[RadioAstronomer]

How about the CMB, Lyman alpha forest, gravitational lensing, Boomerang data, nuclear decay and half-life, phylogeny, geological column, Hertzsprung-Russell diagram and stellar evolution, galactic formation, stellar nurseries, Earth/ Moon tides and lunar recession, dating rocks, continental drift, galactic rotation, colliding galaxies, supernova SN1987A, Population I and Population II type stars, fine-structure constant, etc.

CMB:

http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/cmb_intro.html

http://background.uchicago.edu/

http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/cmb.html

Lyman alpha forest:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Lyman-alpha-forest.html

Gravitational lensing:

http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/lenses.html

Boomerang data:

http://cmb.phys.cwru.edu/boomerang/

http://www.nersc.gov/news/annual_reports/annrep00/02compsci_boomerang.html

Nuclear decay and half-life:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/halfli2.html

Phylogeny:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/exhibit/phylogeny.html

http://tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html

Geological column:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/help/timeform.html

Hertzsprung-Russell diagram and stellar evolution:

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Stars/hrdiagram.html

http://cassfos02.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/StevI.html

Galactic formation:

http://galileo.as.utexas.edu/research.html

Stellar nurseries:

http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Bima/StarForm.html

Earth/ Moon tides and lunar recession:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html

Dating rocks:

http://earth.leeds.ac.uk/dynamicearth/dating/

Continental drift:

http://kids.earth.nasa.gov/archive/pangaea/

Galactic rotation

http://web.mit.edu/davidl/www/astro.pdf

Colliding galaxies:

http://orca.phys.uvic.ca/~patton/openhouse/collisions.html

Supernova and SN1987A:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/additional_topics/supernova.html

Population I and Population II type stars:

http://www.astro.umd.edu/education/astro/mw/pop.html

http://www.answers.com/topic/stellar-population

Fine-structure constant

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/04/18_deep2.shtml

And lastly here is a good overall site:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

[RadioAstronomer]

As it sits now, the research supports both the Big Bang and evolution.

Dataman: That's what I used to think until I actually looked at the evidence.

I guess it depends on what you accept as evidence. On one hand is the entire scientific community with its rigorous standards, peer reviews, re addressing of the data, verifying of sources, meticulous references, cross checking against other disciplines, citing of sources when used, etc. This certainly does not mean they get it "right" every time or that mistakes aren’t made. But in the end, the scientific community is pretty self-correcting as new data is evaluated. On the other is the creationists who argue the same tired old data that has long since been dismissed in the scientific community; Moon dust, thermodynamics (love that one; sarcasm off), moon recession, etc.

Here is the problem; I or anyone else can come up with an idea for how an event occurred. Let say I write a paper that states; "Elves digging mines are actually the mechanism for continental drift". You would dismiss me outright as an absolute "nutter". This is due to the level of scientific knowledge you personally have. Now let us go one step further; I write a paper stating; "Since there is no observed Baryonic mass in either the nebula or stellar remnants, the gravitational attractions of the remaining matter in the universe is not great enough to create the galactic structures we call galaxies". Any first year physics student would either laugh with great delight at my ignorance or would just chuck it in the nearest garbage can.

What I am trying to say is each of us can't know it all. (Lord; I try in my own field, but it just isn’t happening :)) So the scientific community as a whole has in place very rigorous checks and balances for any new idea. This is why you hear “my data was suppressed” from the people who do not get past the "in place filters" so to speak. It is also the responsibility of the scientist to not fit data to a pet theory. Instead the scientist need to address the data and modify the theory as required.

So in conclusion; I accept the rigors imposed by the scientific community which give a level of credence to the scientific theories put forth.