🚀 go-pugleaf

"Thanatos" <dgahan@europe.com> wrote in message
news:JJQ0a.42784$jM5.108252@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> hmmm...
>
> I have no problem with the POSSIBILITY of big bang theory...

You got a better one to replace it?

>
> I do have a problem with the way it is tought in schools as "factual",

Other well supported theories are taught in much the same way.  Do you have
similar problems with gravity and the periodic table?

>
> and the way scientists insist on "cooking the books" to prop it up if
> observations don't quite fit...

Maybe you can offer some specific examples instead of just bullshit...?

>
> and how scientists who are open-minded enough to persue alternatives are
> ridiculed.

The ones ridiculed are those who cling to alternatives that don't account
for the facts.

>
> BBT is at best a "best-fit" theory to some early observations, but the way
> it has influenced interpretations of subsequent observations has reduced
> current theory to a tenuous "stack of cards" where the destruction of a
> fundamental idea will bring the whole lot crashing down.

The basic idea of the big bang seems entirely bullet-proof--a hot,
high-density beginning with subsequent expansion is in perfect accord with a
large number of very careful observations.  It's very unlikely to be
overthrown completely, and with good reason.

> It will continue to
> be mathematically propped up for as long as religion continues to
influence
> science.

I suspect that it's you who are under the thrall of religion, and you resent
BBT for raising doubts about your superstition.

Mark Folsom

>
[snip]