[Lunatic Fringe]

People needs to realize that most scientific principles are "theories" because to prove them as fact would take many centuries. The data does indicate that the Big Bang is how the universe came into existence, but since it would take thousands of years to prove it as fact, it is still called a theory. It doesn't make it any less believable.

[clawrence3]

Could you try explaining that s l o w e r for orionblamblam?

[DesertSapper]

thus . . . putting "theory" after each mention of "the Big Bang" would be . . . CORRECT.

[NJ_gent]

"People needs to realize that most scientific principles are "theories" because to prove them as fact would take many centuries."

Any real scientist will tell you that there's no such thing as "scientific fact" or absolute "proof". You can provide substantial evidence for a scientific hypothesis and subject it to enough peer review to get it to the status of an accepted theory. If you have enough testing and the math holds up to scrutiny, you may even see it become a scientific law. However, no real man of science will claim that even the laws of science are absolute and beyond question. Anyone who claims to have absolute proof of anything is just begging to be shown to be wrong.

If nothing else, a hypothesis can always be proposed to show how you could be wrong wherein some exotic substance or concept is used. You can even work the math in such a way that the idea makes sense and is at least possible, even if incredibly unlikely. The only way to "prove" something in science is to completely discredit every single possible other explanation that is ever and could ever be proposed. Such a thing is not possible; ergo no "proof" in science.