Re: Big Bang: How widely accepted?

Lloyd Paul Verhage (
11 Sep 1995 07:18:11 -0500 (Erik Max Francis) writes:

> (Robert Roosen) writes:

>> Erik Max Francis ( wrote:
>> : It is also presently the most successful at explaining observations.
>> This is due to the limiting assumptions that the high energy
>> physicists use when they promote their own world view as a "universal" one.
>> In fact, Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis is a much more popular view
>> of the origin of life and is a far more satisfactory basis for a globally
>> acceptable cosmology.

Funny, I didn't know that Gaia replaced abiotic origins and evolution.
Also, what does Gaia have to do with origins of the universe?

>Strange, but I notice you don't say, "No, the big bang is poor at
>explaining observations."

>Whether it's applicable to the average person (which you later appear
>to tout) is irrelevant, because (right or wrong) that's not what
>science is about.

>Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE // uuwest!alcyone!max,
>San Jose, CA, USA // 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W // GIGO, Omega, Psi // the 4th R!
>H.3`S,3,P,3$S,#$Q,C`Q,3,P,3$S,#$Q,3`Q,3,P,C$Q,#(Q.#`-"C`- // 1love // folasade
>_Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt._ // mc2? oo? Nah. //