Despite our best efforts to "explain" Big Bang, the explainations short of observations in real time, remain clouded as assumptions, conjecture, guesswork , suppostions and open to questions owing to non avaialabilty of data of observations of the actual event of Big Bang
We have a premise( a theory) , but no authenticated observations therefore the conclusion drawn fail to satisfy the run of logic.
Gonna have to agree with you there. There is a careful balance in discussions of physics between asking questions to understand a theory, and actively criticizing current theories. If one criticizes a current theory, there is the very valid point that one simply doesn't understand it. But at the same time, science
requires criticism.
I cannot claim to understand much of cosmology, or the standard model, but that doesn't stop me and others having to point out the long list of assumptions that current theories rest on. Granted these aren't just random, and have good reasoning behind them, but again that doesn't necessarily mean they should be accepted. Theories such as the big bang, inflation, dark matter, dark energy, block holes (we haven't actually directly observed one yet) are not exactly completely solid, but have been around so long that many are just accepted as fact. I'm not suggesting they aren't true, just that there are varying degree's of certainty for each one.
In the past couple of decades, at least since I've been interested in modern physics, theories have come and gone, but the ones that stuck are essentially untestable. Aside from the higgs, and perhaps gravitation waves from LIGO, what new discoveries have been made in the past say 30 years?