Although the "ancient knowledge" argument is a valid one, it only scratches the surface of the real issue because the faith of a true believer has a firmer foundation. It really doesn't do you any good to only address the secondary arguments if you overlook the ultimate basis. To really get to the heart of the matter, you must come face-to-face with the question of faith itself, which is a gift of God instilled in the hearts of believers:
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves:
it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we
are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which
God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." (Ephesians
Faith makes the existence of God immediately evident, so it isn't the type of information that can be refuted with arguments. Trying to do so would be like arguing that the sky isn't blue when he can see that it clearly is. As Herman Bavinck said:
"Believing and knowing are not distinct in the matter of certainty.
The certainty of faith is as firm as that of knowledge. Indeed, the
certainty of faith is the more intense of the two it is virtually
unshakeable and ineradicable. For their faith people are prepared to
sacrifice everything, including their life." (Reformed Dogmatics, Vol.
1, pg. 577)
To answer your question as to whether scientists also pass the buck: Yes. It's an unavoidable fact that all reasoning begins with supposedly axiomatic assertions which cannot be proven. In addition to that, modern science is trying to reach beyond the sphere of what may be verified by scientific means. String theory is a good example of that, given that scientists openly admit that there may never be any evidence to support it.
Although all scientific evidence depends upon observation, Max Tegmark pointed out that many scientists have deliberately avoided investigating the nature of consciousness which is the basis for all observation:
"A commonly held view is that consciousness is irrelevant to physics
and should therefore not be discussed in physics papers. One
oft-stated reason is a perceived lack of rigor in past attempts to
link consciousness to physics. Another argument is that physics has
been managed just fine for hundreds of years by avoiding this subject,
and should therefore keep doing so."
It should be pointed out that although Tegmark believes that science should investigate the nature of consciousness, his own treatment of the subject is based upon assumptions for which he has no evidentiary support. He begins with the bold presupposition that consciousness is identical with the motion of particles:
"How can we generalize this and look for physical correlates of
consciousness, defined as the patterns of moving particles that are
conscious? What particle arrangements are conscious?"