Yeah, I know the other side looks for highly technical talk from a phD in a lab coat (because that’s where “rigor” comes from, right?)
But to ask how believing in the Big Bang isn’t an act of faith (for instance) not unlike a belief that God’s hand created everything IS powerful. Because for all the high-minded talk and the superiority complex coming evolutionists and those who bow at the altar of science such a simple statement/question crumbles their attempt to assert a sort of infallible (they think) authority over their opponents.
And then they’re reduced to “psssh...psssh...uhhhhhh....psssh” responses like yours.
Just because you can use the word "belief" with both doesn't make them equivalent. The Big Bang theory is no more than (quoting Wikipedia)
the scientific theory that is most consistent with observations of the past and present states of the universe....It offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and the Hubble diagram.That's all it is. There's a big pile of observations and measurements, and scientists generally agree that at the moment, the Big Bang theory explains them better than anything else. If somebody comes up with a better explanation, or one that explains more, scientists will work with that one instead. It would not be a threat to their faith.
That's not the same kind of belief as "belief that God’s hand created everything" (unless you think He worked through the Big Bang). That doesn't really explain any of the observations--you can't draw a line from a specific action of God to why there are so many light elements. Since it explains everything, it explains nothing. It truly takes an act of faith, because (as Ham admitted) evidence has nothing to do with it.