OK Chrom, after reading this last post I have to say that we essentially agree. This whole thing got started when you said that BB was an accepted theory some time after you defined “theory”. I jumped in and said that BB was a bad “theory”: not a bad theory, but a bad “theory”. Then I pointed out a few of the more basic problems with it.
As for the mixing of apples and oranges, I again agree completely. That’s why I said up front that it was a weak analogy and would quickly break down. I just wanted to illustrate that it's bad science to stick to a hypothesis when the observed data doesn’t completely support it without postulating the existence of something not in evidence. It was meant to be a simplistic illustration – nothing more.
It seems that we’re really in complete agreement on everything but saying that BB is a “theory”.
