Indeed, that's why I saw the "holes" in the good Dr.'s theory.
but which holes!?! do you understand his theory (that you claimed to be a layperson earlier testify against that!) or is the holes holes in a presentation you saw in the tv? do you believe "the presentation on tv" = "his theory"? if not, the above is wildly inaccurate and misleading...
But you missed the point, of course, which is that BOTH state as "truth"... or, at least try to get others to believe it is... things that aren't necessarily true. Heck, drug companies do it all the time ("Take this drug and it'll cure such and so!" Only to find out later it kills as much, if not more, than it cures. But, hey, it's "science"...).
I have missed the point?
science is a method to make valid inference on observations. Specifically, its a way to ensure one does not draw overconfident conclusions based on the evidence.
And quite frankly i have a very hard time imagining you have read many papers on modern cosmology and come away from the experience with the understanding these are people who state things as absolute truth.
On the contrary, the conclusions are full of "assuming that .. then this may point towards... we believe it is plausible that... one cannot rule out... on one hand..." and so on and on. dont take my word for it! just try to download any paper from Witten, Hawkin or Weinberg, dont care you dont understand the details, just look at how they state their conclusions. Specifically with regards to black holes where our laws break down I have a very hard time you run into "truths" they somehow try to get you to believe in in a suspicious process..