(March 7, 2014 at 6:14 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:(March 7, 2014 at 5:52 pm)pocaracas Wrote: That's 2 observables...
And you forgot the usage of spectroscopy to determine the distance of far away stars, and also their element content.
The farther away, the oldest, the simpler the elements present in the star.
So using that logic it's possible to determine which of these lights is the oldest. I wonder which one it is?
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap001127.html
Actually all that was in my post. The expansion rate is the speed, the further away the older, all the normal basic stuff. I just don't count that as 2 things but hey I accept your count. The metalicity of stars is evidence for the evolution of stars over three generations, however while it is consistent with a beginning it is not unique to a bang, so no it is not evidence of the big bang. I would not at all be surprised if our current thinking is correct so some degree, I would not be at all surprised if it was correct in results but for all the wrong reasons, and I would not be surprised if truth was startling and missing a very big detail that we never saw. All three have happened before, and are not surprising. Why get uptight about what you really don't know?
No amount of attempting to demonstrate your smarter than me will convince me you have any special insight, vs. you have a psychiatric disorder. It is even worse with the original poster. Unless you can actually teach a simple principle, with observable evidence, you are just stroking your ego. Considering that physicists are not really sure about many elements you are discussing having to do with advance physics and are still proposing alternate explanations and possible outcomes of current experiments, how credible is it to continue to sell bleeding edge science as a religious argument? In fact is this very tendency not hurting widespread acceptance?
