thanks stu for answering my question to don,-ie that the oort cloud has not been observed, albeit suggesting an interpretation of the data as to why you believe it is there.
still resorting to the tactic of equating what is repeatable, observable ,testable science with what is only interpretation of the unrepeatable and therefore falling short of the scientific principles you mention - unless of course you seriously dilute those principles.
but then that is what the general theory of evolution does - and then passes it off as established fact!.
that should have been gen 1v2-sorry.the article did not go into great detail as to how the predictions were worked out, but there was a good degree of accuracy validated by the subsequent space exploration, it seems. i think that DOES fall into the scientific method .

credit at least for looking at the article, don. must admit to being disappointed you found so many factual errors. I confess you have the advantage , but maybe you could outline just briefly maybe just two of the most significant factual mistakes, so I can try to check them out. maybe you might even use the comment facility on the site to correct them, as I doubt they want to perpetuate inaccurate facts, though of course the interpretation in terms of cosmic history will differ.
your concept of a supreme being is just that - a concept. I believe in a God of revelation. I don't pretend that I can answer every theological problem, though I could go so far, but not the complete answer. that is where faith does come in.
never-the-less biblical revelation does provide a framework of belief and practise for the believer, whereas your "concept" provides nothing except a pick and choose, take or leave it ,not much to believe in vagueness.