@FBM,
FBM wrote:I'm not a scientist, it's not my job to know all those facts, therefore it's irrelevant whether or not I know them.
Then comes the next question: how do you assess which of the claims going on on the mass media are excellent science and which are top design mumbo-jumbo without any serious justification?
FBM wrote: I can look them up, if I need to.
No, you can't. You may think that you can, but actually you can't. You don't know what to look for ... and where, what to believe in and what to disbelieve ... not to say that such problem has never existed to you at all.
FBM wrote: ... if you weren't so deep into this rabid denialism.
I have had great teachers denialists on behalf of the Atheists, who are the greatest denialists of God (and hence of the Intelligence and the Intelligent Design in the Universe) on all exponents, and for any age. You cannot blame me for having such great teachers.
FBM wrote:You're the one hung up on assumptions.
So, as far as I can understand, the problem with the assumptions of the Big Bang does not exist to you - why don't you state it out, explicitly: "it doesn't matter what has been there
before the Big Bang, and notwithstanding that we are even unable to explain what does 'before' mean, this does not impede us in anyway from presenting ourselves as omniscient".
FBM wrote: I'm showing you repeatedly how your "personal 45% god/alien/ILF-of-the-gaps"
You are not 'showing' anything - you are simply repeating like a broken record to infinity some straw-man construct that is your personal top design favorite.
FBM wrote: ... is the weaker hypothesis
Can you name all the plausible hypothesis for the creation of the Universe
before the Big Bang (if has ever happened), and right
after it?
FBM wrote:At least the Standard Model has empirical evidence from which to carefully derive the best assumptions.
You really can't understand the point here, can you? This is absolute tautology: you can't derive any assumptions (we are not going to comment whether 'the best' or 'the worst') and after that on the grounds of that very same assumptions to claim validity of the same inference. First, in order to have 'the best' you will have to present at least three valid hypothesis (about the assumptions and the 'creation') - you cannot claim 'the best' on the grounds of one example only. Following your 'logic' every single example could be viewed as 'the best'. Second, this way of reasoning that you are trying to discover is called circular reasoning (circle in proving). It may be true that it is not a formal logic fallacy, but even more true is that it is going far beyond any logical and non-logical fallacies. 'You see, we desperately need Infinite Temperature to equate the energy of the Universe, therefore the Big Bang must have taken it out, out of whatever and out of anywhere' ... and 'it doesn't matter that Infinite Temperature cannot exist in the physical world, it doesn't matter that we cannot even formulate the physical interpretation of Infinite Temperature & Infinity - all that matters is that the Big Bang desperately needs exotic energy supply source notwithstanding whether in violation of all the laws of physics and math logic or not - we have to design something incomprehensible - it may be in contradiction to the classical definition of Temperature in the Quantum Mechanics, for what is the Quantum Mechanics and the Classical Physics without the Big Bang "theory". All these are insignificant details in comparison with the main objective - to continue bullshitting the world that we know everything about any Creation (by hoping that nobody will ever think of verifying whether the world really has been created or has always existed, in which case there would be no way for the Big Bang to have created whatsoever, let alone for us, the Science, to present ourselves as
omnipresent,
omnipotent and
omniscient).
And you still haven't explained how you can have 25% confidence in the Big Bang, then turn around and deny that there ever was a Bib Bang. 
