I wouldn't downvote you, but (purely because you asked) you did trigger my noise filter. Not a big deal, but it sounds like you're interested in how to avoid do

I wouldn't downvote you, but (purely because you asked) you did trigger my noise filter. Not a big deal, but it sounds like you're interested in how to avoid doing that, so here goes. The reason you set off my noise filter is that "there is growing body of clues indicating that our current understanding of [something] is flawed" makes it sound like you're way overstating your competence in the field. I mean, if you were an expert in the field, and you said (1) I'm familiar with what big bang theory is and why we believe it, and (2) there are enough observations that seem inconsistent with the theory that I'm starting to think it has basic flaws, then that would be really interesting, especially if you went into detail. But if you're not an expert, reading a couple of popular science articles about particular observations that haven't been explained yet tells you absolutely nothing about whether there's a "growing" body of clues, or whether there are any clues at all, that the big bang theory is flawed. It just tells you that there are some observations that we can't explain yet. It's like (no offense) a creationist saying "there is a growing body of clues that our current understanding of evolution is flawed," when all they really mean is that they've read a few articles about particular fossil evidence that isn't explained yet. So basically I would encourage you to write something off the bat more like your follow-up. Say, "I've seen a number of articles about strange observations like this one that don't fit in with our idea of how the universe was formed. Does that indicate actual problems with the theory, or does it just take time to figure out how new observations fit in?" And then I think people would upvote you instead of downvote you. Hope this helps.