechanism, then there is no conflict between both believing in the existence of God, the divinity of Jesus, and the mechanistic beginning of life on Earth.