Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"

Gil Hardwick (
Sat, 06 May 1995 04:05:34 GMT

In article <3nubih$>, Carl J Lydick (carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU) writes:
>Er, if they didn't, there'd be no way to test them, and they'd be just another
>religion. As it is, they make testable predictions, which means that, in
>principle, if the hypotheses are invalid, they can be shown to be invalid.

If you don't mind, Carl, all we are getting from you here is the same
old line of Just So Stories. Now just who is being religious?

Has it occurred to you yet that you might present a valid argument
supported by facts were you seriously interested in having us attend
to your "contribution" to this forum?

Or do you yet insist that we must simply accept your account of what
"they" do just because you say it is so?

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