@iamthemob No more pendantic than I am—like its a bad thing… ~
What I meant by incontrovertible (though I tried to distance it from concepts like proof or truth—the cornerstones of dogmatic belief systems) was very high confidence in correctness. As opposed to absolute certainty, which is outside empirical science. In principle all theories are tentative and subject to revision or even rejection, in accordance with the scientific method.
Philosophers of science, however, demand extraordinary evidence to successfully challenge & topple an established theory, especially one as successful as the Standard Model of physics.
Everybody quibbles about esoteric details—that’s the cutting edge. Nobody denies the basic fact (another loaded word?) of the big bang, subject to various-size holes in understanding. The discovery of accelerating expansion is another mystery associated with so-called dark energy, which may drastically affect the universe’s future fate, but I don’t think this poses a problem for the basic big bang model to explain the past 14 billion years, validated by lines of evidence I mentioned earlier.
It appears that big bang cosmology is robust in the same sense that Newtons theory of universal gravitation (which fairly accurately explains the solar system) was never really invalidated or overthrown by Einstein’s relativity. Relativity was an add-on to existing theory, important only at certain scales. In this view Einstein did not “completely undermine” Newton, even though Newton’s laws sometimes give completely wrong answers where relativity gives the right ones. Whatever the “final theory” turns out to be, there is no reason to expect it will contradict the big bang.