Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Response to Response to flames
Message-ID: <456@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 16-May-85 13:04:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.456
Posted: Thu May 16 13:04:58 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 22-May-85 07:49:21 EDT
References: <253@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA> <303@scgvaxd.UUCP> <1518@hao.UUCP> <310@scgvaxd.UUCP> <64@uw-june>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 24

In article <64@uw-june> gordon@uw-june (Gordon Davisson) writes:
>>                                                              We are
>>  the product of an explosion? Your Big Bang theory isn't worth the
>>  powder to blow it up. And its been blown full of holes.
>
>Could be (I don't follow cosmology too closely), but I'm not sure I
>believe you.  You have a history of making uncertain, and even blatantly
>false statements.  ("Creation is falsifiable," "Evolution is unfalsifiable,"
>"P.E. involves reptiles giving birth to birds," etc.)
>
	I am not entirely up-to-date on this subject, but my
impression is that this is another case of Creationists using
evidence against an outdated version of a theory as evidence
against the whole concept behind the thoery. Certainly, the
*original* "raw" big-bang theory is now considered inadequate,
just like Darwin's origianl "raw" evolutionary theory is now
considered inadequate.  BUT, there are a number of refined
variants available that may be more viable (e.g. the "inflationary model").
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen