Thursday, August 27, 2009

Something Happened...

Mike Felker posted this video on his blog, and as I watched it I was convinced that the video was a parody of a big bang scientist. Sadly I was mistaken.

Here's my one sentence synopses of the video:

People don't understand the big bang, here's what really happened... or maybe not....maybe this happened... or maybe this happened.... well, all we really know is that there was nothing and something happened.

Imagine a prosecuting attorney addressing a jury in the same manner at the end of a murder trial:

Ladies and gentleman of the jury maybe the defendant murdered the victim. Or maybe someone else did. Maybe there's not even a victim at all, All we really know for sure is that at some point something happened. I know that's all very confusing to you but trust me, I'm a.. a... what's the word for a "law talking guy?"

1 comment:

  1. The first thing that I would say is that this young lady is throwing an incredible amount of conjecture into her theory.

    Secondly, Einstein, Hubble and others of earlier times had done away with the "oscillating" model of universe. It was determined by great men of her field to be in error. Especially in light of the "COBE" (Cosmic Background Explorer) findings of recent years.

    Thirdly, majority of her own peers in the field of astrophysics, astronomy, etc, today disagree with her. They also acknowledge, support, and further the fact that the oscillating universe model has been rendered a failed hypothesis.

    Lastly, let me bring this to mind. Philosopher William Lane Craig put it quite succinctly with this scenario. Imagine you are walking through the desert-miles and miles of sand every which way. Suddenly as you walk you are met with a huge skyscraper reaching toward the clouds.
    Would you-
    A. Assume strong winds, vast amounts of time, and just the perfect mix of earthly materials blended toether by happenstance to construct this building.
    B. There was a purposeful designer involved in it.

    Which of the 2 possibilities is more palatable?

    Why is it that science is yelling at us to be reasonable, use the existing evidences, and apply logic, to our methodologies-EXCEPT in terms of intelligent design?

    She no doubt must realize that if she so much as even hints at indorsing ID, she will lose her funding, have her websites shut down, lose tenure, lose her career, and be ostracized be her community.

    ANY DOUBTS? I encourage you to watch Ben Stein's "Expelled".