You may be treading on somewhat thin ice here, Dan S de Merengue.

>>It seems everyone champions scepticism except when it's their pet view which is at stake.<<

From someone who hasn't even considered questioning his own "pet view", or applying even the tiniest vestige of scepticism to his championing of young earth creationism, this is just the teensiest bit precious, wouldn't you agree?

No, of course you wouldn't.

>>The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples<<

Would it be too simplistic to observe that your own theories rely upon one, entirely hypothetical, entity?

You seem to have no problem coming to terms with that single, all-encompassing leap of faith, so it's a little rich to be so patronizing to scientists who have vast numbers of competing theories to keep them busy.

>>What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation<<

To a scientist, this simply represents the next challenge. In the same way that much progress has been made since "the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy" that you mention, similar progress towards understanding how the universe evolved will continue into the future.

Given the size of the problem, it is highly unlikely that our puny minds will reach any complete conclusions before the heat-death of the sun. But that is no reason to stop the search.

Unless of course you have already made up your mind. In which case you are beyond any form of reasoning whatsoever, and can only contribute here in the guise of court jester.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/640914.html

"A man with the right qualifications might be found anywhere: in Russia 'they were generally selected from among the older and uglier of the serf-servants, and the older the fool or she-fool was, the droller they were supposed and expected to be. The fool had the right to sit at table with his master, and say whatever came into his head.'"

Dan, do come up with something to say, anytime you like, which when looked at does not constitute a personal slur against yourself. Pericles documents it well.

You might notice that my "pet theories" are some of the greatest scientific achievements ever. They are supported by their use in everyday work and their powerful informing of new work.

Why should your preference for a very selective type of "scepticism" that permits rubbish, be regarded as somehow worthy of commenting?

I post to keep up public awareness that creationism is promoted by people of very poor character, as Plimer wrote and demonstrated, and accepted by people willing to suspend normal critical faculties.

If you spent as much time investigating the substantial validity of modern science as you do pretending that your scepticism is genuinely based, you would discover, as the vast majority of scientist know, that the *particular* scepticisms you perpetuate are completely bogus.

That you have not done so, in the same manner in which you tried to bluff on words that don't exist, indicates that you have no genuine interest in knowledge, but only in it's cachet, probably as a promotional tool.

As far as greenhouse warming goes, it can be demonstrated in test systems. If the atmosphere is more complex, that makes it more difficult to prove that (for instance) carbon dioxide does *not* have far reaching effects.

Why would corrective mechanisms be pre-emptive, normative, or desirable anyway? They *might* be. What time lag? what altered chemistry? Why should we *in principle* expect a goldilocks outcome from pollution as usual, such that greenhouse/climate change scepticism is even remotely likely to be valid?

Rusty

Just to emphasise the shallowness of creationist input, let's look at Dan again....

Dan sez:
"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples"

Umm, those docos you claim to have watched should have emphasised that doppler-shifted galaxies are in fact the manner in which the expension is observed. The expansion and the effect of it on observed light is the principal basis of why the Big Bang is known to have happened.

Dark matter is, yes, a convenient label. I hope there is some, as an open universe gets cold.

Dan sez:
"What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation"

You mean, like, the cosmic background radiation? Predicted by Alpher and Herman in the 40's and confirmed by Penzias and Wilson in the 60's. Where does Dan *get* these assertions? Couldn't he *check*? As I would require of a school assignment, let alone of someone pretending to the qualifications Dan claims?

Or perhaps what Dan *means* is, "long ago and far away, so what does it matter if it is true, surely my not liking it is more meaningful"

It is hard to tell with creationists. I suspect they have little idea of what goes into science, and merely see what comes out as a word game, much like the one pastor plays on them.

Rusty

Rusty,
You say you want to run a campaign to defame or discredit. Good on ya! How very Plimeresque. I prefer to debate the issues.

With regards to big bang theory, you ask where I found those assertions. They were found in a statement signed by a large number of scientists relevant to that domain, who are challenging big bang cosmology. Exactly who, you can see at cosmologystatement.org

Redshift is an observable phenomenon, but is explainable by approaches outside of big bang cosmology.  
 
Also, the other part of the statement you objected to included the phrase 'quantitative predictions'. You seem to have misread those key words there.   

Pericles,
I'll make an attempt at answering your questions (to the extent they were comprehensible.)

Am I being precious (whatever that means)? 
I don't think so. I just believe one should apply the same standards, the same measuring stick, to all theories whether mine, yours, or anyone else's.

Do I rely on one (singular) hypothetical entity?
Probably no more than you. I'll explain by putting to you two ideas or assertions as a proposed sufficient first cause (both described here in simplified terms):
1) In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis)
2) In the beginning, nothing exploded and became everything. (Big Bang)
Which one of these is the singularity, and which is the singular hypothetical? I take it that you prefer option 2, but I think the two ideas share common elements. 
   

Dan, Just the facts will do, and they continue to not favour you.

The *issues* include the one that crank scepticism is largely promoted by charlatans and believed by idiots. It is still not clear which you are.

Dan wants to *appear* as if he *did* read the letter as published in New Scientist, like anybody with a real lifetime interest in science and it's findings.

I wonder, as a genuinely interested reader, whether he also read the follow-ups on the same letters page, in which astronomers, astophysicists, cosmologists and physicists, both amateur and very professional pointed out the observational evidence that led not only to the "big bang" theory but carefully dissected the objections in the letter and showed them and to be not as significant as presented.

Of course, the site Dan gives where the letter is reproduced declined to give that level of detail. Perhaps they preferred only half the story, to suit themselves. Perhaps Dan declined to look that far also. He would just prefer you to believe him, unexamined.

Redshift is most elegantly explained by universal expansion. The others require further elaboration. The greatest physicists of our age never quibbled over this.

If you look up the cosmic background predictions, they are quantified and correct within the limits of estimation at the time. I assumed that since Dan claims some sort of academic qualification that he at least checks such things, if only in a common textbook. Perhaps keywords like "quantitative" are something Dan sees but does not understand in the manner grownups do.

If facts defame or discredit you Dan, take the rebuke. Have you found that imaginary archaic reference for expodential yet?

By the way, as a scientist, I don't think that science is broken. Much belaboured by bureaucrats, but not broken.

Rusty

Always happy to help, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Am I being precious (whatever that means)?<<

"precious: obviously contrived to charm; 'an insufferably precious performance'; 'a child with intolerably cute mannerisms'"

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=precious&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=

If there are any other words I use that might be unfamiliar to you, please don't hesitate to seek clarification. Asking questions is how we learn, after all.

>>I just believe one should apply the same standards, the same measuring stick, to all theories whether mine, yours, or anyone else's<<

So you keep saying.

But your example doesn't actually achieve this, does it.

>>1) In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis)
2) In the beginning, nothing exploded and became everything. (Big Bang)<<

The obvious "measuring stick" to apply, surely, would be to test each theory with the knowledge we have so far accumulated about the physical universe. Study the accumulated work of Ptolemy, Copernicus, Einstein and all the other thousands of cosmic theorists, and test.

This clearly is not feasible with the Genesis version, since you need an a priori God.

The second theory, incidentally, actually allows for the existence of God, but does not require it as a prerequisite, as does the first.

So I'm afraid your measuring stick cannot be applied to the example you provide.

If you have a theory where "the same standards, the same measuring stick" may be consistently applied, by all means let's hear it. Otherwise, you must simply accept that by requiring God to be present at the creation of the universe, you have substantially limited your ability to apply any scientific standards whatsoever,