Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"

Gil Hardwick (
Wed, 03 May 1995 00:56:57 GMT (Phil A. Willems) wrote to me:

> You obviously relish slippery prose, probably because
>it makes it easier not to answer for unwise earlier comments.
>Deferring a broader discussion on religion because you can't
>justify calling Lydick "right-wing" is a fine example.

Oh well, you want to e-mail this sort of abuse to me from around the
other side of the planet and all I can do in reply is post it back to
the group and expose you like we have others in the past.

> Actually, I haven't found your discussion of
>astronomers as interesting as any philosophy of science.
>I have found it to be mostly an exercise in name-calling
>on both sides. I raised the issue that exploring the nature
>of the cosmos is heady stuff, and practiced since at least
>the ancient Greeks. You called astronomers excitable bigoted
>zealots, though not so directly.

Please do excuse me, Phil old fruits, but you err greivously in your
most basic observations. You assert here that I am engaged in name-
calling against astronomers, when all can see for themselves that as
somebody had seen fit to x-post a sci.astro thread to anthropology,
we were engaged in quite an interesting, friendly discussion on how
the Big Bang Theory can propose a nothingness having been created
out of nothingness. And so on and so forth . . .

Then as not completely unexpected the heavies arrived, the veritable
Thought Police of World Scientism themselves, led by none other than
Dr Bruce Scott of the Max Planck Institute, to admonish us once again
for our heresies.

Believe me Phil, they are well known to us. At no time do they seek
to put proper scientific argument substantiated by due presentation
of facts. Rather, their tactic is to assert their own "special common
sense" and proceed to question their critic's standing. Then when that
fails to deter open public debate they begin like you do here to put in
place a concerted campaign of e-mail abuse against participants.

If that still doesn't work, they seek to have Internet sites closed
down, to have people dragged into court on defamation charges, and I
must add, as one case showed here in Australia, actually convicted of
heresy. Convicted of Heresy, for heavens sake!

So much for your cloistered, institutionalised "science". What makes
your mob different from the mediaeval priesthood?

In reply I feel quite free to sit here day after day and ridicule to
my heart's content whatever further crud arrives here at my site.

You want to be recognised as scientists here on the Internet? Then
reply to the critique in the proper manner.

I recognized the underlying
>unprovable assumptions underlying any world-view, however
>subject to test and verification thereafter. You made vague
>assertions about the unsubstantiality of astronomical
>evidence (somehow, being obtained from a telescope makes
>it highly suspicious), while privileging some wealth of
>anthropological data you have to draw upon. This is
>sophistry, Gil. Argue consistently or not at all. I have
>met many people who take more pride in their skill at
>verbal jousting than they do in truly reasoned discourse.
>And I think I have met another.

Not at all, Phil. Please do take time out to think about what is
being said to you here. Maybe make some token effort to catch up on
the long history of these debates instead of diving in head first to
make a complete fool of yourself.

What I have arriving here at my site, continuously over periods of
years in fact, is just so much ranting and raving against religion in
the name of something else called "science", when the very moment we
as impartial anthropological observers show that the base assumptions
of said science are just as untestable, SURPRISE, we find the Modern
Inquisition arriving on our doorstep taking us to task for heresy.

Which way do you want it, for heavens sake? Do we agree to a method
of enquiry whose rigour and impartiality characterises something we
have come to know as science, or do we slip back into the Dark Ages?

He who refuses to qualify data is doomed to rant.
+61 97 53 3270