Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"

Gil Hardwick (
Sat, 06 May 1995 04:13:52 GMT

In article <3nud0o$>, Phil A. Willems ( writes:
> Current hypotheses are more speculative, to be sure, and
>have varying degrees of connection to observations, and some make
>speculations the are currently untestable. But this is no reason
>to ignore those basic aspects that have been tested.

Phil, *sigh*, there remains nevertheless valid reason to ignore the
whole lot of it as we so choose when we have other work to be getting
on with. The matter has arisen only within the relatively limited
branches of science habituated by astronomers and physicists, who
pursue their researches well beyond the domain of anthropology.

> Nothing exists without an underlying set of assumptions
>which are untestable. But to continually draw attention to that
>fact is boring, leads nowhere, and ignores important differences
>between opposing viewpoints.

Look, get clear finally will you? Whatever exists exists without
humans being around to construct their assumptions, testable or

The universe is not *a posteriori* to humans coming along to Rhubarb
Rhubarb Rhubarb and bludgeon one another about it.

Sorry Mike, Rutubaga Rutubaga Rutubaga . . .

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