On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 07:32:38 -0400, HVAC wrote:

On 10/24/2012 6:32 AM, Painius wrote:

I agree that I don't understand the BB. I certainly don't understand
how anybody in their right mind would even remotely accept that there
was a first "time", an initial "time", after which all time and space
just sort of "took off". And "before" which has no meaning. It's
just stupid - royally, unintuitively, and "religiously" stupid.


There it is, folks...Painus just has a gut feeling that there was no big
bang. **** all the evidence to the contrary.

Yes, **** all the evidence that has been "fitted" to the Big Bang
theory, when it's suppost to be the other way around. The theory
should be fitted to the evidence.

And all that evidence to which you point ****ingly, could be used to
explain other proposals of the nature of the Universe, as well. Yet
you deny that and you accept an hypothesis that calls for a childish,
fairytale, once-upon-a-time beginning of the Universe.

What a hoot!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."