wrote:
Bjoern,


[snip to the point]



Please point out what fine-tuning to observations was
done in the BBT.


1 - The so-called "Hubble Constant":

H_0: The Incredible Shrinking Constant, 1925-1975
Virginia Trimble, PASP v.108, p.1073-1082

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...ASP..108.1073T

That has nothing to do with "fine-tuning to observations".
In contrast, this is standard science: determining a parameter
from observations, where the parameter often changes as measurements
get better with time.


2 - When new observations show that mature galaxy clusters
found at redshifts which (according to the BBT) date
them as being not long after the BB, BBT supporters
suggest contorting their theories of galaxy formation
into ever shorter timeframes rather than question the
validity of the BBT.

That again has nothing to do with "fine-tuning to observations".
And the reason here is simple: galaxy formation theories are plagued
with uncertainties, and the computer simulations done on them are
permitted to be inaccurate even by the very researchers working
on that. So it's quite natural to question these first instead
of questioning a well-established theory like the BBT.



3 - When no transverse proximity effect is found with a
foreground quasar, BBT supporters pursue a line of
quasar theory which is at odds with all previous
interpretations of other types of observations,
rather than question whether redshift is really as
reliable an indicator of distance as the BBT says it
is.

Essentially same comment as above.


The first example is a series of quantitative revisions,
each probably approximately as confidently made as today's
"13.7 +/-0.2 Gigayear" estimate.

The latter two are qualitative examples. These are
instances of BBT supporters choosing to revise existing
theories in dramatic ways

You conveniently ignore that people working on galaxy formation
freely admit that the current models are far from accurate,
and a lot of work has to be done on them. It's quite natural
to look for errors in uncertain theories first, don't you think?
Have you ever read an article on galaxy formation?


- to the point where many
objections can easily be made and where the revisions are
destructive of some probably sensible existing theories -

Simply wrong for point 2. Don't know for point 3.



rather than question the veracity of the BBT's insistence
on how substantial redshift can only be caused by Doppler,
expansion or whatever you want to call it.

Expansion. If you want to argue against the BBT, at least
use the right terms to describe it.


Bye,
Bjoern