jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (32 posts)

The Big Bang is an irrational IDEA

  1. Uplifterx profile image60
    Uplifterxposted 4 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.

    1. A Troubled Man profile image61
      A Troubled Manposted 4 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.

      1. Uplifterx profile image60
        Uplifterxposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Are you in rage, Troub? lol

        "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?"

    2. Paul Wingert profile image78
      Paul Wingertposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Mixing science with Biblical BS, good one!

    3. twosheds1 profile image61
      twosheds1posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  2. TheMagician profile image93
    TheMagicianposted 4 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.

    1. Uplifterx profile image60
      Uplifterxposted 4 years agoin reply to this

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

  3. A Troubled Man profile image61
    A Troubled Manposted 4 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.

    1. Uplifterx profile image60
      Uplifterxposted 4 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. lol

      1. A Troubled Man profile image61
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this

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

        1. Uplifterx profile image60
          Uplifterxposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          lol lol

    2. billgaedesbrother profile image59
      billgaedesbrotherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

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

      1. A Troubled Man profile image61
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Still playing the game of definitions, Bill?

  4. A Troubled Man profile image61
    A Troubled Manposted 4 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.

    1. Uplifterx profile image60
      Uplifterxposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7303090_f248.jpg

      1. Uplifterx profile image60
        Uplifterxposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Rage...

        1. psycheskinner profile image81
          psycheskinnerposted 4 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?

          1. Uplifterx profile image60
            Uplifterxposted 4 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.

      2. psycheskinner profile image81
        psycheskinnerposted 4 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.

        1. Uplifterx profile image60
          Uplifterxposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Nice meeting you, then. lol

  5. ptosis profile image80
    ptosisposted 4 years ago

    I thought it was the Big Bounce.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce
    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/big_bounce_new_scientist.jpg

  6. A Troubled Man profile image61
    A Troubled Manposted 4 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.

    1. Uplifterx profile image60
      Uplifterxposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      By calling them my dream's sockpuppet...

  7. profile image58
    Upsidedowniaposted 4 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...

    1. A Troubled Man profile image61
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this
    2. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

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

  8. kathleenkat profile image84
    kathleenkatposted 4 years ago

    Irrational? You don't say...
    http://blog.nj.com/entertainment_impact_tv/2009/08/large_big-bang-theory-sheldon-asperger.jpg

  9. profile image58
    Upsidedowniaposted 4 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?

    1. A Troubled Man profile image61
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      lol Afraid of what, Bill?

    2. kathleenkat profile image84
      kathleenkatposted 4 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?

  10. profile image58
    Upsidedowniaposted 4 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

  11. profile image58
    Upsidedowniaposted 4 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....

     
    working