<HTML>Stephen Tonkin wrote:
>
> Garrett Fagan wrote:
>
> > > So, hard science of astronomy (Van Flandern) requires
> > > interpretation? What doesn't?
> >
> > The astronomical data might be self-evident (I'm not an
> > astronomer, so I don't know)
>
> I am an astronomer (though not a cosmologist – Dave Moore is
> better versed than I in that realm).
>
> Whilst van Flandern makes valuable criticisms of current
> cosmological theory and is, IMHO, worth reading just for
> that, he does not represent the mainstream of cosmological
> thinking and, again IMHO, some of his interpretations are not
> far short of speculation.
For instance, in the Flandern URL currently going the rounds on the GHMB, he makes several elementary errors regarding large scale galactic structure formation and galactic age.
Most of his points are rebutted indirectly at Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial at [
www.astro.ucla.edu] (click on the "Cosmological Fads and Fallacies" page).
Best Regards,
Dave</HTML>