The point made is that we are told that the Big Bang and Dark Matter are fact when the evidence does not say so. They keep having to add fudge factors to the Big Bang because the evidence doesn't match the theory nor the predictions made by the Big Bang Theory. Does any of this 100% disprove the Big Bang? No, it does not. Are there other theories that explain the evidence better without the fudge factors? Yes.

One point in the article is that we can't do true experimental science relating to Cosmology and therefore can't prove anything for certain. On the other hand some theories match the evidence better. The Big Bang and billions of years don't match the evidence best and therefore should definitely not be pushed as fact. Although I believe the Big Bang Theory is nonsense, if they pushed it as their preferred theory of many possible theories, I wouldn't have a problem with it or them. That is not what is done, though. They promote the Big Bang as fact and anyone who questions it at all is treated as a quack. That isn't science. That is tyranny. The flat Earthers and Earth-centric gallaxy proponents did the same. The Covid fearmongers did the same. The Global Warming fearmongers did the same. Silencing opposing views is the opposite of science.