Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"
Bob Garwood (bgarwood@sngldsh.cv.nrao.edu)
27 Apr 1995 17:59:07 GMT
In article <490@landmark.iinet.net.au> gil@landmark.iinet.net.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
> The actual written word "God" failing to appear in astronomy texts is
> not at issue. As somebody else had mentioned in a different context,
> anyone with a word processor handy can carry out a Find and Replace
> operation without altering the sense of the text in any way at all.
>
> It remains, when all is said and done, that while you may not need a
> God you do need a Big Bang for the similar purpose of anchoring your
> manifold prognostications within the one single construct.
>
> So what IS the difference? Please don't persist in arguing in your
> defence over what may or may not be "outside the realm of science".
>
The difference is that the Big Bang theory makes testable predictions,
while the theory that "God did it" does not.
-Bob Garwood
--
|