@Skandalos The situation is that you prepare for the worst and hope for the best. If the worst never happens, well, then fine and dandy. But if it does happen, then you're not left looking and feeling like a total dingaling. And, unfortunately very bad things DO happen every now and then.
Nobody ever brings up the POSITIVE aspect of an extinction level event.... no more Justin Beiber. Sure we lose the majority of non single-cellular life, but technically it's a wash, am I right?
@starstarstar42 He's just a damned overrated singer! He's not bad enough to destroy other species for! If you hate him so much, shoot him yourself. Jeez...
@panzerfausto Ditto. Except without the "??!!!", just a ?. Now again: What is so bad about Bieber to kill off all life on Earth? I dislike the guy myself. But he is just deadpan. Not a great singer, not exactly painful to hear. The point is, quit loving him and quit hating him. Just IGNORE HIM!!!
I think this theory holds a lot of truth. Hydrogen Sulfide is indeed a grave danger. Thinking of the ocean currents slowing due to ice melts of the northern ice cap, a stratification and deoxygenation of parts of the ocean may very well occur. I do not see the "Gaia Theory" threatened by it though - it did never state, that the conditions are always ideal, just that they always return to a favourable state - and that they did.
For the next global extinsion the source of massive CO2 and H2S in the water will be republicans and corporations. They are the modern day microbe virus.
Ward is right that for an earth-like planet to form that is suitable for life to exist is relatively rare. But when you consider that there are ~100 billion stars in a single galaxy, and ~500 billion galaxies in the observable universe, and many of those stars probably have planets, it because a certainty, almost a necessity, that a huge number of planets contain life, and many of them probably contain intelligent life. The issue is how near they are to us. I don't think they're that near to us.
well, if you are considering all the planets within the entire universe, then the probability would be very high. But the chances of life forming within a realistically traversable distance, then probably not so probable, but certainly not impossible.
I disagree. Let us say I threw a coin into the air and watched it land. Most of the time it would fall on either heads, or tails. On exceptionally rare occasions, it may fall on its side. Now all the conditions that most come together for a planet to have life, heat, ability to block radiation from its heat source, a stable magnetic core, etc are at such odds that even were I to flip that coin a billion times or more, it is not likely to do something so unlikely as to equal such conditions.
Even on Earth where everything came together just right, in the 1120 billion years since the universe is suspected to have been created life has only existed within a small portion of that. I don't think that by increasing the coin flips through numbers alone you increase the odds of it doing something so extreme as much as one would believe. We know there are many suns in space, but we know little about if they even have any planets. Life in space is interesting, but by no means certain.
The 13.7 has not been proven, radiactive dating estimates it at 11-20. My small portion fact is true, even if we knew it to be 4 billion for certain, that is less then a fourth of 13.7. I don't think you can make a scientific aurgument with "probably" or "likely". Any planets we have found have no life, which only supports my thoughts.
Nothing in science is technically "proven" by definition. However it has been verified to be factual that the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old. You clearly don't know what you're talking about, because radiometric dating is not used to age the universe.
"Any planets we have found have no life"
We've only discovered a little over 400 and they're all gas giants because gas giants are the only ones big enough for us to detect at the moment.
"The most precise estimate of the Universe's age is 13.73±0.12 billion years old, based on observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Independent estimates (based on measurements such as radioactive dating) agree, although they are less precise, ranging from 1120 billion years to 1315 billion years."
......I'd prefer to use the more precise estimates.
"Life in space is interesting, but by no means certain."
Well it's certain that life exists somewhere in space: here! But of course nobody is "certain" that there is life elsewhere in the universe. However, when you look at the probabilities it would be absolutely laughable to claim that there is no life elsewhere. And it would be unimaginably anthropocentric to suppose that we are the only intelligent life in the universe.
I don't think that's a good analogy. I think it's not as difficult for life to form on a planet in the Goldilocks Zone as you seem to think it is. For example, most terrestrial planets are thought to have magnetic or at least slightly magnetic cores which would help to block solar wind. Also, solar radiation doesn't easily penetrate the deep-ocean, which is where it is thought life started on earth. Once life begins to exist it can evolve around the solar radiation: extremophiles.
I think it is a great analogy, because it is purely a numbers game that most people use to defend the possibility of other planets harboring life. People WANT to believe it, and will do whatever they can to convince themselves. We have no evidence of life on other planets, and many we know don't. I cant tell myself if I put my hand in a container of blue balls, because there are so many, some must be red.
that's an even worse analogy because it is highly unlikely that all of the planets in the universe are "blue balls", while the Earth is the only "red ball" out of all of them. Are you seriously implying that you don't think there is any life on any planet other than Earth in the universe? Despite that fact that we know there are about 200 billion stars in the average galaxy, and about 200 billion galaxies in the known universe? Even if we assumed 1 planet per trillion stars that's 40 trillion.
Again you are only using the "there are lots" to prove they contain something we have no evidence of. May life exist outside Earth? Yes. Do we have any proof of that? NO. If you believe in something without evidence that is the same as believing in God. Is vertias not latin for "Truth" my dear scientia? Not "theory" nor "faith". If I was to surmise life exists without proof, why should I stop there? Science is defined as the state of knowing, not believing.
when did I ever say that I "believe" that there is life on other planets? Please pull up the quote. I don't think I did. What I said was that, statistically speaking, it would be unimaginably anthropocentric and arrogant to suppose that the only life in the entire universe exists here on earth.
"If I was to surmise life exists without proof, why should I stop there?"
There is nothing wrong with acknowledging something which is extremely statistically probable.
Come on now scientia, are you honestly telling me you don't believe life exists out there? I think it is pretty obvious you do. There is nothing arrogant about basing ones thoughts purely on facts alone. Let's be straight with one another. There is no way either of us can know life exists beyond Earth. We may as well debate the existence of a afterlife. The only point anyone should be defending is mine, that we don't know enough to say either way.
We know enough about the nature of the universe to say with high confidence that it is highly probable that life exists on other planets. We have a good understanding of the basic mechanisms behind abiogenesis, and we know that water is one of the most common molecule in the universe (if not THE most common), and we understand the process of planet formation through accretion discs well enough to know that it's not that difficult or improbable.
If it's 50 light years away, then we'll need to wait 100 years for a reply. Though, I'm sure it was just a slip up. Speaking to large audiences is very nerve racking!
In the time of the formation of Religions a Gods days where 1000 years whereas a humans day was 24 hours. Plus the bible is heavily metaphorical openly and mysteriously, so zeroing in on religion by associating it with American churches is a grand fallacy.
First off Venus is too close to the sun (for us) to live on even if the atmosphere was right.
Secondly, life originated on our planet at a time when the temperature and atmospheric conditions would be currently considered "uninhabitable to life".
we wernt their, we wont be their, (unless 2012 is true) were here let's enjoy life.
look around, guess how we got here and where were going and live that is science and life. . . laugh love enjoy hate pain joy reproduce body's get to old. go to heaven or hell or blackness. and just be the fucking matter we are for the rest of exsistance. wich is somewhat 1 100th of an 100th of an 100th of a 10th of 1 percent of what is actually is... and it's scary.... and big. big as helllll.
No kidding, eh? No plankton in the water. Why's that? O! "Asteroid, of course."! Dude's got great mind & is very interesting & funny... but is so mistaken.
Eternal life, mass extinsions, how happiness can be maximized,... This all seems to me like the most controversial instead of the greatest ideas were selected for some of the 'talks'. Exceptions noted of course.
Because I think life is the most stable reaction to the environment at its origin, I think it is more stable than Ward suggests. It's stability is why life is more stable than virtually anything else except some zircon. Since the origin,the atmosphere has changed completely, the land because of plate tectonics has completely changed, and the water has been sterilized many times over through underground vents. Life alone is the most stable reaction to the environment.
Attaboy! Them Yunated Nayshuns don know nothin'.All them faggots runnin' round gettin' married an' evr'thin', the wurld is jus' gettin' closer to hell.Yep, thas' why its gettin' awful hot.Ain't no glowbell warmin' nor nothin'.That ther Yoonayted Nashens jus' scarin' up ev'rbody lahk a two-legged coyote in a hen house.This here constitooshun's enuff to fix evr'thin'. Its like duck tape y'all.Ya gots yer freedumbs, yer guns an' yer chitlins. Ain't nobady gon take thems away, ah c'n tell you that.
Nope, but I can definitely say "you have very shallow reasoning otherwise you wouldn't be paranoid about the United Nations."
The funny thing about the United Nations is that half the right-wing nuts think it is impotent while the other half are afraid it is out to rape their freedom and confiscate their guns.
That apparent contradiction might seem funny to you, but it doesnt lead to any insight.
The United Nations is dangerous to the extend that it has influence. It reminds me of a Cheif Wiggum quote "I said that the law was powerless to help you, not punish you".
If the United Nations is successful in its current ambitions, then we are all in trouble.
The United Nations can be impotent and incapable of saving the world, and yet it can also support the end of freedom as we know it.
Even so called "global warming deniers" acknowledge that global mean temperatures have been on the increase over the past 40 years (particularly in the arctic). The controversy is really over the significance of this, on the future climate and on what role anthropogenic carbon will play in such a complex system.
A political organization that wears its bias on its sleave such as the IPCC, should not be given the default status of an authority.
My understanding of human nature may be shallow, but your understanding of human nature is non-existent. So, you keep flailing at shadows like the UN & never understand where the real danger comes from.
You and other like you will not be able to solve any problem if you keep charging at the UN like a modern Don Quixote at the wind-mill.
You say that my understanding of human nature is "non existent", and to support this hyperbole you recruit more speculation about my inner perceptions and motivations.
Corporations are not the "real" danger, and really corporations are a red herring.
The UN is dangerous for its propaganda and its influence, and it is a giant festering failure with respect to human rights.
The UN's propaganda is really the propaganda of the major powers, which in turn, march to the tune of global corporations. The UN has no independent will or power (military, police) of its own. It cannot generate propaganda that the governments of major countries do not approve of.
Pause and think for a moment: who controls the UN and who in turn control those people? Frankly, the fears of the UN make no more sense than alien conspiracy theories & secret UFO bases.
Ideas, Ideologies, and identity groups have interests of thier own, over and above the individuals that support them.
If large numbers of voters are influenced by UN propaganda, then governments have no choice to.
It is never about control, (that is not how the world works) it is always about influence. Bad ideas are malicious memes and organizations that spread them should be stigmatized severely.
PLEASE CHECK OUT MY UTUBE CHANNEL,(BAMBOOTHEWALK)UTUBE IM WALKING ACROSS AMERICA HELPING THE HOMELESS for every life lost in 911 2001 and our soldiers lost, lets change some ones life im calling all millionaires/billionaires/all celebs/HUMAN BEINGS to walk a mile with me and in that mile help some one so for every life lost is a life gained ARMAND YOUNG(BAMBOOTHEWALK)UTUBE OR MAN WALKS AGROSS AMERICA GOD BLESS R TROOPS IM CALLING ALL ANGELS
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
i wonder, do any of these aspergers-suffering wannabe scientists ever consider dropping their desperate attempts to be obnoxious, socially outcast knowitalls by smoking some good herb and shutting the fuck up? :)
rather youngpleb, demented comment! but this guy is really an obnoxious speaker, its a mix of overly didactic head teacher and misanthropic preacher, occupational disease, know many biologist who are like this
b/c if someone perchance believes that both science and religion are components of a much greater picture, the scientist scream "religious nut" and the religious nut screams "atheistic scientist". Newsflash retards, there is truth in BOTH. There is absolution in NONE. BOTH have been perverted in some way, thats humans for ya, perverting wisdom & knowledge but sadly if people can't break out of the black and white polar opposites box, they'll never understand and forever bicker amongst each other
sourceforgeX: When you say you believe in 'Theistic Evolution' do you mean genetic engineering(intelligent design) by aliens superimposed upon the products of pre-existing evolutionary processes? I'm evil too. It's fun to enrage people by arguing on the internet.
For all you know the aliens raped a pack of chimpanzees and we are the bastard offspring.
I mean really? Way to think deep.
As for science and reason being the all high and mighty please explain "reason" behind (Nerve, Asphyxiant / Blood, Vesicant/Blister, Choking/Pulmonary, Lachrymatory agent, Incapacitating, Cytotoxic proteins) and the almighty nuclear bomb. We are destined to extinct ourselves and the planet. That's reality.
"b/c if someone perchance believes that both science and religion are components of a much greater picture, the scientist scream "religious nut""
It's because religion is the antithesis of reasoning. Religion functions by guessing a philosophy and mythology up, and it may never be revised or dismissed as we learn more because it's "holy." This in no way complements science, which is designed to be resistant against corruption.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
if you notice i never say jesus or anything like that. i said creator. pay attention. ok scientists say we come from monkeys. this is not funn but i always say this. when white people first saw a black man they thought we were a animal or monkey. so when a scientists wanna say we come from monkeys still today is stupid. do you know how they carbon dating? it doesnt actually make sense.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
you cant proove there is no GOD how about that. i can proove there is a devil look around and see whats going on in the world. there are to forces in this world. one is good one is evil. scientist so crazy they dont believe this. its fundamental.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
humans created GOD? what a retard. yeah humans worship all kind of gods but there is only one creator. exactly my point, this is what a scientists would say, who created GOD. until there is proof for a scientists then they teach there is no reason to believe in the creator. thats a scientist for you. why are you asking me who created GOD.
The problem with "rare earth" is that he doesn't seem to realize that this is a universe of large numbers. Additionally, people don't seem to realize exactly how much stuff there is out there. At the moment, SETI could continue to process for 100 years and not scan everything in its detectable range. The fact that it hasn't come up with anything yet only means that either intelligent life isn't obscenely common or they found something better than radio.
Mankind doesn't need to bother with thinkng about the fate of of the earth in millions or billions of years.
Bottom line.. In just a conservative estimate of just a few hundred years (300 to 400 years), over-population of humans will eliminate our race from the planet.
The ants, birds, roaches, fish and worms that were here before us, will still be here.
In the final analysis, mankind will be akin to a cancer that kills its host; and thus kills itself
Forget the conservative estimate, and pay attention to what is going on in the Middle East. I think Israel is getting a bit too close to Iran. Will this trigger a World War 3 of nuclear arms?
Honestly, 300 to 400 years could be too far of an estimate. We're already over-populated, there are 6 billion+ of our species.
But overall, I think it depends on how society governs itself in order to make peace with others. But it is not doing that at the moment because of our own ignorance.
time out time out. his intro hollywood in a sentence with creationist. the he talking bought aliens. riiiiight. inhabit another planet. like people who believe in these things really believe movies tv a little to much. i really dont know whats wrong with you people. i hope when you whatch movies you can tell that half of most movies are not reall because its in 1080p hd. mass extinction. life still exists dont it. and what are we doing destroying what little is left.
Hydrogen Sulfide could be used as a time machine. Put yourself in a 'pod' w/ H2S, set your cellular atomic clock for 100 yrs from now and you're Back to the Future.
i dont remember mentioning carbon dioxide in my comment. in the clip he mentioned global warming though. i dont disagree with him, i just really wanted to make that point.
global warming is a natural cycle that the world experiences regularly over geological time. we are just speeding up the process. we have 50 - 100 years to make a monumental difference, if we dont it WILL be to late. we are destroying the earth, we have virus like behavior.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
i have been thinking this for years and im gonna say it.
we are created and you dont need proof. because humans love to create.
scientists believe in aliens not a God
scientists believe in what you can see with proof rather than what you dont see.
think about it scientist are smart but how much is theory.
like my professor said if you were walking saw a watch on the floor and you never saw a watch. would you think all the parts randomly fell into place or did someone make it?
The watch cannot be related to the existence of life or even simply; the earth. The watch is a man-made object so obviously, someone would have created it. The earth/life is completely natural. Scientists don't know how it started exactly but they have theories. These theories are supported by factual evidence- regardless of whether or not their true. Creationism or even intelligent design has a lot of loop wholes and doesn't allow room for correction or experimentation. Mindless, much?
So who created "god" then? Apply your same retarded logic to your own dumb hypothesis and bingo, your back to square one. Humans created God. Todays theology is nothing more than tomorrows mythology.
Global climate change is caused by the wobble of the Earth's axis over a 26,000 year cycle. Plato called it the Precession of the Equinoxes. Why don't they tell us the truth?
Faith appears to be understood by creationists, but is to be misunderstood to evolutionists.
Science appears to be understood by evolutionists, but appears to be misunderstood by creationists.
Constantly, our minds work against this paradox of contradicting our beliefs on both sides. But what happens if both sides came together? Will is result in a confusion or an enlightenment?
There already has been a collision of science and religion (in a way). It's called intelligent design. The belief that evolution does happen but not at a large scale change (I.E, dinosaurs to birds, or apes to humans) and there is an intelligent "agent" that influences all of life. Evolutionists still deny this theory though.
In my honest opinion, if there ever was a "god", it would simply be nature. Nature is incredibly strong and can be misleading. - my opinion at least.
Yes, thanks for informing me on that. I just wanted to leave my comment for everyone else to think and discover their own truth by their beliefs. But I agree nature is a force and it can be misleading and also cooperative - if we us humans decide to treat it right. Also I like to believe that there is also a revolving force or forces in the cosmos that make every galaxy in the universe, but yet the that original source is yet to be discovered.
DONT STOP OR ELSE SOMETHING BAD WILL HAPPEN MY NAME IS JENNY I AM 7 WITH RED HAIR MY MOTHER BEATS ME I LIVE IN A CELL WITH NO WINDOWS DOORS AND NO LIGHT I HAVE RED SCARY EYES AND IHAVE NO NOSE OR EARS I AM DEAD IF YOU DONT SEND THIS TO 15PPL B4 U GO TO BED I WILL APPEAR 2NIGHT WITH A KNIFE AND KILL U THIS IS NO JOKE SOMETHING GOOD WILL HAPPEN TO U AT 10:22 SOMEONE WILL CALL YOU OR TALK TO YOU ONLINE AND SAY I LOVE YOU OR ASK YOU OUT BUT HERES THE CATCH Send To 15 vids
No you retard it has nothing to do with the kkk omg, just come out of the closet and say you hate people that are a different color.
(Quote 99knight)
Cause you suck and the human race is blind and stubborn and don't care about greenhouse gas from carbon dioxide produced greatly every year, so just and enjoy life and die or hope you will live and turn into a mutant >: D
What makes this more complicated is the discovery that we live in a multidimensional universe. This knowledge is thanks to physicists especially quantum physicists. Humans will be leaving for 4th density soon, at least some will and the rest will go elsewhere.
"What makes this more complicated is the discovery that we live in a multidimensional universe. This knowledge is thanks to physicists especially quantum physicists."
I would say hold that thought. We don't KNOW that we live in a multiverse, neither have we discovered it. It is a possibility due to a hypothetical mathematical construct. The "orthodox" view in quantum mechanics is actually the Copenhagen interpretation, NOT the "many worlds" which is what you're referring to.
If Quantum Physics and science opened up to the *possibilities* of other states of existence other than physical, we would achieve many things. But Science today really is no different from religion, they each have their views and they stick to them arrogantly without thinking about the possibilities.
"But Science today really is no different from religion,"
If you wish to publicly announce that you're ignorant, be my guest, just don't be surprised when you get mocked.
Science is based upon forming explanations in agreement with evidence. It works through a meticulous methodology that abstains from guesswork and emotion.
Religion is about making guesses and never letting go of them. It forms a story based upon folklore, and must never admit being wrong, calling this exercise "faith."
"sure, both science and religion are the same as they remove intuition and understanding from learning. It's all rote. "
A school's means of education is unrelated to the scientific method. Religion doesn't tend to concern itself with learning, especially when the facts contradict its dogma.
In other words your statement doesn't agree with the facts.
Science is nothing but learning that stems from intuition and ideas. It ultimately leads to understanding. Religion on the other hand is nothing more than dogmatic mythology based on wafer thin hear say. The bible for instance was written hundred or so years after the so called Jesus was said to exist. It is nothing more than tomorrows mythology.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
There is more than enough Evidence that "Jesus" did indeed exist. Also the bible quotes science that many people lost their lives for in those days. Such As, The earth is a sphere and Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth. Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously. "Pangaea" is another example. Lucky Guess??
Talk about bull shit! The bible states the earth is flat first off, not that its round. Secondly, their is no evidence at all that Jesus existed other than the bible and some "clutching at straws" half assed hypothesis. The Romans where known to be meticulous record keepers and yet their is absolutely no mention of Jesus or of any of the miracles performed, or the crucifictian etc.. Not to mention the many blatant errors and falacies in the bible. If it where any other book it would be discarded
exactly my point, it states the earth is a circle, not a sphere. Their is a huge difference in that one is flat, and the other isn't! Do you not know the difference between basic shapes?
Yes Science does lead to understanding, hence why we now understand about chemistry, biology, physics, evolution, etc..
Funny how you reject science when it suits. No doubt when you need medical attention you'll accept it, oh, and aren't you using a product of science to communicate? Why are you not a muslim?
you can't simply interchange one word for another to suit your argument. Their is a fundamental diference between a circle and a sphere in that one is 3d and the other is a flat shape. Further, the point i was making regarding why are you not a muslim is merely pointing out the absurdity of your conviction. You believe whole heartedly in one religion despite their being literally thousands of others to choose from. You only believe what you do due to pure chance and nothing else.
the 'scientific approach' is brutally limited. it's like religion, it's always terminated on a leap of faith, whether that faith is trusting in what you see. for example, you cannot prove that you understand something to someone who is unwilling to accept the faith that you truly understand it.
The trouble with the scientific method when applied to ourselves is that there is no way to have a "control" group. Another way to look at it is we cannot step back and watch what happens to ourselves. God is the only one who has the experience of observing us for long enough to tell us what we are really about.
thats a good one jedi. i agree with you there. what i was saying is that the scientific method only observes that which is repeatable through method as all that exists. that's simply absurd. the community also denounces faith, then what are theses? theories? abstracts? but a step of faith
> thats a good one jedi. i agree with you there. what i was saying is that the scientific method only observes that which is repeatable through method as all that exists. that's simply absurd. the community also denounces faith, then what are theses? theories? abstracts? but a step of faith
This is all wrong. There were no dinosaurs, and the earth is 6,000 years old.
scottohscott 3 months ago
H2S sounds like it could be a gateway to hyper-sleep
microland 1 year ago
This whiney scare mongering drives me off. Catastrophism *always* kills science and turns it into religion.
Skandalos 1 year ago
@Skandalos The situation is that you prepare for the worst and hope for the best. If the worst never happens, well, then fine and dandy. But if it does happen, then you're not left looking and feeling like a total dingaling. And, unfortunately very bad things DO happen every now and then.
electronfun 1 year ago
@Skandalos Very persuasive argument. I'll be reading your journal article on PLoS One next I suppose. What name do you publish under?
jeffgarofalo 4 months ago
Nobody ever brings up the POSITIVE aspect of an extinction level event.... no more Justin Beiber. Sure we lose the majority of non single-cellular life, but technically it's a wash, am I right?
starstarstar42 1 year ago 3
@starstarstar42 He's just a damned overrated singer! He's not bad enough to destroy other species for! If you hate him so much, shoot him yourself. Jeez...
vgman94 1 year ago
@vgman94 what??!!!
panzerfausto 1 year ago
@panzerfausto Ditto. Except without the "??!!!", just a ?. Now again: What is so bad about Bieber to kill off all life on Earth? I dislike the guy myself. But he is just deadpan. Not a great singer, not exactly painful to hear. The point is, quit loving him and quit hating him. Just IGNORE HIM!!!
vgman94 1 year ago
I think this theory holds a lot of truth. Hydrogen Sulfide is indeed a grave danger. Thinking of the ocean currents slowing due to ice melts of the northern ice cap, a stratification and deoxygenation of parts of the ocean may very well occur. I do not see the "Gaia Theory" threatened by it though - it did never state, that the conditions are always ideal, just that they always return to a favourable state - and that they did.
auroraglacialis 1 year ago
So the answer is clear -- we must become microbes :)
BeondaPale 1 year ago
For the next global extinsion the source of massive CO2 and H2S in the water will be republicans and corporations. They are the modern day microbe virus.
DrQuijano 1 year ago
Comment removed
DeathNeedsTime 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This ain't science its fantasy.
DAILEYericCaryUSA 2 years ago
Ward is right that for an earth-like planet to form that is suitable for life to exist is relatively rare. But when you consider that there are ~100 billion stars in a single galaxy, and ~500 billion galaxies in the observable universe, and many of those stars probably have planets, it because a certainty, almost a necessity, that a huge number of planets contain life, and many of them probably contain intelligent life. The issue is how near they are to us. I don't think they're that near to us.
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 2 years ago
The other variable is time: How likly is it that even two planets develope intelligent life during the same time
RazielKain 2 years ago
well, if you are considering all the planets within the entire universe, then the probability would be very high. But the chances of life forming within a realistically traversable distance, then probably not so probable, but certainly not impossible.
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 2 years ago
Asuming all intelligent life forms develope somewhat like humans I think they "kill themselves" long before they achieve intersolar travel
RazielKain 2 years ago
I disagree. Let us say I threw a coin into the air and watched it land. Most of the time it would fall on either heads, or tails. On exceptionally rare occasions, it may fall on its side. Now all the conditions that most come together for a planet to have life, heat, ability to block radiation from its heat source, a stable magnetic core, etc are at such odds that even were I to flip that coin a billion times or more, it is not likely to do something so unlikely as to equal such conditions.
robotpanda77 2 years ago
Even on Earth where everything came together just right, in the 1120 billion years since the universe is suspected to have been created life has only existed within a small portion of that. I don't think that by increasing the coin flips through numbers alone you increase the odds of it doing something so extreme as much as one would believe. We know there are many suns in space, but we know little about if they even have any planets. Life in space is interesting, but by no means certain.
robotpanda77 2 years ago
"in the 1120 billion years since the universe is suspected to have been created"
I think you mean 13.7 billion years
"life has only existed within a small portion of that."
Life on earth began almost 4 billion years ago. However it probably started earlier elsewhere in the universe.
"but we know little about if they even have any planets"
It's likely that many stars have orbiting planets. Perhaps most of them. We've already found hundreds and we've only been looking a few years.
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 2 years ago
The 13.7 has not been proven, radiactive dating estimates it at 11-20. My small portion fact is true, even if we knew it to be 4 billion for certain, that is less then a fourth of 13.7. I don't think you can make a scientific aurgument with "probably" or "likely". Any planets we have found have no life, which only supports my thoughts.
robotpanda77 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The 13.7 has not been proven"
Nothing in science is technically "proven" by definition. However it has been verified to be factual that the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old. You clearly don't know what you're talking about, because radiometric dating is not used to age the universe.
"Any planets we have found have no life"
We've only discovered a little over 400 and they're all gas giants because gas giants are the only ones big enough for us to detect at the moment.
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 2 years ago
I can't post the link for it here, but look up "universe" in wikipedia, it has a sourced article on radioactive dating for the age of the universe.
robotpanda77 2 years ago
It states:
"The most precise estimate of the Universe's age is 13.73±0.12 billion years old, based on observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Independent estimates (based on measurements such as radioactive dating) agree, although they are less precise, ranging from 1120 billion years to 1315 billion years."
......I'd prefer to use the more precise estimates.
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Life in space is interesting, but by no means certain."
Well it's certain that life exists somewhere in space: here! But of course nobody is "certain" that there is life elsewhere in the universe. However, when you look at the probabilities it would be absolutely laughable to claim that there is no life elsewhere. And it would be unimaginably anthropocentric to suppose that we are the only intelligent life in the universe.
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 2 years ago
I don't think that's a good analogy. I think it's not as difficult for life to form on a planet in the Goldilocks Zone as you seem to think it is. For example, most terrestrial planets are thought to have magnetic or at least slightly magnetic cores which would help to block solar wind. Also, solar radiation doesn't easily penetrate the deep-ocean, which is where it is thought life started on earth. Once life begins to exist it can evolve around the solar radiation: extremophiles.
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 2 years ago
I think it is a great analogy, because it is purely a numbers game that most people use to defend the possibility of other planets harboring life. People WANT to believe it, and will do whatever they can to convince themselves. We have no evidence of life on other planets, and many we know don't. I cant tell myself if I put my hand in a container of blue balls, because there are so many, some must be red.
robotpanda77 2 years ago
that's an even worse analogy because it is highly unlikely that all of the planets in the universe are "blue balls", while the Earth is the only "red ball" out of all of them. Are you seriously implying that you don't think there is any life on any planet other than Earth in the universe? Despite that fact that we know there are about 200 billion stars in the average galaxy, and about 200 billion galaxies in the known universe? Even if we assumed 1 planet per trillion stars that's 40 trillion.
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 2 years ago
Comment removed
robotpanda77 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Again you are only using the "there are lots" to prove they contain something we have no evidence of. May life exist outside Earth? Yes. Do we have any proof of that? NO. If you believe in something without evidence that is the same as believing in God. Is vertias not latin for "Truth" my dear scientia? Not "theory" nor "faith". If I was to surmise life exists without proof, why should I stop there? Science is defined as the state of knowing, not believing.
robotpanda77 2 years ago
when did I ever say that I "believe" that there is life on other planets? Please pull up the quote. I don't think I did. What I said was that, statistically speaking, it would be unimaginably anthropocentric and arrogant to suppose that the only life in the entire universe exists here on earth.
"If I was to surmise life exists without proof, why should I stop there?"
There is nothing wrong with acknowledging something which is extremely statistically probable.
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 2 years ago
Come on now scientia, are you honestly telling me you don't believe life exists out there? I think it is pretty obvious you do. There is nothing arrogant about basing ones thoughts purely on facts alone. Let's be straight with one another. There is no way either of us can know life exists beyond Earth. We may as well debate the existence of a afterlife. The only point anyone should be defending is mine, that we don't know enough to say either way.
robotpanda77 2 years ago
We know enough about the nature of the universe to say with high confidence that it is highly probable that life exists on other planets. We have a good understanding of the basic mechanisms behind abiogenesis, and we know that water is one of the most common molecule in the universe (if not THE most common), and we understand the process of planet formation through accretion discs well enough to know that it's not that difficult or improbable.
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 2 years ago
If it's 50 light years away, then we'll need to wait 100 years for a reply. Though, I'm sure it was just a slip up. Speaking to large audiences is very nerve racking!
quidproquo2004 2 years ago
In the time of the formation of Religions a Gods days where 1000 years whereas a humans day was 24 hours. Plus the bible is heavily metaphorical openly and mysteriously, so zeroing in on religion by associating it with American churches is a grand fallacy.
javonoUTube 2 years ago
i ninja'd his wifes pot roast
nncon 2 years ago
Thirdly, there isn't enough fossil fuel to burn it for three more centuries.
Keeban3 2 years ago
First off Venus is too close to the sun (for us) to live on even if the atmosphere was right.
Secondly, life originated on our planet at a time when the temperature and atmospheric conditions would be currently considered "uninhabitable to life".
Keeban3 2 years ago
we wernt their, we wont be their, (unless 2012 is true) were here let's enjoy life.
look around, guess how we got here and where were going and live that is science and life. . . laugh love enjoy hate pain joy reproduce body's get to old. go to heaven or hell or blackness. and just be the fucking matter we are for the rest of exsistance. wich is somewhat 1 100th of an 100th of an 100th of a 10th of 1 percent of what is actually is... and it's scary.... and big. big as helllll.
A toast to.
niggatime1 2 years ago
No kidding, eh? No plankton in the water. Why's that? O! "Asteroid, of course."! Dude's got great mind & is very interesting & funny... but is so mistaken.
XanderPetrov 2 years ago
Eternal life, mass extinsions, how happiness can be maximized,... This all seems to me like the most controversial instead of the greatest ideas were selected for some of the 'talks'. Exceptions noted of course.
melopne 2 years ago
Woah, that's interesting.
sentstuff05 2 years ago
Wow, i want a Rolex; and a space ship to
get off this planet before it is hit again... ;)
thevoiceofreason02 2 years ago
hah "blessing and curse." BAM!!
cohenmkarnell 2 years ago
Because I think life is the most stable reaction to the environment at its origin, I think it is more stable than Ward suggests. It's stability is why life is more stable than virtually anything else except some zircon. Since the origin,the atmosphere has changed completely, the land because of plate tectonics has completely changed, and the water has been sterilized many times over through underground vents. Life alone is the most stable reaction to the environment.
TomHendricksMusea 2 years ago
Microbial life has an ancient history of robustness, but Ward's point is that complex life is a more delicate affair.
I like bacteria as much as the next fellow, but personally I'm more fond of monkeys and toucans.
rainydayforest 2 years ago 13
This has been flagged as spam show
Fishy
the second he begins to talk about the kyoto quota, he begins to seem like a preacher...
So refreshing to hear more UN nonsense ideology and paranoia.
you would think that the UN was a god or something
interesting talk though.
St37One 3 years ago
Yeah, right.
Silly hoping that the Nations of the Earth could Unite to save the damn place, when you alone could do it, right?
SpeakerForrTheDead 2 years ago
What are we being saved from exacty?
Do you really think that the UN holds the keys to salvation?
Ya, I was really proposing myself as an alternative savior, that was my whole point.
Why not try serious instead of frivolous?
St37One 2 years ago
If you want rules and ideals that make sense for humanity, then look to the magna carta, and the US constitution.
If you want 1984, then look to the UN's vision for humanity.
It is really that simple.
St37One 2 years ago
Attaboy! Them Yunated Nayshuns don know nothin'.All them faggots runnin' round gettin' married an' evr'thin', the wurld is jus' gettin' closer to hell.Yep, thas' why its gettin' awful hot.Ain't no glowbell warmin' nor nothin'.That ther Yoonayted Nashens jus' scarin' up ev'rbody lahk a two-legged coyote in a hen house.This here constitooshun's enuff to fix evr'thin'. Its like duck tape y'all.Ya gots yer freedumbs, yer guns an' yer chitlins. Ain't nobady gon take thems away, ah c'n tell you that.
drav1dan 2 years ago
can you say shallow?
St37One 2 years ago
Nope, but I can definitely say "you have very shallow reasoning otherwise you wouldn't be paranoid about the United Nations."
The funny thing about the United Nations is that half the right-wing nuts think it is impotent while the other half are afraid it is out to rape their freedom and confiscate their guns.
drav1dan 2 years ago
That apparent contradiction might seem funny to you, but it doesnt lead to any insight.
The United Nations is dangerous to the extend that it has influence. It reminds me of a Cheif Wiggum quote "I said that the law was powerless to help you, not punish you".
If the United Nations is successful in its current ambitions, then we are all in trouble.
The United Nations can be impotent and incapable of saving the world, and yet it can also support the end of freedom as we know it.
St37One 2 years ago
BTW
Even so called "global warming deniers" acknowledge that global mean temperatures have been on the increase over the past 40 years (particularly in the arctic). The controversy is really over the significance of this, on the future climate and on what role anthropogenic carbon will play in such a complex system.
A political organization that wears its bias on its sleave such as the IPCC, should not be given the default status of an authority.
St37One 2 years ago
You obviously have a very shallow understanding of human nature, and the nature of corruption/abuse.
The idea is not to solve all problems, only the most important ones. The cure can be worse than the disease.
St37One 2 years ago
My understanding of human nature may be shallow, but your understanding of human nature is non-existent. So, you keep flailing at shadows like the UN & never understand where the real danger comes from.
You and other like you will not be able to solve any problem if you keep charging at the UN like a modern Don Quixote at the wind-mill.
drav1dan 2 years ago
You say that my understanding of human nature is "non existent", and to support this hyperbole you recruit more speculation about my inner perceptions and motivations.
Corporations are not the "real" danger, and really corporations are a red herring.
The UN is dangerous for its propaganda and its influence, and it is a giant festering failure with respect to human rights.
St37One 2 years ago
The UN's propaganda is really the propaganda of the major powers, which in turn, march to the tune of global corporations. The UN has no independent will or power (military, police) of its own. It cannot generate propaganda that the governments of major countries do not approve of.
Pause and think for a moment: who controls the UN and who in turn control those people? Frankly, the fears of the UN make no more sense than alien conspiracy theories & secret UFO bases.
drav1dan 2 years ago
I dont believe that the UN controls the world.
I dont believe that anyone does.
Ideas, Ideologies, and identity groups have interests of thier own, over and above the individuals that support them.
If large numbers of voters are influenced by UN propaganda, then governments have no choice to.
It is never about control, (that is not how the world works) it is always about influence. Bad ideas are malicious memes and organizations that spread them should be stigmatized severely.
St37One 2 years ago
Absolutely brilliant! The part about discovering the helium-3 inside naturally-made carbon-60 was amazing!
SaidZarathustra 3 years ago
The watches are made of hydrogen sulfide and dinosaur bones.
halfasemitone 3 years ago
Wow, I want a Rolex now. So when I die from a sudden meteor impact, I can at least die happy with my watch.
SVisionary 3 years ago 11
Man, I'm gonna go buy a rolex.
cjunk351 3 years ago
i wonder how many ppl watched the rolex part
sasrutolee 3 years ago
His complete topic change from Mass exctinctions to medicine is kinda confusing
Gnometower 3 years ago
Now is this telling me the scientist are actively looking for a plan to survive the warmng outcome.
donnie2164 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Gaia?
Is the shark biten Peter Ward make him forget god? If a person think his a god then can he lifted all of the star of the univerese?
Sonyoooo3 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
boring.....
Omegax9000 3 years ago
reminds me of a Nykytyne2 quote: 'I need to stop wasting my time arguing with people who aren't interested in reality'.
TheCakeAintNoLie 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PLEASE CHECK OUT MY UTUBE CHANNEL,(BAMBOOTHEWALK)UTUBE IM WALKING ACROSS AMERICA HELPING THE HOMELESS for every life lost in 911 2001 and our soldiers lost, lets change some ones life im calling all millionaires/billionaires/all celebs/HUMAN BEINGS to walk a mile with me and in that mile help some one so for every life lost is a life gained ARMAND YOUNG(BAMBOOTHEWALK)UTUBE OR MAN WALKS AGROSS AMERICA GOD BLESS R TROOPS IM CALLING ALL ANGELS
BAMBOOTHEWALK 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So basically he's saying there was mass extinction caused by a flood?
JMar1082 3 years ago
no...what he was talking about is Flood Bassalts which is when massice amounts of CO2 is released in the atmosphere
mtripp04 3 years ago
Does anybody know if the graphs/charts or powerpoint is online anywhere?
funkalunatic 3 years ago
I've read his book, and this guy is brilliant.
dannukesem 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i wonder, do any of these aspergers-suffering wannabe scientists ever consider dropping their desperate attempts to be obnoxious, socially outcast knowitalls by smoking some good herb and shutting the fuck up? :)
youngbleeb 3 years ago
RUDE! VERY VERY RUDE AND IGNORANT!
.
.
.
I love it!
sourceforgeX 3 years ago
rather youngpleb, demented comment! but this guy is really an obnoxious speaker, its a mix of overly didactic head teacher and misanthropic preacher, occupational disease, know many biologist who are like this
random0815 3 years ago
if i was a dinosaur, i would probably be an autodidactyl :)
youngbleeb 3 years ago 2
:) or maybe a puntosaurus
random0815 3 years ago
b/c if someone perchance believes that both science and religion are components of a much greater picture, the scientist scream "religious nut" and the religious nut screams "atheistic scientist". Newsflash retards, there is truth in BOTH. There is absolution in NONE. BOTH have been perverted in some way, thats humans for ya, perverting wisdom & knowledge but sadly if people can't break out of the black and white polar opposites box, they'll never understand and forever bicker amongst each other
veltpak6 3 years ago
Comment removed
sourceforgeX 3 years ago
sourceforgeX: When you say you believe in 'Theistic Evolution' do you mean genetic engineering(intelligent design) by aliens superimposed upon the products of pre-existing evolutionary processes? I'm evil too. It's fun to enrage people by arguing on the internet.
redletterchurch 3 years ago
No No No,
For all you know the aliens raped a pack of chimpanzees and we are the bastard offspring.
I mean really? Way to think deep.
As for science and reason being the all high and mighty please explain "reason" behind (Nerve, Asphyxiant / Blood, Vesicant/Blister, Choking/Pulmonary, Lachrymatory agent, Incapacitating, Cytotoxic proteins) and the almighty nuclear bomb. We are destined to extinct ourselves and the planet. That's reality.
sourceforgeX 3 years ago
"b/c if someone perchance believes that both science and religion are components of a much greater picture, the scientist scream "religious nut""
It's because religion is the antithesis of reasoning. Religion functions by guessing a philosophy and mythology up, and it may never be revised or dismissed as we learn more because it's "holy." This in no way complements science, which is designed to be resistant against corruption.
I think you mean "philosophy."
kDest 3 years ago
this entire argument between "science followers" and "religious people" is such a simple, preschool understanding of the nature of life.
veltpak6 3 years ago
wow at 10:04 !!!!!!!!
hayeder 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
if you notice i never say jesus or anything like that. i said creator. pay attention. ok scientists say we come from monkeys. this is not funn but i always say this. when white people first saw a black man they thought we were a animal or monkey. so when a scientists wanna say we come from monkeys still today is stupid. do you know how they carbon dating? it doesnt actually make sense.
KingRasDasta 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you cant proove there is no GOD how about that. i can proove there is a devil look around and see whats going on in the world. there are to forces in this world. one is good one is evil. scientist so crazy they dont believe this. its fundamental.
KingRasDasta 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
humans created GOD? what a retard. yeah humans worship all kind of gods but there is only one creator. exactly my point, this is what a scientists would say, who created GOD. until there is proof for a scientists then they teach there is no reason to believe in the creator. thats a scientist for you. why are you asking me who created GOD.
KingRasDasta 3 years ago
Are we all forgeting Orpahs retirement?
Once her last show is over and done, it'll be the end of all mankind..........*cue dramatic music*
thesunisone 3 years ago
> Once her last show is over and done, it'll be the end of all mankind..........*cue dramatic music*
Only if she picks up singing.
sy1234 3 years ago
The problem with "rare earth" is that he doesn't seem to realize that this is a universe of large numbers. Additionally, people don't seem to realize exactly how much stuff there is out there. At the moment, SETI could continue to process for 100 years and not scan everything in its detectable range. The fact that it hasn't come up with anything yet only means that either intelligent life isn't obscenely common or they found something better than radio.
generaleskimo 3 years ago 2
Mankind doesn't need to bother with thinkng about the fate of of the earth in millions or billions of years.
Bottom line.. In just a conservative estimate of just a few hundred years (300 to 400 years), over-population of humans will eliminate our race from the planet.
The ants, birds, roaches, fish and worms that were here before us, will still be here.
In the final analysis, mankind will be akin to a cancer that kills its host; and thus kills itself
Enjoy it while it lasts
LiptonGuy 3 years ago
Forget the conservative estimate, and pay attention to what is going on in the Middle East. I think Israel is getting a bit too close to Iran. Will this trigger a World War 3 of nuclear arms?
Honestly, 300 to 400 years could be too far of an estimate. We're already over-populated, there are 6 billion+ of our species.
But overall, I think it depends on how society governs itself in order to make peace with others. But it is not doing that at the moment because of our own ignorance.
Gonji 3 years ago
open a dictionary and learn how to spell.
ThatsJustAwsome 3 years ago
this guy for all this information what is the bottom line. what is the point. bs.
KingRasDasta 3 years ago
> this guy for all this information what is the bottom line. what is the point. bs.
Did you actually watch it?
sy1234 3 years ago
time out time out. his intro hollywood in a sentence with creationist. the he talking bought aliens. riiiiight. inhabit another planet. like people who believe in these things really believe movies tv a little to much. i really dont know whats wrong with you people. i hope when you whatch movies you can tell that half of most movies are not reall because its in 1080p hd. mass extinction. life still exists dont it. and what are we doing destroying what little is left.
KingRasDasta 3 years ago
Comment removed
KingRasDasta 3 years ago
Comment removed
KingRasDasta 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hold ur breath
1.go to different video
2.leave this comment
3. if u do all without breathing, ur a good kissser
x0xChattynCutex0x 3 years ago
Hydrogen Sulfide could be used as a time machine. Put yourself in a 'pod' w/ H2S, set your cellular atomic clock for 100 yrs from now and you're Back to the Future.
mykulc 3 years ago
i dont remember mentioning carbon dioxide in my comment. in the clip he mentioned global warming though. i dont disagree with him, i just really wanted to make that point.
ciarrai14 3 years ago
global warming is a natural cycle that the world experiences regularly over geological time. we are just speeding up the process. we have 50 - 100 years to make a monumental difference, if we dont it WILL be to late. we are destroying the earth, we have virus like behavior.
ciarrai14 3 years ago
Maybe, but carbon dioxide has nothing to do with it.
PostToastie 3 years ago
god doesnt exsist retards
xineo15 3 years ago
thats like saying you predate your parents, douchebag
veltpak6 3 years ago
Prove he doesn't :D
xtrashed 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i have been thinking this for years and im gonna say it.
we are created and you dont need proof. because humans love to create.
scientists believe in aliens not a God
scientists believe in what you can see with proof rather than what you dont see.
think about it scientist are smart but how much is theory.
like my professor said if you were walking saw a watch on the floor and you never saw a watch. would you think all the parts randomly fell into place or did someone make it?
KingRasDasta 3 years ago
The watch cannot be related to the existence of life or even simply; the earth. The watch is a man-made object so obviously, someone would have created it. The earth/life is completely natural. Scientists don't know how it started exactly but they have theories. These theories are supported by factual evidence- regardless of whether or not their true. Creationism or even intelligent design has a lot of loop wholes and doesn't allow room for correction or experimentation. Mindless, much?
tumadros 3 years ago 3
So who created "god" then? Apply your same retarded logic to your own dumb hypothesis and bingo, your back to square one. Humans created God. Todays theology is nothing more than tomorrows mythology.
chilledandy 3 years ago
layers of carefully assembled bullshit
okturus 3 years ago
Global climate change is caused by the wobble of the Earth's axis over a 26,000 year cycle. Plato called it the Precession of the Equinoxes. Why don't they tell us the truth?
AcePilot101 3 years ago
My Philosophy on "God" - this may be off topic)
Faith appears to be understood by creationists, but is to be misunderstood to evolutionists.
Science appears to be understood by evolutionists, but appears to be misunderstood by creationists.
Constantly, our minds work against this paradox of contradicting our beliefs on both sides. But what happens if both sides came together? Will is result in a confusion or an enlightenment?
Gonji 3 years ago
Good thought Gonji.
Perhaps it's reasonable to conclude that the truth lies in neither polarity. Surely there is a creative force that is self evolving.
Spiritual people call the creation "God" or the original source.
Scientists call creation or God "the big bang"
veltpak6 3 years ago
There already has been a collision of science and religion (in a way). It's called intelligent design. The belief that evolution does happen but not at a large scale change (I.E, dinosaurs to birds, or apes to humans) and there is an intelligent "agent" that influences all of life. Evolutionists still deny this theory though.
In my honest opinion, if there ever was a "god", it would simply be nature. Nature is incredibly strong and can be misleading. - my opinion at least.
tumadros 3 years ago 4
Yes, thanks for informing me on that. I just wanted to leave my comment for everyone else to think and discover their own truth by their beliefs. But I agree nature is a force and it can be misleading and also cooperative - if we us humans decide to treat it right. Also I like to believe that there is also a revolving force or forces in the cosmos that make every galaxy in the universe, but yet the that original source is yet to be discovered.
Gonji 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>gay>
Hockey4l1ve 3 years ago
global warming is a issue but they are making it seem worst then it really is
iamMcLovin117 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DONT STOP OR ELSE SOMETHING BAD WILL HAPPEN MY NAME IS JENNY I AM 7 WITH RED HAIR MY MOTHER BEATS ME I LIVE IN A CELL WITH NO WINDOWS DOORS AND NO LIGHT I HAVE RED SCARY EYES AND IHAVE NO NOSE OR EARS I AM DEAD IF YOU DONT SEND THIS TO 15PPL B4 U GO TO BED I WILL APPEAR 2NIGHT WITH A KNIFE AND KILL U THIS IS NO JOKE SOMETHING GOOD WILL HAPPEN TO U AT 10:22 SOMEONE WILL CALL YOU OR TALK TO YOU ONLINE AND SAY I LOVE YOU OR ASK YOU OUT BUT HERES THE CATCH Send To 15 vids
anashatk 3 years ago
i belive the aliens wont find us but we will find the aliens... and as the human race there will probably bee a war.
wowimatard 3 years ago
1)if there is aliens
2)if they are there probly more high tech and kill us all if there is a war
homophobic1011 3 years ago
y would they kill us?
99knight 3 years ago
if were different they may kill us. (thats how some pepole go that way like the KKK )
Tylee1O 3 years ago
(Quote Tylee1O)
No you retard it has nothing to do with the kkk omg, just come out of the closet and say you hate people that are a different color.
(Quote 99knight)
Cause you suck and the human race is blind and stubborn and don't care about greenhouse gas from carbon dioxide produced greatly every year, so just and enjoy life and die or hope you will live and turn into a mutant >: D
dcvestige99 3 years ago
1) yes
2) if they were hostile we would already be dead.
smartfit 3 years ago
Interesting... Using hydrogen sulfide, as a medicine.
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 3 years ago 3
LOL, he almost dresses up live Steve Jobs, but Jobs wears the cheapy jeans
ibrahim1088 3 years ago
fuck thise shit god Rulz
thomas705 3 years ago
You make religious people look stupid.
Tjuga 3 years ago 3
I want a rolex :D
zeoliveira22 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I found a hot place, you guys should try it ___Wealthy beauty co m_____a great place for rich people to meet their soul mates....
cougardating 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
*dont read this* if u send this to five videos u will be kissed tomarow and if u dont u will die and it actully works so do it it works
sasygirl0711 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
bitches don't know bout my dick
ScrillaVilla1 3 years ago
He'd need to lose several pounds to get THAT look...
omgwtflolbbqkthxbye 3 years ago
We trash Mother Nature at our peril.
We can prove what will happen if we fail to heed the warnings.
This is one more time we have been told to change.
PlayT0E 3 years ago 3
People don't want to believe this because of religious reasons. People will die because they are idiots.
krayzgerman 3 years ago 3
LOL, global warming mythers. Fanatical anit-science zealots are the only ones who actually believe global warming is real.
Cryengine 3 years ago
It is science that gives us the warnings. Deny reality at your peril, and the peril of your lifestyle and the world.
We all depend on Oxygen to breathe far more than the few depend on gas-guzzling SUV's.
You cannot fool Mother Nature.
PlayT0E 3 years ago
You think global warming is a myth?
DaRkSlAyEr1458 3 years ago
Very interesting arguement made here , maybe we will hear more about this theory in the years to come .
slLLyhumans 3 years ago
What makes this more complicated is the discovery that we live in a multidimensional universe. This knowledge is thanks to physicists especially quantum physicists. Humans will be leaving for 4th density soon, at least some will and the rest will go elsewhere.
rollsthepaul 3 years ago
"What makes this more complicated is the discovery that we live in a multidimensional universe. This knowledge is thanks to physicists especially quantum physicists."
I would say hold that thought. We don't KNOW that we live in a multiverse, neither have we discovered it. It is a possibility due to a hypothetical mathematical construct. The "orthodox" view in quantum mechanics is actually the Copenhagen interpretation, NOT the "many worlds" which is what you're referring to.
kDest 3 years ago
If Quantum Physics and science opened up to the *possibilities* of other states of existence other than physical, we would achieve many things. But Science today really is no different from religion, they each have their views and they stick to them arrogantly without thinking about the possibilities.
xtremetrooper123 3 years ago
.... *facepalm*
LeavepoorHorriAlone 3 years ago 2
Great reply.
xtremetrooper123 3 years ago 2
Heard of the string theory or anything else like that? Maybe Relativity?
LeavepoorHorriAlone 3 years ago
"But Science today really is no different from religion,"
If you wish to publicly announce that you're ignorant, be my guest, just don't be surprised when you get mocked.
Science is based upon forming explanations in agreement with evidence. It works through a meticulous methodology that abstains from guesswork and emotion.
Religion is about making guesses and never letting go of them. It forms a story based upon folklore, and must never admit being wrong, calling this exercise "faith."
kDest 3 years ago 6
sure, both science and religion are the same as they remove intuition and understanding from learning. It's all rote.
veltpak6 3 years ago
"sure, both science and religion are the same as they remove intuition and understanding from learning. It's all rote. "
A school's means of education is unrelated to the scientific method. Religion doesn't tend to concern itself with learning, especially when the facts contradict its dogma.
In other words your statement doesn't agree with the facts.
kDest 3 years ago
> sure, both science and religion are the same as they remove intuition and understanding from learning. It's all rote.
You have no fucking clue.
sy1234 3 years ago
Science is nothing but learning that stems from intuition and ideas. It ultimately leads to understanding. Religion on the other hand is nothing more than dogmatic mythology based on wafer thin hear say. The bible for instance was written hundred or so years after the so called Jesus was said to exist. It is nothing more than tomorrows mythology.
chilledandy 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There is more than enough Evidence that "Jesus" did indeed exist. Also the bible quotes science that many people lost their lives for in those days. Such As, The earth is a sphere and Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth. Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously. "Pangaea" is another example. Lucky Guess??
sourceforgeX 3 years ago
Talk about bull shit! The bible states the earth is flat first off, not that its round. Secondly, their is no evidence at all that Jesus existed other than the bible and some "clutching at straws" half assed hypothesis. The Romans where known to be meticulous record keepers and yet their is absolutely no mention of Jesus or of any of the miracles performed, or the crucifictian etc.. Not to mention the many blatant errors and falacies in the bible. If it where any other book it would be discarded
chilledandy 3 years ago
Comment removed
sourceforgeX 3 years ago
exactly my point, it states the earth is a circle, not a sphere. Their is a huge difference in that one is flat, and the other isn't! Do you not know the difference between basic shapes?
Yes Science does lead to understanding, hence why we now understand about chemistry, biology, physics, evolution, etc..
Funny how you reject science when it suits. No doubt when you need medical attention you'll accept it, oh, and aren't you using a product of science to communicate? Why are you not a muslim?
chilledandy 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Both Christianity and Muslim belief rely on one fact, (The existence of "Jesus"). Interpretation of literature is not always the same.
How exactly does the "Circle", "Sphere" equate to flat. Flat could be an infnite number of shapes.
And once again, Day and night at the same time?? Unheard of ! Crucify the moron!
"Pangaea" anyone? The lands split??? Crucify the moron again!!
Don't get me wrong. I love Science. But we are equivalent to ants understanding Quantum Physics in truth.
sourceforgeX 3 years ago
you can't simply interchange one word for another to suit your argument. Their is a fundamental diference between a circle and a sphere in that one is 3d and the other is a flat shape. Further, the point i was making regarding why are you not a muslim is merely pointing out the absurdity of your conviction. You believe whole heartedly in one religion despite their being literally thousands of others to choose from. You only believe what you do due to pure chance and nothing else.
chilledandy 3 years ago 3
Most of us follow blindly in whatever religion our parents believed without bothering to question it.
Jedi2Bones 3 years ago 3
Absolutely spot on!
Gonji 3 years ago
the 'scientific approach' is brutally limited. it's like religion, it's always terminated on a leap of faith, whether that faith is trusting in what you see. for example, you cannot prove that you understand something to someone who is unwilling to accept the faith that you truly understand it.
veltpak6 3 years ago
The trouble with the scientific method when applied to ourselves is that there is no way to have a "control" group. Another way to look at it is we cannot step back and watch what happens to ourselves. God is the only one who has the experience of observing us for long enough to tell us what we are really about.
Jedi2Bones 3 years ago
thats a good one jedi. i agree with you there. what i was saying is that the scientific method only observes that which is repeatable through method as all that exists. that's simply absurd. the community also denounces faith, then what are theses? theories? abstracts? but a step of faith
veltpak6 3 years ago
> thats a good one jedi. i agree with you there. what i was saying is that the scientific method only observes that which is repeatable through method as all that exists. that's simply absurd. the community also denounces faith, then what are theses? theories? abstracts? but a step of faith
Go to school. Learn something.