|
|
Re: Big Bang: How widely accepted?
Lloyd Paul Verhage (lver@ksu.ksu.edu)
11 Sep 1995 07:18:11 -0500
max@alcyone.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis) writes:
>roosen@crash.cts.com (Robert Roosen) writes:
>> Erik Max Francis (max@alcyone.darkside.com) 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, max@alcyone.darkside.com
>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. // http://www.spies.com/max/
|