The Big Bang and Conservation of angular momentum??

And welcome to EvC! /sarcasmYou got this from Kent Hovind, didn't you? Perfectly. More explanation below. There wasn't. Case closed Ok, some more explanation. The Big Bang was not matter spinning very fast and then blowing up, it was the expansion of space-time. Nothing blew up, nothing was spinning. I suggest you read up a bit on what the Big Bang theory actually says before you continue in this vain. I'll leave these to someone else.
Suffice to say that none of this is a breach of the conservation of angular momentum, the planets that spin "the other way" do so most likely because of some major impact early in their existence, that made them turn the other way. Notice that they also do this very slowly, and at a very weird axial position.A tip for you, if you use the "peek" button on the lower right of my post, you'll see how I did those quoteboxes. It helps keep your posts looking nice and easy to read.And a bonus tip: Everything else Hovind says is just as wrong.

I'd start with this wikipedia article. If there are any questions after that, ask them. We've got actual physicists here on the board, and some very intersted lay people, who I am sure are willing to help.

But lucky for us, he left his Message 1 in his original proposal (The Big Bang and Conservation of angular momentum??) untouched. To keep full disclosure, here is the original OP reproduced: Don't be embarassed, Benjamin, just realise how wrong Hovind is, and don't buy into any other of his lies.

So, this response shows you don't actually know what you're talking about.
I'll list the mistakes to make it easy for you: 1) Only two planets have retrograde rotation. None have retrograde orbits. 2) It's called axial tilt, not axial orbit.3) Jupiter does not spin on its side, it has an axial tilt of about 3 degrees.4) Uranus has an axial tilt of about 98 degrees. This is the frst planet with retrograde rotation.5) Venus has an axial tilt of about 177 degrees. This is the second planet to have a retrograde rotation.6) Compare this to the other planets axial tilts (Mercury 0.01 degrees, Earth 23.44 degrees, Mars 25.19 degrees, Jupiter 3.13 degrees, Saturn 26.73 degrees and Neptune 28.32 degrees), and it's very clear they have "weird" axial tilts.7) If the third "planet" you were refeering to is Pluto, that is no longer a planet.So, that makes 7 (6 if we're generous) mistakes in a reply that is 4 sentences long. And you're calling me stupid? Ha! You're a funny guy Dennis.If you can't even get these basic facts straight, why in the world would we listen to anything else you've got to say?Edited by Huntard, : Typo

See, it are things like this that make people wonder if you know what you're talking about. This was back in 2006 as a simple search on google or wikipedia would have told you. It does not fit the qualifications of a planet as decided on by the IAU. You did far more than make spelling errors. You said Jupiter was on its side, it isn't, you said Uranus wasn't, it is. You said only Jupiter had a weird axial tilt, it doesn't, yet the two retrograde planets do. As does Pluto, by the way, its axial tilt is about 120 degrees. If you can't even get those simple facts straight, what else do you get wrong? And to top it all off, you said I was the stupid one for "copy pasting from someone" with no intelligence. First of all, I didn't copy paste that, I wrote that myself, second, you were implying it was completely wrong by saying it was written by someone with no intelligence. Yet it is you who makes the most fundamental mistakes in your reply to me. And now you act all hurt because somebody called you stupid because of a few "spelling errors", which weren't spelling errors, but complete word errors, changing the meaning of what you were trying to say completely. You repeated these several times, so it's not like it was an isolated mistake either. I don't care about simple spelling errors, they can happen to anybody, but getting the simple facts of the matter wrong (saying Jupiter is on its side, for instance) is inexcusable, and shows a lack of knowledge large enough to question anything else you have to say about this subject.

I think he meant his Message 46.