I just saw this bandied about on cylon.org and thought we could also discuss it here.
personally I would say no. Though there is alot of relativity between the two.
First of all, BG never would have flown if Star Wars wasn't the media hit it was. So Star WArs opened the door for BG. Most definitely. BG and a TON of other shows including the Star Trek franchise. None of this would have happened without something like Star Wars.
That being said, the thing that is obviously a bit of a rip off is the special effects system they used to give us the viper combat scenes. The motion control camera came right off of star wars, and that means the look of vipers and raiders dogfighting are very similiar to X wings and Ties. Which is a large part of the show.
Also there is both a western and a religious theme going through both. But that's not really a rip off. More like a genre thing.
Outside of that, I would say the shows are VERY different. Personally I like the charaters better in BG than in the original Star Wars. That is partly do to screen time. Hans, Luke and Leia amazed us, but I think Apollo, Starbuck and Adama are personable characters. They feel more like family. And no one in Star Wars compares to Serina's performance. And the chemistry of the relationships between Jane Seymour, Richard Hatch, Lorne Greene and Noah Hathaway is unmatched in Star Wars.
Now I do think the original StarWars film had an insanely powerful impact. Both in how it effected soceity but also in how powerful a film it was.
But BG definitely had some areas where it was better than star wars.
