Which theory of creation don’t you think has been disproven? The biblical literalist one where there’re no large carnivorous dinosaurs and which we know is true because noone has ever dug up a tyrannosaurus skeleton? Or did you have another one in mind?
Enlighten us, oh all-knowing one.
Ah, but the BBT could be disproved tomorrow with some new discovery. How, short of a visit by God hisself (or some equivalent diety), do you challenge a creation theory?
What I produced my own edition of Genesis which is identical to the New International edition in every way except that in my version, God spent seven days creating the universe and rested on the eighth? Let’s say I print up a few million copies and distribute them worldwide. What test can you conceive of that would prove my version was wrong the the standard seven-day version was right? If someone puts forward an alternate idea about the Big Bang sequence (i.e. leptons formed before hadrons), there are tests that can be designed that will tend to support or tend to deny such a claim, and it will be accepted or rejected accordingly.
So, disprove my theory of eight-day creation, or at least give us some idea of how you might go about it. And if you can’t, admit you can’t.
The Big Bang hasn’t been disproven because all the evidence appears consistent with it. Creationism hasn’t been fully disproved because over the years it has constantly retreated from science as all the actual religious myths proved to be wrong. And now many versions have been tailored into something carefully designed to say nothing at all about the real world, and therefore beyond disproof. Of course, that makes it indistinguishable from any other pure fantasy.
And? Sometimes the data for an answer simply isn’t there. And the idea that if you don’t know the answer, that means that “God did it” is the reasonable answer is just silly. If some king a millennium ago was killed in battle, if there’s no evidence who delivered the death blow is the answer “God killed him”?
Considering that religion is pretty much relentlessly wrong, of course science can’t prove many “aspects” of it. Science can’t prove something true when it isn’t.
There is no such thing as a scientific “theory of creation.”
That’s your second warning, and I’m closing this thread. For the record, however, the fact that the Big Bang Theory doesn’t currently explain all aspects of the universe does not mean it’s “faith.”