Bingo we have a winner
Certainly any position regarding origins requires belie, faith and confidence in an operational framework, so I accept that my world view regarding origins is non-primary scientific based. So is theirs.
I understand that evidence based study, historical if you will, requires an interpretation.
In primary science, a test is performed repeatedly and results documented, then the theorem is either confirmed, denied or the test understood to be lacking, so we try again.
Time replaces an actor. The idea being that given enough time, anything can happen, which is payentedly false. Always an input is required.
Defies logic otherwise.
It takes gobs more faith to accept that “nothing did something” than it does to accept that a living Creator built a place for His creation and loves His creatures.