Dan,

Not just creationists feel slighted, but mainly. Not only that, but it is mainly creationists who keep trying to re-animate the corpse of "controversy" long put to rest. Presumably in the hope of dishonestly influencing the opinion of the uninformed.

For instance, you seem to think your fifteen minutes of reading crank pamphlets with the odd reference you can toss off, qualifies you to comment on science. It probably even sounds good to the sort of twits who believe in creationism, another yet more questionable bandwagon of yours.

The sort of "scepticism" you want applied is indicative of a childish unwillingness to not accept what you don't like, coupled with the erroneous belief that revision of the theory will alter the general picture so radically that you might find a crack for your own spurious beliefs.

In actual fact, your call for scepticism is orders of magnitude behind the game. The objections you dig up are all old, tired, and not supported by the evidence.

The red-shifts are not uniform, they increase with distance, all the way to the extent of our telescopes to detect. Local variations (in clusters of galaxies) that might imply "smaller bangs" are overridden by the simple fact that the relative velocities are small in relation to the overall expansion. Eddies in a creek don't stop it going downhill. You may have heard of turbulence, but I am certain you haven't given it a moments thought.

The "steady state" requires far more than observable data to be worth another look, and is distinctly not supported by the observable fact of the red shift. "Steady state" has to perform contortions to arrive at the temperature of cosmic radiation, readily predicted by a simple big-bang model.

By the way, given your high regard for evidence, when will you be announcing that creationism is a crock?

Do catch up, but you'll need to get beyond creationist crawling before you can run with the adults. *Then* we can talk about evidence without having to help you understand what that might happen to be.

Rusty