The Big Bang is an irrational IDEA

1. 58

   Uplifterxposted 12 years ago

   Big Bang asserts that matter can come out of void. No, it doesn't. This Big Bang myth is the newest religion which has been invented and sustained to gull the masses.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hey Bill, is this the last sock puppet you have that hasn't been banned yet?
      
      If so, are you going to discuss your hub...?  http://billgaede.hubpages.com/hub/Einsteins-Idiots-20
      
      I'd be happy to take excerpts from it and show you just how wrong it is.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Uplifterxposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Are you in rage, Troub?
         
         "Hey Bill, I have an idea for a hub. It's about this Argentine criminal who illegally enters the US, creates false documentation and then screws over a couple of companies by stealing their ideas and selling to the highest bidder. The real twist of the story is how he gets deported. What do you think?"

         replyreport
   2. 60

      Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Mixing science with Biblical BS, good one!

      replyreport
   3. 60

      twosheds1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Obvious troll is obvious.
      http://blog.case.edu/singham/big_bang_f … ners/index

      replyreport
2. 86

   TheMagicianposted 12 years ago

   it might be irrational, but it's still an idea that could be possible.
   since it's not like we know what exactly did happen, it's okay to have some options laid out on the table, even if they're a bit far-fetched.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      Uplifterxposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Good to know that you are evaluating the possibility of a supernatural creator God.

      replyreport
3. 60

   A Troubled Manposted 12 years ago

   Let's start with the opening paragraph in your hub, Bill...
   
   "Was the Universe created by God or did it explode into existence all alone from a mathematical singularity? The answer is that Science rejects Creation in all of its forms."
   
   Science doesn't outright reject Creation in all it's forms, it is perfectly willing and able to accept evidence for Creation if such evidence existed.
   
   So, you start initially from a false premise.
   
   As well, the Big Bang was an expansion as opposed to an explosion, especially in the classical sense of an explosion.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      Uplifterxposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      "Science doesn't outright reject Creation in all it's forms, it is perfectly willing and able to accept evidence for Creation if such evidence existed."
      
      
      Then, so does a giant lizard sneezing out the universe through it's nostrils. That's what you're saying.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         If that's the evidence, would you be denying that too?

         replyreport
         1. 58

            Uplifterxposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            

            replyreport
   2. 58

      billgaedesbrotherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      What's your definition of Creation in your mind; can you define it for me?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Still playing the game of definitions, Bill?

         replyreport
4. 60

   A Troubled Manposted 12 years ago

   Moving on the next paragraph...
   
   "Imagine that there is no matter in the Universe, just empty space, vacuum, nothingness. Can you even conceive of an object creating itself from this void? Can length, width, and height spontaneously self-assemble out of nothing without an external influence? "
   
   Sorry Bill, but to claim there was a universe with empty space, vacuum, nothingness... is also a false premise as you are claiming to know what the universe was comprised of prior to the Big Bang.
   
   You then go on to imply an object created itself within the universe you describe, another false premise.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      Uplifterxposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Uplifterxposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Rage...

         replyreport
         1. 67

            psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I am glad you find yourself amusing.  Or did you think you were signed into a different sock when you posted this?

            replyreport
            1. 58

               Uplifterxposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               You jumping into a conversation and calling people socks at random gives much evidence that you are not a sock.

               replyreport
      2. 67

         psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         So, you don't have an answer?
         
         You keep repeating the same misunderstandings of the science.  They aren't getting any more true and there seems no point in explaining your errors of fact and reasoning yet again.

         replyreport
         1. 58

            Uplifterxposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Nice meeting you, then.

            replyreport
5. 81

   ptosisposted 12 years ago

   I thought it was the Big Bounce.
   
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce
   

   replyreport
6. 60

   A Troubled Manposted 12 years ago

   Interesting Bill, you create a thread, make extraordinary claims challenging others, yet when your ideas are exposed, they are easily shown to be false. And, you make no attempt to defend them, but instead, like all your hubs and posts, you do nothing but insult everyone.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      Uplifterxposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      By calling them my dream's sockpuppet...

      replyreport
7. 52

   Upsidedowniaposted 12 years ago

   A troubled mind is obviously a seriously troubled mind if he assumes that you are Bill Gaede!!!
   Please forgive the pathetic behaviour of ways of people that assume because we all know where that leads to...

   replyreport
   1. 60

      A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Bill!
      
      http://billgaede.hubpages.com/hub/Einsteins-Idiots-19

      replyreport
   2. 67

      psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Honestly, it is very easy to tell it is you from syntax alone.

      replyreport
8. 83

   kathleenkatposted 12 years ago

   Irrational? You don't say...
   

   replyreport
9. 52

   Upsidedowniaposted 12 years ago

   To a troubled mind - as it would seem you seem to be somewhat troubled by Bill Gaede and since I am not Bill Gaede but a middle aged European female who has decided from now on, to question everything  - my question to you is why are you so afraid?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Afraid of what, Bill?

      replyreport
   2. 83

      kathleenkatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I sincerely doubt that a middle aged female would call herself "a middle aged female."
      
      Also, you were the first one in this thread to mention "Bill Gaede" so how could you possibly know who ATM thinks you are before he even got the chance to accuse you?

      replyreport
10. 52

    Upsidedowniaposted 12 years ago

    To  Pscycheskinner the psychologist that can see from my Syntax that I'm Bill - I am so glad that I understand what a NOT science psychology is - you have just provided additional further evidence

    replyreport
11. 52

    Upsidedowniaposted 12 years ago

    Well Kathleen's cat - I am seriously middle aged and I don't  lie - what a conundrum! if you were ever able to realise the truth.  I wondered why Troubled Mind was so troubled and looked him up and saw he was extremely Troubled by Bill Gaede so it was... a voila situation. I have followed Bill Gaede a bit just because his views are refreshing in a world full of lemmings - he might be totally wrong but the aggression expressed against him is an indication he is most likely right....

    replyreport