Most science teachers try to be rigorous and accurate. Neil doesn't have to deal with these constraints. So it's a lot easier to make his material entertaining.
I always tell people, that we are proof that life can spring up anywhere in the universe, under the right conditions. With a trillion galaxies, and who knows how many stars (unfathomable), and then including the number of planets to go with those stars, life DOES exist elsewhere. "Life" does not have to be exactly what it is here on Earth. Life will evolve according to the conditions of it's host planet, just as it did here. And, we're still discovering new and beguiling species.
@@MrReggieLew I think so too, maybe there is a planet where the inhabitants breathe in carbon dioxide instead of oxygen, and drink liquid methane instead of water haha
@@muzeyiyelyen6596 You do realize that even on this planet, there are sea creatures who live around the extreme conditions of thermal vents at the bottom of the ocean. These extremophiles are adapted to a toxic way of existence, even here on planet earth. Fascinating stuff.
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
YOu're right - not a gland... - more than one kind of Shock and they Are Varied.. bloodloss is obvious - not mercy but - not a specific hormone either - but - research MERCY is BUILT IN And no DNA way to pass back - working versions versus not - Evolution THEORY is WEAK, not fact.. but the One that is most odd, the spine, nerve severs, can cause SHOCK and organs to fail no attached to that part ... like spinal column trauma below where the heart gets its wires, can still cause organ failure in your spleen... rabbit dies before being consumed by an eagle... fright. Weird... adrenyln.. helps, and kills, hmm mercy Not 100% Idiocy, I'm not 100% Doctor... You din't give me one suggestion - I'm trying, You're just a PRICK - Vulgate for SCOFFER, RIDICULER Quick to insult - void of substance... sniff sniff... RUFF No help offered - USELESS FAKE NEWS SHILL I've helped identify millions and million of stolen Medicare Dollars for the FBI Lola Project, I wrote the HACKER VERSION of the College Football Caoaches POLL so ESPN could get the values before the official Coaches Pole (Sketchy), I saved a NAtional Company from y2K wrote entire system, ruined a marriage, and in 2 more months the reports worked and they used it for 7-12 years depending on location... I'm a CNA, And Partially train NURSE until a CAR ACCIDENT no my fault had my Neuro Surgeon telling me I had to drop medicine because I got a broke SAVE BUTTON and medicine and all... could be dangerous - must take battery of tests again if I want to get back into medical honestly.
"I don't argue things being spiritual vs scientific, because I've never met anyone who knows enough about either to be convincing--including myself." S. Kelley Harrell
Mabey it's not human life, but life in everything. Mabey the miracle, or purpose isnt human life spacifacly, but life in all things is the miracle, or purpose. And it evolved in many forms, shapes, and sizes. All life is the gift. No life is greater or less than another. Christianity specifies human life, maybe my its missing the broader picture.
You also believe that the universe came out of nothing for no reason and a bunch of planets magically rearranged itself and automatically life evolved. Your beliefs are just about as stupid. You don't know shit.I am not even religious haha
Bharat: Oh we get it. So God magically appeared out of nothing and then made other things/planets/galaxies and life out of nothing.......right..... Your argument is beyond childish. And your religious belief has no reason or logic at all.
"we dont believe the universe came from nothing, we say we dont know." Not true at all. Krauss wrote a book and has publicly stated that the Universe comes from nothing . Stephen hawking suggested Universe comes from nothing because of Gravity ( while failing to explain where gravity comes from) . Both of them have been heavily panned by many peers in the scientific community and the theory has little acceptance as of now. There are many atheists who believe in nonsense like Universe coming out of nothing or universe always existing or multiverse all of which has as much credence and credibility as the magical cosmic skydady you militant atheists are obsessed with in your naive interpretation of the non atheism ( which can be agnostics, deists, pantheists, monotheists, multi theists).
Kind of odd that neil didn't mention this, him being an astophysicist. Our moon is quite pecularly big. Maybe its not thaat rare but it definetely contributes to the discussion on what is different about earth. The moon is basically the sole responsible that our hot core is still active, since the moon is constany fulling it energy by making it move, and in turn that gives us a protective magnetic field. And the movement of the moon also fuels oceanic currents, that contribute greatly to having an homogenous temperature in the planet. I don't think this are requirements for life, but maybe they are for complex life.
@@matthewjones60 well yeah, the majority of planets of the solar system have moons, but are really tiny or at least compared to the size of the respective planet. Our moon is gigantic in relativr size. Its really and oddity
@@matthewjones60 we can't even directly image Jupiter size planets around other stars yet. What makes you think we can detect a earth size planet around another star with a moon like ours? We can even directly see the planet let alone any moon circling it.
Thanks for bringing up the effect of the moon on earth core. I didn't that and looked it up. The moon may have played a major role in the emergence of life, by churning chemicals via the tides. It's also critical for advanced life, by helping stabilize the climate. Another interesting thought I picked somewhere else is the idea that we may be blessed to live on a big, but not *too* big rocky planet, as we still have the capability to escape gravity via chemical rockets. With a little more gravity, that becomes impossible, which means a lot of technology and science becomes a lot harder to develop. That also means aliens, if there are any, would probably be coming from similar size planets.
Thanks Diego G you brought up a major point that seems often forgotten. A couple more I can think of... most other solar systems have "Hot Jupiters" in the way. The fact that our Jupiter (and Saturn) got flung back out is quite unusual. We are situated in a "Goldilocks Zone" of our galaxy too.... "surfs up" when you go further in radiation-wise. It's likely to be more hostile in other ways too. Size of the Earth gets a comment here too. I don't know if its worth a mention, but the emergence of eukaryotic cells is considered a major fluke too.
one other factor: how often did live evolve, but then have the conditions on the planet change enough to kill all life? that would be a great experiment, to find out how many planets are dead, but once had life. that might mean our planet is the most stable one, that evolved life, if we are the only one alive now.
It bewilders me how believers in God confine and condemn his intelligence to the parameters and pages within a book. As if all the beauty and phenomenal architectures of the universe was created strictly for the examination of an individuals character to determine if he or she is fit for heaven or condemned to eternal hell.
Okay I should not have scrolled down. This comment section is a powder keg of "atheist" and "religious folk" going at each other. Believing in God doesn't make you stupid the same way that being an atheist doesn't make you smart. We're all humans trying to figure out our place in the universe as a whole and individually.
So ture and a nice way to put it :) Well done. I don't see why religion and science can't co-exist. Science tells us HOW things work but religions tell us WHY. I see nothing wrong with the belief something created the Universe and gave it laws and protocols. It's beyond human comprehension
I agree, which is why I find agnostics more respectable than any absolutes. I personally am I christian with a really twisted belief away from the Bible and all that but I also have some pretty high agnostic values. I recognize that the existence of a god is unlikely, but i do believe it is possible. I actully have my own rather complex theory but i wont share it unless asked. But yeah, extremely religious people i find just as irrationally absolute as athiests
@@arthurhexeberg1533 well tbh science doesnt explain why alot of things work. Science does not explain why the big bang happened, it does not explain why matter and energy exist, it does not explain why speed affects spacetime, it does not explain why time and space Even exist, it does not explain why evolution happened. Science answers how but if there is one thing ive learned while ive been studying physics is never to ask why but to ask how
Arguing against an anthropomorphic God is now old science, yet remains valid for those who still project an anthropomorphic image or being, as with patriarchal religions perhaps especially. If we can agree that the term God does not refer to a being, but to different explanations of the creative power source of existence that defies even the notion of a singularity and that is not located, for example, then we enter into a different discussion. This different discussion asks questions like what is consciousness and what is information itself and where does it originate, among many other perspectives. This is a good science discussion for grade 12 students to recap the basics in all their complexities preparing students to enter the next subsequent levels of the discussion and debate.
One very large problem is that a lot of people oppose religion and the Bible because no one reads the Bible to know what it really says, not even most of the religious leaders. So when they claim the Bible says that the universe was created in 7 days that certainly does sound ridiculous because it is overwhelmingly evident that the universe has existed billions of years. However, the Bible says only: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." No time period is given, but that leaves open the truth that the universe existed billions of years. After the universe was created, Genesis 1:2 describes the condition of the earth as being a dark, uninhabitable wasteland. God himself told Job described about the dark masses of cosmic dust that enveloped the earth at this time, and this explains why the surface of the earth was dark. Then it was in six creative Epochs, or "days," each one evidently lasting thousands of years, that God began preparing the earth for habitation. First, he called for light, which means God must have begun to gradually break up those dense, dark cloud layers until light from the sun began penetrating through to the "surface of the watery deep." (Genesis is written from the perspective of an observer on the earth.) Evidently the cosmic clouds continued breaking up until the sources of the light could be seen by the end of the 4th "day." Now none of this is unscientific. The Biblr is no science book, and Moses, a shepherd living 3,500 years ago could not possibly understand what he was inspired by the Creator of all things to write, neither is it imaginable that anyone in his day (see how I used that word day and you knew that I wasn't talking about a 24-hour period?) could make up what's written in the first chapter of Genesis, but the whole thing agrees with science. Ask ANYBODY in Moses' day about the beginning of it all and he likely will tell you about struggles between gods that resulted in there being a ground, the earth, and people upon it without even a single thought that the universe beyond the earth also had a beginning. Cooled the earth and created atmosphere (called "firmament" or "expanse" in other translations. There was water placed above the atmosphere, the same "heavenly waters" that fell down to the earth in Noah's day and is still here today as a large source of fresh water. The oceans and skies began teaming with life over the course of many years, the 5th Day. And on the 6th Day land animals were created, also Adam and Eve. Adam was formed by the clay in the ground. All earthly life is made up of the elements of the earth except for one thing that cannot be found in all the universe, the life principle. You can have all the ingredients, but as one law of science points out, nothing living can come from something nonliving. You absolutely cannot put all the ingredients together and produce something living. No matter how you look at it, argue it, make wishes, experiment, you will always fall back to the inescapable conclusion that someone put life on this planet. That part cannot be argued. Now it is actually unscientific to think the universe and the amazingly beautiful machinery of it could possibly have come into existence without a powerful Designer and Engineer to create it and the physical laws that govern it with such precision. It has never been observed even once that structure just showed up fromnowhere. Even a simple mousetrap has a designer, and everyone in the science community would consider a person who says the mousetrap fell into place on it's own to be ignorant. But let's say this universe really did accomplish the impossible and just show up on it's own. There would still have to be someone to implant the life principle into even the smallest organism for it to live. All life forms are more than the sum of its physical ingredients.
When I scientist tells you something he shows you why it's true, and if you don't believe he he ask you to go out and Show that you get a different result and if you can prove that you have a better way he will congratulate you can change what he tells people. When a preacher tells you something he says you need to Believe him and if you disagree he says that you should go pray on it, if you pray and get a different result he will shun you, tray and get the community to shun you and ridicule you for not getting his result.
I think the shunning thing is a bit far fetched, most people I have met just kindly accept that you have a different idea than they do. But you are right, the reason I turned away from the religion that my parents tried to push on me was because no one could give me fact. It was all "you need to have faith and you will know God is there". That is not how the universe works and I knew to ask questions at an early age
You dont need a church to have religion. Churches give you dogma, and dogma is created by man. All you need is the book, and the understanding that the stories are allegory and parables.
I don't see why religion and science can't co-exist. Science tells us HOW things work but religions tell us WHY. I see nothing wrong with the belief something created the Universe and gave it laws and protocols. It's beyond human comprehension
@@cartooningfanart Science has proven that lightning is the electrical discharge caused by the buildup of positive and negative charges in clouds and on the surface of the Earth. Now give me your religious answer to why this happens.
@PLEASENINTENDONT Oh please! Get off your high horse like you're more enlightened that the rest of us with your open minded ness. What is there to be open minded about? Religion has explained absolutely nothing about how nature works.
There was this interstellar cargo ship called Derp x and they needed to dump their trash immediately so they dumped that to our planet. And thats how life got started here on Earth.
God creating the entirety of the universe to only have one planet with people on it seems a silly notion to me. However I'm not aware of any religious text that states there can only be one planet with God's creations on it.
I reckon He created it all...its only us or rather some religions that 'limit' things...think of poor old Galileo and the hard time he got for daring to suggest there were more stars...proven with his telescope
T Rev I think that's Christian thing I'm not sure that they had a real problem with not being at the center of the universe when it was revealed that the Earth rotated around the Sun so I don't think it's scripture I just think it's interpretation
You have to also consider all the false starts when life appeared but was unable to survive. What we are looking for is the one time that life appeared and was able to sustain itself to this point.
Q: Will finding life cause believers to abandon their religion? (Now, is it a question of abandoning religion or the reality of a creator, God?) My Personal Answer as a Christian and a scientific believer: I would not abandon and hope to be more enlightened. I believe in a creator. I also believe that when the universe was created, the big bang explained it pretty well as we interpret it and that God caused it. Humans were created along with other life. We are not alone on this earth (other creations like bacterium, reptiles, mammals, etc.) and would not be surprised if there is more in our vast expansion. Man is narcissistic and believes that when we hear all that was created for us that means that we are supposed to be in the middle, literally. Why can't we be God's creation and still revolves and rotates around a Sun that gives us light and warmth during the day and coolness and rest at night when it's dark. Our bodies need both. Great video.
"Facts" rarely if ever result in people abandoning an ideological worldview which as it happens is not based upon credible evidence in the first place. Accordingly the introduction of evidence which refutes religious dogma = would only trigger evermore tenuous and convoluted rationalizations by theists to continue to cling to their preferred worldview. In short = they make up their reality as they go along so that the sky becomes the limit with only their imaginations limiting what becomes possible. Have a nice day.
What if some alien race has the "true" religion, and if they happen to find us, we'll be culpable to their deity and end up going to alien hell to stew in goobledygorp drippings for eternity with the dark lord ਏਲੀਅਨ ਸ਼ੈਤਾਨ ?
I am christian and i have zero problems believing we're not the only intelligent life form in the universe. also i don't have a problem believing we are aren't the most important. it's funny, they teach us "the last will be the first" but we still want to be first in line, even in the universe, the beloved children of god. i have no problem with that, if a tiny green man appears, i will welcome him as a brother.
Who ended up saying "if god did miracles his hands would be dripping with physics."? That basically says it all, If something magically happened the effects on the laws of physics would still be all around like gun shot residue on a shooter's hand.
LIFE eats LIFE / life needs life to be life so the first life wasnt life it was space time with time came life , we think but do we , to be known in time will we ever, time dosnt care it just happens
I think it would actually be very interesting to find a version of life elsewhere. A couple of possibilities come to mind. 1) the version of life we find is entirely unique to the planet we find it on (this would support abiogenesis hypothesis). 2) the version of life we find is so similar to Earth that it actually looks like we’re related through genetic sequencing. This could mean 2 things...(2.1) we actually are related (So where does the source come from?). (2.2) we’re not related, but life comes about by a specific process that occurred in both places at different times (what is that process? And what were the conditions that allowed it to happen?)
3:16 It's not the presents any of the factors that led to life but all the factors. It's not just the right temperature a (which maybe common or not) or the composition (which may be common or not) or the stability (which may be common or not) but the presence of all three plus all the other variables and luck ...... 1 in how many?????
The fatal flaw in Neil's argument here is in trying to use logic and rationale to predict the behavior of a religious person whose faith was never predicated on factual evidence in the first place.
Religion is simply a vehicle through which people choose to move and expose their metal state. One can have cognitive dissonance and/or Dunning-Kruger and not be religious. Those that have this perceived religious power simply use religion as the vessel for control. For a good man to do evil things does not take religion. That's called the Milgram Experiment and contains no religion, simply an obedience to authority figures.
that's why it's called faith. you have faith in evolution which has no proof. you have faith in a manchild named obama who had no proof of achievement. you think its fact. it's just faith placed in a different thing
God created the universe, that was it. He wrote the laws of the universe, which included the "mechanism" we call evolution, and through that mechanism we were "created".
I don't see why religion and science can't co-exist. Science tells us HOW things work but religions tell us WHY. I see nothing wrong with the belief something created the Universe and gave it laws and protocols. It's beyond human comprehension
One very different thing, from among the planets already known is that their gravity would be ENORMOUSLY greater than we have on Earth. Building blocks or no, we'll probably find those in most planets, but we need to find one in its "habitable zone" with a gravity not much more than our own (But less would be bad, foo), with abundant liquid water, with an orbit that allows for no extremes, and a liquid iron core that gives it adequate protection from cosmic and solar rays that would kill living things. It would have to have an atmosphere, but not necessarily an oxygen/nitrogen one like we have. It would not be able to support life as we know it with a methane/ammonia atmosphere, but time could change that (LOTS of time), because Earth's original atmosphere was NOT the one we have now. There are probably other vital factors if we want to find a planet that is either life-supporting or potentially so. That Kepler 22b would NEVER be habitable for us, because you'd weigh at least 5 times what you do now, and your bones would never be able to support you, even lying down. Planets Earthlike enough to support our kind of life may be rare, but they'd probably number in the millions in our Galaxy alone. It is beyond belief that life exists only here.
Gunj Chowwiwat I highly doubt that reincarnation is real. Perhaps what Buddha saw is evolution . Past live being the countless life he is before he evolved into human
I'm not a believer in God, but it does seem to me that human consciousness seems pretty damn special, as far as we know. This mechanistic universe, filled with Dead matter created something that can consciously examine it's self. Since that's the case, it's not a far leap to imagine a much larger, & more substantial (for lack of a better term) form of conscious being that is more profound, & creative than our wildest dreams could possibly Invision. Is our consciousness more "special" than the entire solar system of rocks, gas, nuclear fusion? It kinda seems that way, but maybe as a human, I'm biased.
I'm sorry to hear that you don't believe in God. my friend God is real an act of love he sent his son Jesus Christ to die on a cross for you to shed his blood for you just so you can be saved I'm going to hell my friend I highly encourage you to repent and give your life to Jesus you'll be so glad that you did
Dolphins have names and language, octupi are just as smart as we are. Id say we arent. We know exactly what causes our emotions, we know what memories are made of, all that jazz. Consciousness is little more than language and foresight.
To be an Atheist you need faith. Faith that nothing magically brings forth everything. Rock magically turns into life. The laws of science magically appeared. Etc
Science (the BBT) does not, nor has it EVER, stated that everything came from nothing. No scientist has ever thought or stated this. At all. Ever. Period. RELIGION states this. You bible-thumping whackos would have us believe that we were all *poofed* into existence by some magical sky wizard that nobody has ever seen or heard before. You get that? Religion says everything came from nothing (which is silly), not science. People like to get that switched around…
@@jasonrogers1576 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man-and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
That's all man-made fictional nonsense. Religion is a mental disorder. Snakes don't talk, men don't live in whales, it’s not OK to own slaves, and women are not 2nd class people. Time to put down Bronze-age myths. That's what makes people fly planes into buildings.
Ever since I was a kid, I fully believed god and evolution didn’t have to be opposing ideology. I don’t believe in god but for those who do, god could very well have orchestrated evolution.
@@aaronre29 That's surprising my whole country is over 95% catholic and they all believe it. Every recent Pope believes it, they even honored Jesuit priests who came up with the big bang. Evolution is taught as fact in Religion class in every school in Ireland. The official position of the Catholic Church is that the Big Bang and Evolution are factual but that God had a guiding hand in it, which is what you seemed to think instinctively.
I wouldn’t say instinctually but it makes a lot more sense than a god creating the entire universe in 7 days and the earth being only a few thousand years old and each species all existed at the same time. If I’m gonna believe in a god, you can bet I’d rather believe in a guided evolutionary path than the alternative. And not even guided. But a predetermined allowance for mutations.
@@aaronre29 What you believe is pretty much what most people in Europe believe and are taught, that genesis in the bible is a metaphor. Young Earth Creationists (7 days) is only a widely held idea in the US and maybe Australia. This all proves the point that your religion largely depends on your environment and most people accept it without question.
I had my doubts but now I'm pretty convinced. What did it was thinking about the extreme past. Assuming the Big Bang Theory is accurate my first two questions are what caused it, and what came before it. And if something came before it how far back can we go? Is the past infinite or does it have a definitive starting point? If there's a definitive starting point how did that whole system come about? A lot of scientists and atheists say that there's a solution for everything, we might just not know it yet. But I think there will always be a question science can't answer. Gonna end with this tho, I don't care if you're an atheist. Please don't insult me by comparing God to Santa or saying he's some magic guy in the sky. Everyone's opinion deserves respect, disagreed with or not
those are deep questions!...but i probably ask the same questions too...unfortunately..the only way to get answers to those questions..is if we die one day wich we will..i dont think we get those answers before that..
Not everyones opinion deserves respect. If there was a person having the opinion it was ok to have slaves, I would not respect it. I can tolerate it. (If he does not start to actually enslave people.) Sure there is an ocean of things science cannot answer. This is the main reason why it exists. It works there. If everything was known, there would be no science. But when faced with Religion, it claims to know the unknown things, and even comes up with rules. ( For 4000 different gods until now.) Seriously I like people. I have no intention to insult anybody. But it is HARD to deal with religion. And sometimes it helps to switch positions: (Not comparing god to Elvis) When faced with religion it feels like somebody is telling me: "Elvis is still alive, he wants you to wear a white Cowboy hat!" And when I ask: "How do you know?" (As I am a curious person) I get: "Can YOU prove Elvis is not still alive?" "We know SO little, that means Elvis is probably alive!" "There is a book saying Elvis is still alive !" "Respect my opinion on Elvis being alive !" I just want to transport my point. While I am pretty sure Elvis is dead, I have no idea why the universe exists. NOBODY has. That´s why I find people suspicious saying they know. Yes, science is just pushing the boundaries, there will be no definitive answer. Good scientists are well aware there is no finish line. But they are running at least. Writing "Finish" on the pavement and sitting there leads nowhere. So, while I tolerate religion, the choice what I respect is my freedom. And I respect the quest for the truth. I have no idea if a god exists. Does not look like it. But I see religion as a problem for mankind. And I like mankind. If it respects my opinion or not.
Roger Gillion Glad you are still asking questions as dogmas lead to stop doing so. 1. Because the big bang (which is an unfortunate name, but easier for people to remember) was no explosion IN space, it is the constant expansion OF space called inflation. Imagine a cake with raisins scattered in it. If you bake it the cake will grow larger and each raisin is moving away from all others. This is exactly what we observe. No matter on which raisin you are. 2. I think you are asking what is the universe expanding into? Because you imagine the universe as a bubble in an endless space. This is not the case. It does not have an edge. To ask what is outside is the same question as asking what lies north of the north pole? It is a nonsense question. The mathematics works, but our brain cannot comprehend, the same way an ant on a ball cannot comprehend there is something else than the surface of the ball. 3. No matter is ejected from a black hole. And only the energy from the big bang exists. It will spread out until no things will be able to happen any more. 4. Time itself is a variable. It has different speeds in different places. It can even stop based on our calculations. We can see it is true, because it works. GPS for Navigation is based on it. 5. It does not matter how crazy something sounds. What counts is data and evidence. You should follow the evidence wherever it may lead. If you want to convince me that a creator exists, all it needs is evidence. Because I can still go the way of accepting it if there was evidence. You cannot go back from it. For you automatically everything isviewed under a filter. Even the search for truth is the search of the creator. Because you start with something that you are convinced of, this will lead to ignoring things that contradict. My only question to you: 1. What convinces you that the business did not create god? That is the question. Or the desire for purpose. Or the fear of death. Or the fact that people create, so they think everything is created. If there was a single truth, why have there been so many different religions?
Roger Gillion DANG! Thank you for your thoughts. It is impossible to find out what you want to say, at least for me, maybe others are more lucky. Could be that you are a genious, but there is a lack of a line of argument. It is a weird mix of statements. To find out if you are a genious I want to take out an exemplary statement of yours. Number 4. Could you please explain to me in simple terms in which way Einstein was totally wrong with his concept of spacetime. And present your equations. And why you did not get a nobel prize as you have a better formulated concept of reality. I mean first Newton, then Einstein and now you. We are really making progress.
Roger Gillion I am glad that you even talk to somebody that thinks like an ant as you stated, I am sorry that the ant looks arrogant. (See, there is more sarcasm!) I try to look at it in a sober way. All the scientists I had the honor to have a conversation with concur that Einstein completely transformed our understanding of reality. There are tons of practical applications from the Atomic Bomb to over cathod ray tubes to GPS, explaining how Electromagnetism and Light behaves. While we expanded on his work, there is hardly anything in sight to "disprove" it. It is a complete scientific theory that does not tumble until now. Surely people try to attack it, it is a good thing. And one day it will make way for something that also implements Quantum effects. "Einstein disproven" is what I see written in the Yellow Press with a question mark at the end to attract viewers. The day has not come. Now I am confronted with a RU-vid Commenter saying "Lmao". Do you see what I mean? Honestly why don´t you go to the next University with your completed theory? I can maybe put you in touch with a Quantum Physicist. (But he is a bit grumpy as last time I put him in touch with a guy from the Internet it turned out this was a crazy person. The equations did not make sense. ...couldnt tell.)
Now see, I'm not a scientist. But, I've been operator and repairman of a lot of different forms of machinery, and some of this great country's great education. I view everything that moves or creates action as a system, and look for interdependencies and connections. This is how I look at cars and all their pieces, how I look at ships, planes, power grids. This is how I look at economics, relationships and ecosystems too. What I see, among the more finely tuned of these systems, is a tendency by the designer (natural selection is often the designer) to create systems that include a feedback mechanism that facilitates change and improvement. Evaluation systems in companies, grading systems in school, hell even the change in cars from OBD 1 to OBD 2. So, I think to myself, what would the ULTIMATE engineer design? Maybe, what he would design isn't a single thing, but rather a conclusion. Maybe, simply designing a thing is of no significance to an engineer of such omnipotence. Maybe at that level, designing a thing would be like us drawing stick figures in the dirt with our fingers... Maybe life, and us, isn't the goal but rather a prerequisite. Maybe the "in his own image" has nothing to do with the physical (if the physical isn't the goal, then it may not be the criteria either), but rather in the image of a self-aware being with an innate moral compass. Maybe, this entire experiment was about the free will to choose, since without a choice, there can't really be a right or wrong. Maybe, all the hydrogen gathering into stars, and then starting fusion to create all the bigger elements, and then gathering together to form planets and solar systems, and eventually the primordial ooze spitting out some sort of bug or worm... Maybe all of that is simply a well designed machine, whose goal is to produce a sentient being with free will, which is the prerequisite for the actual goal. I offer all this, not because I'm sure of the answer, but because this video puts forth a lot of conclusions that are just as poorly supported as those of the uneducated religious. Science is supposed to ask questions, not make snap conclusions. Of all people, an astro-physicist ought to have enough perspective to be skeptical of any conclusions. I don't think any organized religion is "right." But I do find it curious that we humans, all over the planet, have a concept of right and wrong, that seems to be unique to our species. When 2 people of different cultures meet and struggle to communicate, the words have to be learned but the concepts of right and wrong are inherent. Two strangers meet on a train and argue over a seat, they both appeal to a right based on some perspective. They disagree on perspective, but not on whether it is right that one of them has the seat. This singular uniqueness, seems to be, sufficient to approach any conclusion about our "purpose" in life with skepticism. Millions of lives have been lost in wars between people who were sure of their conclusions... Maybe the path forward is with some honest and humble questions instead.
2.30-2.40 "nature managed to do it all by itself" lol. Later he dives into theology. More and more conjecture, when we really dont know. Complexity of life itself is puzzling. Science needs to define how nature has a paradigm of intelligence to be able to construct biology from simple molecules like carbon, hydrogen and oxgen. That would be an interesting investigation. It will have many biases.
Hydrogen combines with oxygen to make water without a god intervening . Carbon combines with oxygen to make CO2 without a god intervening. Hydrogen combines with carbon to make methane without a god intervening. Why is it so hard to think carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen can combine to make life without a god intervening?
@@Fazzel simply stating that is unscientific. Science still needs to investigate this paradigm whether your beliefs subscribes to the likes of investigation or not.
@@Fazzel How do you know they combine without a god intervening, what makes Carbon combine with Oxygen to make CO2, do they follow a code a program or is it magic.
My thinking is perhaps this: God made such a vast and expansive universe for us. We are in the absolute very beginning of mankind. In thousands of years from now our species will be branched out among the cosmos. Who knows how far we will inhabit the universe. It’s just that compared to our distant future selves, we are but infants in space exploration.
If aliens came down tomorrow morning, I feel like millions upon millions of people would most definitely abandon there religions, and even the most faithful would question there god...
No it would just be another obsticle for them to ignore. We already know how old the Earth is and how humans came to exist and religious text is full of contradictions, yet people still believe. There is nothing that will stop religion.
If interpreted observation by a continually evolving sentience can presume through cosmic regression a “Big Bang” beginning, doesn’t the corollary interpreted observation for cosmic progression assume the ultimate evolution of God? If so such sequence of events might well already be a moot point. Is time (as has been suggested) merely a persistent illusion?
I find it odd, where people quote the Bible, the Bible has paragraphs and verses. And people still write run on sentences, with no paragraphs to break up the reading format for easy essay reading. It is ..just...odd ?
As a lover of science. However, my question still would be, how do we know that the "basic ingredients of the universe" is, when we don't have any idea what Dark Matter or Dark Energy is ?!
Sadiq • The elements or building blocks of life are very well known. Dark Matter should actually be called Dark Gravity since our only indication it may exist is the effects of gravity on the largest scales. Theyre 2 separate things. The building blocks of life vs what "Matter" is holding things together on galactic scales
Personally I think there is no conflict between science and religion based on our understanding of Genesis. Orthodox Judaism and Christianity use a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 to infer that the book talks about cosmology and origin of life as direct physical creation of God by His word (speaking). However if you interpreted the first eleven chapters of Genesis as a sort of extended prologue to the Scriptures revealing God’s desire to have a covenantal relationship with man and the restoration from man’s fall to fellowship with Him, then the message in Genesis 1-3 is not about physical cosmology and physical creation of life on planet earth. It is about spiritual restoration of the mortal physical beings and the new creation of God’s people in the spiritual realm, the Kingdom of God.
supposedly, 'god' could not identify another 'god' , and killed that one. so... put an elephants head on that one to give it life. oh, it does sound like 'god'
Instead of debating things we can't know, I've got one for you: The evolution of technology as a case study on the mechanics and dynamic nature of evolutionary patterns. Are there any underlying fundamental principles to the nature of evolutionary and natural selection? If any are identified, that could be useful in understanding the gaps in our knowledge about biological evolution - very mysterious still. The fossil record does not seem to me to be the best place to discover such things. Spread the word...
How can the Catholic church be logically coherent in accepting evolution. Here me out, without Adam, there is no original sin doctrine, and without the original sin doctrine, any child which dies before knowing or making a conscious moral choice could be concidered an innocent slain, by such Christ didn't need to die, any baby born and died or dying in childbirth would answer their blood god's demands for the death of an innocent to cover sins. Making Christ just like Indiana Jones, superfluous, and unnecessary to the outcome of the story.
+McGyver777ATGMAIL Religion (of which the Catholic Church is just a subset ) is NOT 'logically coherent'. Never was, never will be. If it were, it would not be religion, it would be science, and as much as religion likes to pretend to be 'science', IT IS NOT. The 'acceptance of evolution' is just an effort to appear more 'reasonable' to those who are skeptical of religion's claims - in other words, a tactic that was devised to try to bring more people under its influence, and to quell the tendency of its existing followers to question the old teachings.
xaenon so is there not a formal teaching of how to blend the evolution of man and the teaching of original sin doctrine or do they just have The Church living in a state of cognitive dissonance?
Religion is a textbook example of cognitive dissonance. It belongs nowhere NEAR science or education. Religion teaches that what we know ain't really so, and teaching a blend of science and religion only lends credibility to religion, that religion has not earned, and it does so at the expense of science. On the subject of blending ancient beliefs with what we know today: I'm sure you'll agree that teaching phrenology, bloodletting, the use of leeches, and demons causing various ailments alongside modern medical knowledge is a bad, bad idea. I seriously doubt you'd want a 'doctor' who graduated from that medical school to be wielding the scalpel if you ever need surgery. The most 'learned' of ancient scholars believed, AND TAUGHT, that there were only four elements, of which absolutely everything was made - earth, wind, fire, and water. I'm sure that will blend nicely with modern chemistry and molecular theory. And I'm sure the scientists and engineers at NASA could benefit from some flat-earth theory in their education. What could possibly go wrong? I trust I've made my point?
The ingredients in our universe is so smart to design a thing called human and put all the right parts on the right place and make it so perfect that if one chromosome or one ingredient was slightly different then human would've turned into dust. A perfect factory! Who made it? The universe and its ingredients! What?! Some smart people are just stupid.
But it is literal. All of it from Gen 1:1 to maps.... just because you don't believe doesn't mean a thing to God, except you will be judged and sentenced to death...eternally. Let me know how that works out for you.
@@robertg5775 ....gee Robert, you're compassion is underwhelming (PS If you would take the time to gain a working knowledge of Hebrew and Greek you would understand there is no eternal tormenting place)
God's image is not referring to shape, but to intellect and there is nothing that forbades the idea of other creations or even a species of higher intellect than ourselves. The Catholic church views genesis as an allegory after all and it has done this for 2000 years. Early Jewish scholars also viewed genesis allegorically.
The religion, I favor doesn't believe God "Created" but instead "organized". It also believes that there are many more "worlds", numberless, but no definition as to where. It also believes in evolution but not from, for example only, dinosaur to human transformation. It also believes in science and welcomes it and encourages education in all fields, the more the better.
- Which religions is that claim life is only on earth? - Which religions claim that earth is the only purpose of the universe & human is the centre of all? - Suddenly the matters within the universe decided to evolve into something? Go back doing more research Mr Degrasse
Where did god come from? Suddenly randomly appeared? if i would explain it to you you would again find some spot to put your god in like theists always do We didnt know where thunder came from so we said god did it we didnt know where humans come from so we said god made us and then we discovered we evolved we didnt know how the universe exists so we said god made the universe and then we discovered the big bang God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on.
Whoa, dude... You're jumping into God conclusion too quick eh.. nobody ever mentioned God yet. Let's just say the "Originator" for argument sake since the word "God" seems to make some people irritated nowadays and we take a step all the way back to the beginning. The keyword is "Infinite Regress." Everything that exists in the universe has a beginning, and it needs something (Originator) that caused it to happen in the first place. Because if we keep asking who caused the first cause, and so on and so forth all the way back (infinity) without stopping at one point, we would be stuck with "Infinite Regress". Quick example: let's say there's a sniper that is about to hit his target, but he needs permission to pull the trigger from his superior. But his superior needs permission from his superior and his superior's superior needs permission from his superior and go all the way through infinity without having someone on the top of the chain of command and make the decision to pull the trigger. Will the sniping action ever take place if this continues for infinity? Thus, by logical necessity, we need that first-cause (Originator) that caused everything to happen in the universe as the starting point or otherwise we would be stuck in the infinite loop of asking who created who and we wouldn't be here at all.
Pesterin Pearson I jumped to god because you asked *who* made the natural laws. But that's nonsense. If you say everything needs a cause and then say there must be a cause that doesn't need to be caused then you are not following your own logic. But since Einstein and even since Newton and especially now with quantum mechanics we know that not every thing needs a cause
That’s the thing that I always keeps me thinking how can you not see the creation of God if were are the only living thing even though our earth conditions is the same as other planets. We ar the chosen ones who were made of off Gods image. Why is it hard to believe in him when the only way we can prove to scientists is the perfect condition we are put in but still we are the only creation to live on this universe m. Now matter how far we go out it will be empty forever. Earth is our main home so we should take of it.
When they do the football field analogy, Tyson says one end is at the big bang, but the figure they give on the screen is 4.5 billion years ago. Innocuous mistake, but I just wanted to point that out hehe.
white zombie I can’t prove there is NO God but I can prove that the abrahamic god is illogical and contradictory thus wouldn’t exist. The only thing making the abrahamic god sort of up for debate is people’s absurd faith
Science denies God because it can’t explain it. Science trying to understand how God fits into creation is like trying to explain to a toddler, advance physics...
This is the exact same argument you get from people who believe Elvis is alive... Plain and simply imaginary things can't be proven or disproven by science, because science only deals with reality.
Science doesn't deny anything it only proves something. The one that makes the claim is the one that has to use science to prove it real, otherwise it's just nothing. Science doesn't have feelings or cares about human imagination. Science can't prove something to not exist it can only prove what does.Until you have evidence of your claim to be real, science won't support your claim.
He attacks religion, and then when the host offers an interesting explanation, he attacks the host with joking ridicule. Then he pivots back to attacking religion as he defines it, and uses a strange zoo analogy that appeals for a race unity thing. His views and methods are dangerously unscientific.
...he IS the host. The guy he is talking to is his friend Chuck Nice. Zero of the people who replied to you said this and I am disheartened by that. This is likely an excerpt from StarTalk which is Neil's show he does weekly (I think it's weekly). Assume much? That does not seem very scientific of you... yet you throw a stone at this person? I think there's some kind of story in one of those religions about throwing stones... well... to be fair there are likely quite a few but I'm sure my point was made. Chuck Nice offers a counterpoint to move conversation along and play devil's advocate as a way to keep things lively and cover different aspects of a topic. Watch or listen to their show sometime and maybe revisit your opinion. If you believe in science you should be willing to evaluate new information and question your beliefs without fear of being wrong. ALL this said I would admit that often the arguments on this topic are never an exact fit for every participant and we really cant project ourselves into a conversation we weren't present for... all we can do is take the ideas and and compare them courageously against our own. How strong is whatever you believe in? Science tolerates being wrong, does religion?
I really respect the fact that Joe's show is the only place NdGT will allow any woo. Well, not allow it, per se, but he'll take time to refute it, instead of devoting precious time to it.
On the football field example, the video does not match up with what Tyson is saying. He said the start of the universe (Big Bang about 13 billion years ago) not the formation of Earth (about 4.6 billion years ago).
It may be that the argument that life must be common because oxygen and hydrogen and so on are so common runs into trouble when one looks as phosphorus, very essential for all life on earth but not so common out there.
Are these videos actually making any believer doubt their faith? Like/comment if you're a believer that is starting to doubt the creation myth because of this video.
The only thing we know is that we are forced to live our lives until we die. We have to enjoy our time here on this small part of the universe, along every other being, as much as we can, considering that life is cruel. Arguing about god's existence is most likely not leading us anywhere. My guess is that everything happened just randomly, and I am fine with it. I think that something, somewhere should exist. We happen to exist here. Nobody knows how big the universe is or what exists outside of it, if it is not infinite, and we will probably not find out during our lifetime. So, let's have fun as long as we are still alive!
If a humans body mass is made up of 60% water (H20), how can we only be made up of 9.5% hydrogen? Surely we would be made up of 40% hydrogen (60%*0.66)? Please somebody explain!
