Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Robert Roosen: "Re: SCIENCE OFTEN MASQUERADES AS LAW (AND VICE-VERSA)"
• Previous message: Jeanne Kowalewski: "Re: Is white racism nec. all bad?"

In article <3nevlm$11i@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
Carl J Lydick <carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> wrote:
>The "tired light" hypothesis, so beloved of creationists, hasn't been in use by
>anybody except them since the 1950s or thereabouts.
>

Not all opponents of the Big Band hypothesis are creationists.
ANY theory of cosmology, including steady state or an eternal universe
would have to explain the well-documented redshift with distance.

IMHO the Big Bang is the most consistent with observations.
However, it is one of the less consistent theories in natural science.
Anyone with a memory of few decades or so know there are paradygm shifts
in scientific theories. The Big Bang only came to predominance in the
1950s after dicovery of the microwave background. Before then it was on
pretty even footing with other theories.

• Next message: Robert Roosen: "Re: SCIENCE OFTEN MASQUERADES AS LAW (AND VICE-VERSA)"
• Previous message: Jeanne Kowalewski: "Re: Is white racism nec. all bad?"