Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"

Carl J Lydick (carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU)
26 Apr 1995 19:52:49 GMT

In article <3nlgk5$>, stgprao@sugarland.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) writes:
=In article <3nevlm$>,
=Carl J Lydick <carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> wrote:
=>The "tired light" hypothesis, so beloved of creationists, hasn't been in use by
=>anybody except them since the 1950s or thereabouts.
=Not all opponents of the Big Band hypothesis are creationists.

I never said they were. I said the creationists are the folks who continue to
put forth the discredited "tired light" hypothesis.

=IMHO the Big Bang is the most consistent with observations.
=However, it is one of the less consistent theories in natural science.

How so?

=Anyone with a memory of few decades or so know there are paradygm shifts
=in scientific theories.

So? They're driven by evidence, not by some idiot like you bullshitting.

=The Big Bang only came to predominance in the
=1950s after dicovery of the microwave background. Before then it was on
=pretty even footing with other theories.

That's true. Now, what the hell did you imagine the relevance of your
bullshit to be?

Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.