i know the church held back advancement for centuries, scientists had to lie,hide,cypher,all there works if it was against the church doctrine,.anyhoo..IF,these comets sorta made us,,to a point,,wouldnt there be millions of other civilisations,around the universe,?.i say yes..but we are told still,like the church,we are the first.rubbish.one major Q,that is never brought up,as its a given to us humans,,is,,why are we the only ape with a voice box,& no other ape has developed one in millions of yrs.??..to this,i say,alien intervention.!..even de grasse will not admit,we are not alone,or he,ll lose his position,,are science & the church,in bed together,.??.i hear the pope is building a huge telescope.?,to find god.??.why are we lied to & kept dumb..
@@phantomwalker8251 you would have written the same thing long ago about eyes if you had been the first species with eyes. Your comment just shows how unfathomable to us the time scales are at which evolution crafts species, tiny changes at a time. Our ability for vocal speech implies in no way that aliens intervened. And if indeed there are somewhere pockets of life (which is, it seems, increasingly highly likely at least for primitive forms of life) and if indeed at some point some species developed intelligence to the point that their technology can help extract themselves from their cradle (their planet), these civilizations may be so far apart from one another that no known method in the known laws of Physics would allow for their spheres of influence to cross. Sad, but likely. That you and I cannot conceive of Nature coming up with speech is not an argument to support the idea that some other intervention took place. You could just as well have put God/Gods in place of Aliens in your comment and the claim would have been just as devoid of proof. It's a belief. A nice one🙂
This was one great mind that has clearly spoken for Science. This man made me see the Universe and learn about myself with his 13 episodes of Cosmos and liberated me from Religion and help me get on the path of fully embracing knowledge and yet Cosmos was about Science not Religion, it was bigger and it was the start of my rebirth and that happened around 2007. Rip Dr. Sagan,
@@tommarks795 to make a difference? I have absolutely no faith in our 2 party political structure but I would vote for this man regardless of his affiliation.
what a brilliant man. spoke with clarity and manages to speak of complex issues with simplistic wonder and awe, so that others can join him in his amazing view of how beautiful this world and universe truly is.
Professor Sagan's lectures, get better and better each year. The pertinence and relevance of his ideas, acquire more urgency and weight as humanity's idiocy grows bigger and unsolved as time passes by. Not enough words for expressing my infinite gratitude.
A great man taken far to soon from the world and the people who admired, respected, and looked up to him as a role model. I often wonder as I listen to his lectures, what would he think of the current state of America today.
Close to despair. 33 years to get it right and the USA has reignited the Cold War. The FRG has just declared they will have a Bundeswehr second in the world only to the USA. Watch everything get so much more expensive to pay for this. The petro-dollar is, hopefully, going to be eclipsed
"if you take a look, just think back on this talk which is an attempt to describe one single subject, look how it involved astronomy, geology, physics, chemistry, even some atmospheric sciences having to do with the climate change from the dust. Anytime you look at a subject like this you find that it’s wildly interdisciplinary. The boundaries between subject matter like chemistry and physics and so on are made by people. They’re not part of nature. The boundaries are man and woman made. What nature knows is a continuum. Everything connected." ~Carl Sagan 1:22:15
This is one of his best lectures I've watched. Absolutely brilliant and intelligent, without the circumlocution you find in many scientific lectures. Carl will always be missed.
@@CROFTUSAS12 He was a liar for jokes like you. Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the clueless Carl, --It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?"-- from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a laugh for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, person he was. Carl cannot get around these laws and what they lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet he thinks creation happened naturally, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" He ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still, he ignores the laws... "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as pathetic as he is. So in his way of useless thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally, and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan lived his empty life clueless and has clueless followers.
Even though I could never quite grasp it all he had the uncanny ability to make me feel smart.✨ You were greatly appreciated Dr Sagan and are terribly missed.
really,,no disrespect to carl,..but,,have you read,researched,sumerian tablets,or are they scoffed at as not real but the bible is,,as man wrote it for his own ideals.control of man.
Carl just cared about his side of things, not what science proved. Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the clueless Carl, --It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?"-- from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a laugh for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, person he was. Carl cannot get around these laws and what they lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet he thinks creation happened naturally, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" He ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still, he ignores the laws... "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as pathetic as he is. So in his way of useless thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally, and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan lived his empty life clueless and has clueless followers.
As a huge fan of Sagan, I really appreciate you posting this lecture; it is one of his best one's which encompass all of his themes in the books Cosmos and Comet. A great overall review which leads one to dig deeper into the topics. Thank you!!! I always wondered about a "what if" scenario if the dinosaurs didn't not become extinct and to find that he covered that here was just awesome.
Rather, he was a clueless misfit. Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the clueless Carl, --It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?"-- from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a laugh for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, person he was. Carl cannot get around these laws and what they lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet he thinks creation happened naturally, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" He ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still, he ignores the laws... "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as pathetic as he is. So in his way of useless thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally, and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan lived his empty life clueless and has clueless followers.
@@2fast2block It's off to the INVISIBLE MAN in the SKY for you soon, son! Hope you followed all his rules! And gave him lots of money! (He's terrible with money...).
@@TheVanillatech wow, talk about ignoring what I gave because your small brain can't deal with it. You sure showed that. Go have a cookie as a reward for your empty self.
Quelle conférence ! La qualité des explications, la densité des contenus, la logique des enchaînements et une touche d'humour juste au bon moment pour relancer l'attention, Carl sagan a été et reste un géant de la communication scientifique et de la pensée philosophique. Voilà des années qu'il est une source d'inspiration.
Amazing how people took Carl seriously. Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the clueless Carl, --It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?"-- from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a laugh for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, person he was. Carl cannot get around these laws and what they lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet he thinks creation happened naturally, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" He ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still, he ignores the laws... "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as pathetic as he is. So in his way of useless thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally, and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan lived his empty life clueless and has clueless followers.
His greatness preceded him in his lifetime..Because when I was a kid I heard of his name long before I seen any nor know of his work..I just knew he was some kind of ' scientist '. I became a huge fan of his once I saw him for the first time on PBS.. RIP Dr Sagan..
i am still young, but have a burning passion for science and a need to understand anything and everything there is to know. i was born only after sagan passed and how i wish he could know how influential he has been to me as part of a future generation.
I don't. Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the clueless Carl, --It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?"-- from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a laugh for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, person he was. Carl cannot get around these laws and what they lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet he thinks creation happened naturally, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" He ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still, he ignores the laws... "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as pathetic as he is. So in his way of useless thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally, and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan lived his empty life clueless and has clueless followers.
1:24:27 - Carl: "So, no time for questions?" He sounds a little disheartened. So unfortunate they didn't take the time to have questions. Always love to hear Carl's thoughts.
His thoughts were very shallow for his shallow followers. Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the clueless Carl, --It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?"-- from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a laugh for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, person he was. Carl cannot get around these laws and what they lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet he thinks creation happened naturally, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" He ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still, he ignores the laws... "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as pathetic as he is. So in his way of useless thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally, and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan lived his empty life clueless and has clueless followers.
@@2fast2block GET HELP FOR GOD’S SAKE! YOU. HAVE ONE SUBJECT IN LIFE - CRITICISE CARL SAGAN! You desperately need help to get the permanent tenant out of your head! HE’S DEAD, BRO!
I'm reading "Brocas Brain" as we speak proceeding "the cosmos"... I am deeply appreciated to be aware of who he was, not into my 40's, however extreme depression hovers over me in regret, of not knowing his work decades earlier in my lifetime...
I cannot listen to Mr. Sagan and not feel we were robbed of his brilliance when we most need him. Others try to capture his relevance, but they pale in comparison. He is such a fantastic genius and yet humble.
Horrible guy, sadly taken seriously. Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the clueless Carl, --It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?"-- from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a laugh for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, person he was. Carl cannot get around these laws and what they lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet he thinks creation happened naturally, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" He ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still, he ignores the laws... "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as pathetic as he is. So in his way of useless thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally, and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan lived his empty life clueless and has clueless followers.
Carl should have ran for President.. Can you imagine if our leaders were even 1/2 as intelligent and rational as prof. Sagan..? What the world might be like, I know I'm dreaming but it would be possible to change the direction of our future with good people like him at the helm..
"No time for questions, then?" I actually got a little upset when I heard him ask that... Just think about how much we could have learnt from a short Q&A... The beauty is that you don't know what he will be asked, nor how his great wisdom would have been stimulated.
I think Dr Sagan would have hoped his presentation would have been so comprehensive as to negate any need for further discussion on the subject. at hand. In reality this great man must have spent the greater part of his life answering questions on myriad topics, when in truth "To Ask Questions" was his reason for being. My sincere regards.
I think he would have liked the plan but not the guy nor the execution, Carl Sagan was greatly humanist, Elon Musk however, is an opportunistic billionaire who doesn't hesitate to exploit his employees or countries he uses for mining resources
He almost certainly wouldn't support what Elon is doing, especially the part about "For services provided on Mars, or in transit to Mars via Starship, or other colonisation spacecraft, the parties recognize Mars as a free planet that no Earth-based government has authority or sovereignty over Martian activities". That alone would almost certainly worry him... and should concern everyone else. Carl explicitly stated that he believes that if there's already life on Mars, then he wouldn't want to colonize it. We still don't know whether there is life there or not (we haven't done nearly enough research), but considering how much we've learned since then, it looks promising.
I love Carl Sagan and wish he could be around forever. R.I.P. Interesting side note: they kept calling out for "next slide", even getting frustrated at points when the slide person was either dozing off or simply not paying attention lol... however, my point is... this was October 2, 1991, and clearly these are brilliant people with amazing scientific knowledge of the workings of the world. Why didn't they have a remote control for their presentation? I mean, they can remotely control and communicate with a satellite millions of miles away, but they can't manipulate slides on a computer a few feet away? Really?
he bought us a domino's pizza in 1990, and it's taken me this long to enjoy his presence such as this. we've all come a long way in such a short time i love you carl
great lecture, wish Mr Sagan was still around contributing, maybe life on earth is endogenous, all of the elements where made on this cinder we call earth, that was once a probably a White Dwarf.
When Dr. Sagan was beginning to speak of an esteemed Japanese science leader, a scientist, who was studying comets and pronounced his name, well, it sounded to me like it MUST have been something he made up on the spot. Is it just me? Watch I can do it too....."Doctor Irakazi wacamole" Here's another ""Irakawoki Izahkawa" It's really fun when you're high. Yeah, I know.....I've got too much time on my hands.
@@Nomineification It's amazing Nicole, just how everything he warns against is basically here today. MSM being controlled by the super rich, so deciding what we see and hear. Technology not being understood by the masses, and will be used to control us all very soon. Though he wasn't religious he radiated more humanity and spirit than any church leader. Thank you for replying and i can see why you love him so much. Take care😊
1:21:45 "And I think, in the next century, some of you will certainly be around in 2065, so check it out." I'll check it out if I happened to be around. Rest in peace!
Seems that Carl Sagan's lecture here is about what connections there are between astronomical processes and life. He doesn't get into the point about supernova making the elements that make up the Earth and hence life on it.
Carl Sagan was more of a scientific humanist. Being a scientific humanist is precious; few scientists or not are scientific humanist. But, as perhaps you detect, even he leaves a little bit to be desired. The most important chapters of his Cosmos are 3 and 7. And these are heavily dependent on Arthur Koestler's Sleepwalkers. But, he did rescue Democritus and put him back in the story that Koester actually misses in his episode 7 about the Greeks awakening.
I drive a Toyota Aygo with 68hp and I love it 😂. I'm into hypermiling though and just managed to get my first tank over 80mpg. 81.1mpg going 591 miles on 33.11L
So basically the compounds that are needed by living organisms are everywhere in the universe as we see it. That would imply that the universe was made to suit living organisms. An accident or by design?
It's only a Goldielocks scenario if this is the only universe that has ever been. I believe in the cyclic universe theory where there has been endless iterations before it and coming after it, with random fluctuations at the Big Bang, possibly with some kind of feedback loop from previous iterations. It seems this universe is fine tuned for life, and perhaps it's just random but it isn't random to us as this universe happens to be the one we live in. The point is, with eons gone before it, perhaps there has been endless iterations of the universe where life didn't evolve? Perhaps every iteration becomes more and more fine tuned?
