Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"
Bob Garwood (email@example.com)
27 Apr 1995 17:59:07 GMT
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org> email@example.com (Gil Hardwick) writes:
> The actual written word "God" failing to appear in astronomy texts is
> not at issue. As somebody else had mentioned in a different context,
> anyone with a word processor handy can carry out a Find and Replace
> operation without altering the sense of the text in any way at all.
> It remains, when all is said and done, that while you may not need a
> God you do need a Big Bang for the similar purpose of anchoring your
> manifold prognostications within the one single construct.
> So what IS the difference? Please don't persist in arguing in your
> defence over what may or may not be "outside the realm of science".
The difference is that the Big Bang theory makes testable predictions,
while the theory that "God did it" does not.