Because it is one of the several predictions of the big bang model.
I have a prediction for you, Greece has a special watermelon that the insides is blue, instead of red. This is due to genetic engineering. This watermelon, the instance its outer shell gets penetrated by any form of energy, the blue color turns Black, then purple, then white and finally red. This color transformation is done within a millisecond.
This is physically impossible, as the outer shell is penetrated by energy while forming the watermelon.
Regardless, there is another model which explains it much better, the watermelon is red inside.
This also makes sense as there is no evidence of this blue pigmentation, neither directly from the watermelon, nor from analysing the plant, and you have no mechanism for why.
So you don't have a model and a prediction, you have a baseless claim.
Big difference.
No it is not a causal relationship, but a very well documented relationship. The trains 99% of the time arrive at the train station, whenever the clocks tell them to come.
No. More often than not the trains arrive just a little bit early, so they can then leave on time.
And again, there is no mechanism.
To Tarzan who came from the jungles of Africa, this relationship is real, just like to you the red shift relationship with the Big Bang is real. Tarzan has the same knowledge about how trains works as you have about the Universe, both very limited.
No. To the Tarzan who came from the jungle, there is no link. They don't even know what the clock means.
We have a lot more knowledge about the universe than Tarzan has about trains.
The evidence is based on your interpenetration. Who is correct in the below image
The evidence is based upon reality, and seeing if it matches the model.
Both are correct, they are describing the shape they see. 6 and 9 (at least in that font) have the same shape.
So is Christianity, based on observations of reality, but you still call it a religion. Either they are both a religion or they are both a science.
No it isn't.
Oh , really, you don’t need to retest a hypothesis to make it into a Theory. In that case, my watermelon story is true, because you can’t prove it as being incorrect.
Who said anything about not needing to test or retest a hypothesis?
The nonsense you are asserting is that the only way to test a hypothesis is to recreate it in the lab.