Lerner wrote: Well, the Big Bangers response to this is:
“This is an anomaly, but since BB gets everything else right it must be true.”
Then observers find out another prediction that is wrong and BBers respond:
“This is an anomaly, but since BB gets everything else right it must be true.”
Repeat ad absurdum.
Until the little boy says ”but the cosmologists are naked!” then everyone starts laughing. This has not happened yet, but it will at one point.

Not to be obnoxious, but if big bang cosmology is incorrect, then why do so many stars fall inside the expected age range? I mean, if a greater than 5% proportion of stars fell outside the expected age range as determined by an error prone metric, it would be a dramatic invalidation of a long-standing hypothesis, but cherry-picking data like that is hardly the correct approach to science, when there are known assumptions. Let me make it clear I don’t disagree with plasma cosmology: as a layman, it’s out of my expertise.

I just don’t understand why this single data point is relevant, given the understood problems in the method of interpretation. Is there some mechanic of the method that creates a hard limit to the observational error?