Summations Only

Well, yes, that is a good summary of the situation. I must say that though I support neither Genesis idea of origin nor the current consensus BB singularity model, when comparing the two I cannot help admitting that the biblical version of creation myth is much more logically consistent and is therefore vastly superior to the quackademic pseudo-scientific nonsense the majority of the educated humanity is embracing at present as their gospel truth.
That is, even if Genesis is a naive myth, the Big Bang theory is the same fond belief long drawn, cubed and squared again.

That is hard to tell what kind of training the quackademic cosmologists had, and whether they had any and then forgotten it or just disregarded it for practical considerations. In any case they keep on spouting mountains of sheer nonsense happily repeated by millions of people.
Now we have a statement from the leading cosmological luminary that runs as follows:
"Because there is such a law as gravity the universe can and will create itself out of nothing"
That piece of gibberish clearly shows that whatever the Lucatian fellow had his training in, it was not good thinking let alone the laws of thermodynamics.

The fact is that I can easily point to a self-evident absence of the alleged singularity whereas all you can do is to point to the authority of those who allege its possible existence in a concrete physical form in the dim and distant moment of the purported absolute origin of time and existence. Another fact is that I can rub your learned nose in that absence any time I want whereas all can do is feebly protest and call that fact my drivel.
Also, even if I repeat myself here, my repetitiveness is nothing in comparison, for the allegations similar to yours are being repeated in millions of papers, on TV and the net, year in and year out with no possible backing whatsoever.

That was no great effort on my part, Mr. Inadequate, still, thanks for all your care to make my efforts spare.
Here's a little something to reward the kindness of your inadequate heart:
http://cosmology.net/BigBang.html

I've supplied plenty of my own reasoning in over a hundred of posts hardly containing any links which any one could read. Calling a challenge to your beliefs dishonesty and inaccuracy does not impress me any. The overview is quite accurate in my opinion and is what the author believes to be the truth. What is dishonest about any of that?