3m17s Sorry to correct you, slightly, TF: but you said "finitely" when you meant "nonzero". Zero is finite. You cannot put infinitely many strips of nonzero size (measure) together in a finite space. I know that's what you meant.
The creationists are making the mistake that life existed before the universe. If that were true, then the universe was built around us. But the universe came first. Life fits into the universe. As the universe changes, life has to adapt and evolve or perish.
The point about gravity you made is wrong, while I agree with the rest of what you said. The problem is not life staying alive without gravity, it's about life even forming in the first place, which it probably couldn't.
@NorthCitySider Agreed. Gravity is essential to the formation of stars and planets, both of which are necessary for the beginning of life, and its survival. Other than this, as you said, this video says it all.
If creationism is such a big thorn in your fucking ass why even give your time to make a comment?? There is absolutely nothing to back evolutionists shit either! We're the only creature on earth with a FUSED GENOME that is not evolution folks that is genetic tampering!! I don't give a fuck what you believe in the evidence is in ourselves; we have been modified!!
Well, except of course observed adaptation and speciation, as well as the nested hierarchies of biology, and the matching diverging progressions of traits in palaeontology, the numerous morphological intermediates in the fossil record, numerous atavisms, ERV distribution patterns, human chromosome #2, and so on.
« We're the only creature on earth with a FUSED GENOME »
Fused chromosome, you mean? Nope. Many lifeforms show signs of having undergone chromosomal fusion at one time or another. It's just a thing that occasionally happens, just like chromosomal duplication.
Hydrogen clumps together due to molecular bonds (H2).
However, living without gravity would be extremely improbable, as stable molecules would have no reason to clump together.
Could there be something that we may or may not define as life in the void of space? Yes, but it would be extremely improbable without gravity. The video considers only the micro aspect, and not the macro.
In other words, gravity is essential for life.... as we know it.
Btw, another (and easier) point to debunk the fine-tuning bullshit - life in our universe is dependent on laws of our universe because it was evolving under them. if our universe had different laws, life in it would depend on those laws as much as we depend on the laws we have.
@MidnightSt A better way is we only know the gravitational constant to 5 decimal places. There's no possible way we could say if changed in by one tiny fraction it would effect the universe by a large amount, as we don't know it to a tiny fraction. Not even remotely similar to how precise that retard claims it to be.
Kent Hovind is in jail because he was trying to warn the world that their is a dark agenda out there that aims at destroying the morality of every man woman and child making them into beasts. In fact Darwinism states that we evolved from mere beasts. God says you should hold your head up because you have been given free will by an all powerful all wise and all loving Creator. Jesus answered "Woe to them who worship the Created (Monkeys/Primates) rather then the Creator."
i do beleive that creationism is stupid, however if gravity was 0.01% stronger the sun would burn up way to fast for life to occur, and 0.01% weaker the sun wouldnt be able to burn, life can now exist without gravity however for life to have formed it would have at one stage required the energy from the sun. Now i am only 16 and am saying what i have been taught. if i am wrong please correct me as i HATE being wrong
@hazzapratt i don't know the science, but the argument here is about 'scale'. if anything this occurs regularly throughout the universe. out of all the stars that are created, the chances that the gravitational pull of some or even many of the stars being incorrect, would be quite believable. when looking at a whole universe of stars, however astronomical the probability, there are bound to be instances of life.
@hazzapratt I cannot say it for sure, but I believe you're wrong. Why did your teachers say if gravity was .01% stronger it would burn out so much more quickly? If gravity were stronger, it would just allow for (using our same scale of mass) less massive hydrogen bodies to become 'functioning' stars. If gravity were weaker, the bodies would have to be more massive. The sun however is far from being either a very massive or nonmassive hydrogen body, so it would make little difference.
@5k4k1dhtp not teachers. Scientists. I have a subscription to New scientists and a few months ago the main article was about gravity . i will try and find it and refer you to it. it is quite interesting
@hazzapratt even if you are not wrong, the question is CAN gravity be weaker or stronger?Maybe the strength of the forces are determined by a physical, naturalistic underlying principle (which is now considered more probable than it was before) see the wikipedia article on "fine-tuning argument"
not that i in any way am defending or agreeing with creatonist, but without gravity no stars or planets would form thus higher elements than hydrogen wouldnt be created, and there would also be no light or water for life to evolve in.... i cant imagine any kind of life excisting without gravity
@danoodledooddle I think you missed the point. It's true that gravity and stellar interactions are important to create heavy elements. But he was only talking about molecular interations that could have created life, it's a whole diferent scale, where gravity is not applicable. It's Like compare General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
Though I must say that gravity is necessary to set in motion the processes intrinsic to life, ie: planetary bodies, stars to produce heavy elements, let us bear in mind the guy wasn't arguing that life couldn't exist without gravity but that it needed to be "just right" which is demonstrably false. And also it bothered me that you said zero gravity, everything with mass exerts gravitational pull so even in spacecraft there is still gravity, though small it may be.
did phyists find an omega principle. by which expansion will fix its self to 1 in other words no fine tunning. dr craigs reply 2 this was "theres no imperical evidence 4 expansion" what a hypocrite
@LiberalsUtopian Please tell me you're joking right? Here is an example, there is NO gravity on the Moon, and it's still there. AHHH I GOT YOU NOW. Idiot. Open up a science book once in a while.
I agreed with everything in this video except not needing gravity to have life. If there were no gravity we wouuld all just float into outer space. And No stars would be formed. Gravity is intrinsic to life. However, if gravity were twice as strong we may have evolved to adapt to it. or even if were about at the moon's gravity life would be possible. (1/6 of earth)
If a multiverse exists, the fine tuning argument is finished..Chance alone can easily explain the formation of the Earth since there were so much elements, space, and time interacting in space, being drawn together by gravity. Out of the probably trillions of planets, one suitable for life finally happened to form. This can be applied to our universe if it's one of trillions of other universes with different levels of physical laws, or completely different, inconceivable physical laws.
I think creationists are simply backwards in their thinking. They conclude that because the Earth is such a perfect haven for life to exist, that it was made for that purpose. It's actually just the opposite. The universe wasn't created for us to exist in, we exist because the universe evolved the way it did. We are children of the universe, no less than the trees, and are a reflection of life adapting to it's surroundings, not the other way around..
so one paper proposing that the universe would be unchanged without the weak force is all you need to declare that scientific fact?
Jesus, you sound like a creationist! Your arguments usually rely on far more basic and observable truths, you don't need to pull some paper out of your arse.
Try reading the paper. It has some exceptionally compelling mathematical arguments. Given the accuracy of the models it describes and then alters by omitting the weak force, it would not be the least surprising if science figured out how to eliminate the weak force and nothing happened in the lab.
Not much of a real bashing here, the previous ones are far better. Lee Strobel was a Journalist for much if not most of his career, not exactly "lawyer" bashing material. Actually, considering the bias in the media and their propensity to lie on behalf of it would have been more effective than the lawyer thing.
people are selfish creatures that define themselves as special, and refuse to realise their part in the timeline of spacetime, some are just scared i suppose, not scoring points, just making an observation, i think that's still allowed.....
Thankyou very much for this Thunderbolt...i live in Oregon and about 2 yrs ago a Elementary school closed in this very rural area ....there were many churches then ...but well funded Mega church people bought it ..and turned it into a Christian Fellowship huge church ...a large amount of people that usde to go to the smaller churches now go there and ...yes it is based on Creationism...now people I used to get along with despite my non-belief in Reglion I can barely talk with.They have gone nuts
Strobble (spelling) apparently doesn't know that the current laws of Gravity are not complete, so you can not say that the constant of gravity in a universal equation let's say can not be determined fully yet, if we go by Einstein's Gravity, his gravity does not account for Quantum Mechanical interactions at all.
I disagree with your science completely. based on Steven Hawkings explanation of the weak and strong anthropic principle. if the laws of physics were slightly different, life couldn't be possible.
Actually if the weak force was slightly stronger or weaker, the electrons orbit in an atom would be unstable, and elements as we know them couldn't exist. if the strong force was any weaker by a very small amount, the nucleus in atoms would fall apart and atoms couldn't exist.
The anthropic principle explains this easily. If the laws were any different, we simply wouldn't be here to observe them because we wouldn't exist. The anthropic principle explains everything we see, but lots of people don't like it :)
Life is so flexible and ready to adapt given time. Think he meant wipe out one of those principles and there's no HUMAN life. Because if a huge catastrophe occured and wiped it the human race, life would go on, if the earth was scorched and blackened and the oceans boiled, given enough time, life would emerge once again. We're only afraid of our existence being threatened.
@Svoig Life is possible without gravity, I read an article about scientists' ideas of what such animals would look like and they resembled jellyfish and algae. Of course, you can't go anywhere in the universe without having gravity affect you, so that's kind of a vague impression. Do you mean could life be possible in gas giants or just driftin in space or....?
Now I totally agree with thunderf00t here, but I can't help wondering whether life could have come to be without gravity for the simple reason that it creates stars, which create most of the elements in the universe and provide suitable environments for life on planets.
But I concede that maybe there could have been a kind of life so different from ours that I can't conceive of it, and that this life could have survived without gravity.
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS FOR CREATIONISM-EVOLUTIONISM DEBATE (See Subchapter 10.2.2, Chapter 10, of Part Two.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
balancedway1.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
there is a 1 in 6.4 billion chance that i am here on this sight making a comment. seems the odds are totally against it so it is not happening or should never happen. BUT WAIT! Here i am anyway?
@FranticSelf There was apparantly a 1 in 1 chance that you couldn't spell "in", too. (Don't you just love it when the universe stacks all odds it has left over against you whenever you criticize someone elses typos in written form in order to ensure that you make a typo?)
@FranticSelf Indeed so, indeed so. And you have no idea how common that particular carmatic bitchslap is... Me, I don't get typos especially often, yet, when I remark upon the typos of others I have a roughly 2 out of 3 chance to get a typo myself unless I spellcheck every single word... Keep your eyes peeled for instances where people correct what others have written, and I think you'll find that my estimation of the odds adds up pretty well.
@FranticSelf Dude, at least you stuck around and took your comeuppance. I've been there, I have chronic foot "in" mouth disease. Really funny though, made me smile anyway.
What are the chances of me seeing this reply, of all the videos, with personality and small events that could redirect me, and replying back? Probably 1 in billions.
But without gravity things like air wouldn't have been clustered together, so how could life have been in the first place? sure if everything is already there it could function without certain forces but it could not be created without them.
@StealthNinjaK You are thinking in the narrow terms of the life as we know it now, in these conditions. If the conditions were different at the beginning, life could evolve in a different way too. Organisms could function differently, have different cell structure etc.
@Bibken No, if gravity didn't exist, life would not form at all, because matter would not remain concentrated in any location long enough for it to happen. Seawater, the medium in which life is thought to have first occurred on Earth, has a density on the order of 10^21 particles per cubic centimeter. Some of the most dense interstellar regions of the galaxy (star-forming nebulae) have 1 particle per cubic centimeter, and you wouldn't even get this density if not for gravity.
I don't think these questions are very relevant. So little is known about the early stages and the inner workings of the universe that the best anyone can do is speculate. Having said that, why anyone would think a cosmic wizard is a likely hypothesis is beyond me.
But don't we need gravity for birth and sex? Every time I watch a show about life in space, the one problem the scientist bring up is the problem of sex and birth in space.
@HimesInu hm, maybe yes, but you referring to "live as we know it". Living organisms under zero gravity would develop other mechanisms for reproduction which were adopted to their environment. Thunderfoots point is that life in a zero gravity universe is not completely unthinkable, although it would look probably very different from life as we know it.
I am not sure but If gravity is stronger, the sun would be hotter and heavier than is in our universe and would beheave like a much masive star. If that is the case, our planet need to be farter and smaller than it is to be habitable. Even in that case life will be form in our planet, the only problem would be the sun exploding like a supernova and Jupiter would be a star.
but without gravity while our bodies would be uneffected, the planets woulden't always been in our habitable zone that the earth maintains in it's oval-like orbit around the sun
on a large scale we need gravity, on a small scale we don't
The theory of parallel universes suggests that there may be different functions for the forces at work - we just aren't able to exist in those domains so we never observe them. Moreover, the changing of these forces *at this moment*, well yes that would have catastrophic consequences. But not so much if you make those alterations at the start.
so wouldn't be charged so the EM force wouldn't act on it , Helium is even worse in this respect as it doesn't react, this restricts us to ions, mainly H+ and H-. 2) A large structure of ions would be torn apart by EM's repulsive force, also it would be very difficult to form due to the fact the attractive and repulsive forces would cancel each other out. Finally the anthropic principle is common among string theorists as an explanation of the huge landscape of possible formulations.
Furthermore my father is a Professor of Applied Mathematics at the University of Bath as has worked with Physicists on many occasions and is friends with one of the inventors of the Anthropic principle (John Barrow). What is your formal education in Physics ZooCrew? Also 2 of the four forces (SN and WN) have ranges <the diameter of an atom. As for the EM for it wouldn't be able to form large structures like stars for 2 reasons: 1) Hydrogen would quickly for into H2 atoms and..
As for my formal education in Physics: I took a Triple science GCSE which meant taking physics as a separate subject, I got an A in my coursework, an A* in my 1st exam and am awaiting my final grade. Other than this i have read at least 10 books on particle physics and cosmology by well acclaimed authors and have read a number of Wikipedia articles on related topics as well as some Physics lectures on Youtube.
I know people have weighted in on this already, but I'll add my two cents about the gravity thing too. Without gravity, there wouldn't be an atmosphere, which woud be a rough obstacle for life.
Hey thunderf00t. I'm wondering if you're right with that gravity thing. As far as I know from the anthropic principle is that if some of the forces of the universe had to be changed slightly (for instance gravity) life couldn't exist. Without gravity no stars or planets would form.
According to many physicists this could be seen as a fine tuned universe, unless of course there are many other universes, but at the moment that'd be mere speculation.
Correction...life AS WE KNOW IT couldn't exist. The minute we find evidence of life that developed outside of an Earth environment is the minute the Anthropic Principle shatters completely.
Do we really know if stars or planets couldn't form without gravity? There are three other forces. Who knows what would happen in a universe where the electromagnetic force was dominant?
The paper about the universe existing without the weak force is complicated, but legit.
@TheZooCrew Yeah thats exactly as I saw the anthropic principle before I read up on it. I'm really confused now, because the scientists that are in agreement with the anthropic principle say with such certainty that if the traits of this universe were off even slightly life and stars etc couldnt exist. The way they say it is that life in any form couldn't exist. If you are correct then I will go back to my original thoughts on it and say the anthropic principle is as stupid as schrodingers cat.
Schrodinger's cat and the Anthropic Principle are two very, very different ideas. Schrodinger's cat is also useful.
How much formal education in physics do you have? And why are these anonymous "scientists" who cling to the Anthropic Principle? They certainly aren't scientists if they're drawing asinine conclusions from tautology.
@TheZooCrew I'm not saying the two are in any way similar, but I find Schrodingers cat (which is meant to be be ridiculous) ridiculous, because, for one, it assumes some sort of importance of a human observer above all others. But really I don't want a debate on this.
Otherwise, I have zero formal education. I'm a layman who is just interested in this stuff. Google any (non-religious) source on the anthropic principle for scientists who take it seriously. Also, Richard Dawkins for one.
Anyone who's touched quantum physics will tell you that Schrodinger's cat carries an important message about events like radioactive decay.
I doubt Richard Dawkins actually takes the anthropic principle seriously. Acknowledging that if any of the constants we've defined were to suddenly change RIGHT NOW, the universe would alter severely doesn't not mean the anthropic principle is taken seriously.
@TheZooCrew I'm just saying that the actual analogy of a cat being dead and alive in a box and is only in one of the specific states when another observer observes it is ridiculous (which is what he meant it to be). However, its linked to the uncertainty principle isn't it? I'm fine with that, when it's got to do with microscopic particles etc.
I've heard Richard Dawkins say a few times in talks that he thinks the anthropic principle should be looked at more seriously actually. But...
@TheZooCrew (continued...) But, from what I originally understood from the anthropic principle is exactly what you're saying now. The best you can make it is that "if the universe were unable to sustain life we wouldn't be here to question it". Which is simple. If the universe were different, life may be completely different or non existent. And who says life cannot exist in a diff universe? I read something that Steven Hawking said on it too but I can't remember if he took it seriously or not.
I'm an atheist and I love your videos. I'll be fair and say that life without gravity can't work. I'm going back to fundamentals. No gravity, no stars, no planets, no life. Also, if you take gravity out of the equation once life had formed then our bones would leak calcium and our bodies would shrivel and weaken due to lack of use of muscles.
- Physicists came up with the idea of a fine-tuned universe.It was Brandon Carter, who stated: "If gravity had been stronger or weaker by one part in 10^40, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist.” This led him to the anthropic principle, and the theory of multiple universes as explanation. But there's no scientific concensus.
- Ridiculing the ruler because it should extend to infinity is nitpicking. It's an acceptable illustration of what Carter said imo
Brandon Carter is not "physicists." He's A physicist. The Anthropic Principle is tautology. It isn't testable or falsifiable and makes no predictions. No scientist uses the Anthropic Principle in any study because it's entirely meaningless...basically, "If things were different, then things would be different."
This part is less convincing than the previous ones. Saying that gravity is not needed for the functioning of life ignores the fact without it, you'd probably lack the conditions for that life to develop in the first place.
And the suggestion that being a lawyer disqualifies that person from understanding science could be countered with the example of Leibniz, a "Doctor of Laws", whose achievements were belittled by Newton and Voltaire, and weren't truly recognized till long after his death.
Religious people and agnostics (agnostic=p***y atheist) stumbling upon the only niche they can exploit with speculations (without making complete fools out of themselves)-the Anthropic principle
"cogito ergo mundus talis est"
"Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being"
GOD as hight as the idea goes-is a human justification of the missing MEANING behind existence and only that
-a creator god wouldn't escape this causality of being an observer,and not a real god
great video. the most annoying argument by far that poses as critical thought is this cosmic narcissism that the creator of the universe made it for humans.
not to mention they only say "tuned for life" as if it is some acception to nature. life is just metabolic machines, no more or less valuable to the universe than black holes
Great series!! Couldnt help think of the "hitch-hikers guide to the gallaxy" when you were summing up!! The place where Douglas Adams calculates the population of the universe as zero! but there is still a lot of sex going on! lol - keep up the good work.
I simply dn't understand why creationist argue that our gravity is perfect for life, it's perfect for current life because that's what animals have adapted to but there are plaenty of examples of animals that differentiate in their gravitational needs. aquatic animals for example experience different gravity or at least different effects of gravity upon them. a jellyfish cannot retain it's form on land because it has evolved to live on water. if the gravity differed on earth life would adapt
@TheZooCrew The only other force that could form stars would be the EM force. The Strong and Weak have a range that is ~the diameter of an atom so couldn't form a massive structure like a star. However because the EM force is also repulsive it can't form large structures of charged particles because it would rip apart, and if the particles weren't charged then the EM force wouldn't act on them at all.
Saying there is a god and religion is correct is the same as me saying a magic fairy just came down, fed my family, told me vague inuedos on how we should act, and took quite a liking to my sex life..Tell me im mad..I'll tell you it's faith.
We need gravity to make the stars as we see them today, but we don't really know what the universe would look like without gravity. It's not like there aren't other forces on matter when gravity is taken out of the equation.
It's true that life as we know it today couldn't form without gravity, but to suggest that life of some type could not form without gravity is a tautology.
@TheZooCrew I never said he was, my statement was that I thought his argument wasn't entirely conclusive as it still allowed for design with life in mind, which would be a partial acceptance of the design argument and I thought the anthropic principle illustrated how the design explanation is a non-explanation based on a fallacy. I agree with him, but he could've argued it better IMO.
"The assertion that the universe could have been "configured" to not support life is wholly unfounded." Explain the meaning of this statement. The universe wasn't configured to not support life. The universe isn't configured to do anything (or rather the statement that it’s configured is unfounded). The anthropic principle states that "observations of the universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it". To make conclusions based on this compatability is thus a fallacy.
Exactly...the universe isn't configured. It's not "designed." There's no way to test for "design." It's an ad hoc explanation at best, tautology at worst.
Thunderf00t isn't arguing that the universe is fine-tuned for hydrogen. He's lambasting the Anthropic Principle by arguing that if design COULD be argued, life wouldn't be the intent of the design, which is yet another failure of the "design" argument.
@TheZooCrew I never said that the environment (by which i assume you in some respects are refering to the universe as a whole) adapts to life, I never said that at all. The anthropic principle is in some senses a tautology in that it is self-consistant, however it is not an explanation for life it is a way of illustrating the wrongness of the aforementioned statement about fine-tuning.
@TheZooCrew I perhaps haven't been clear. My point with the anthropic principle is that it demonstrates the question "why does the universe seem designed for life?" is a meaningless tautology. The universe does indeed not care if it can be seen or not, but the fact that it can be observed determines certain features of it such as the fact that life is possible (there must be an observer). When i say perfect for life i mean that the conditions of the universe are sufficient for life to exist.
"When i say perfect for life i mean that the conditions of the universe are sufficient for life to exist."
Everything we've seen concludes that life adapts to its environment, not the other way around. The Anthropic Principle is tautology because it's not testable nor falsifiable. The assertion that the universe could have been "configured" to not support life is wholly unfounded. You're doing nothing except repeat yourself. "If things were different, then things would be different."
As for the argument "the universe is perfect for life therefore it was designed for life" Thunderf00t's argument argues that the universe's primary purpose isn’t life and it would be more rational to argue it was fine tuned for Hydrogen, it doesn't disprove "the universe was designed so it could have life in it". I find the anthropic principle sufficient; the universe looks perfect for life because without life nothing would see it so the fact it CAN be seen implies it’s perfect for life.
The Anthropic principle is meaningless tautology and you just proved that yet again with your rehashed argument. Science does not make teleological arguments. The universe doesn't care whether it's "seen" or not, as it's not a conscious entity. The Anthropic Principle is just unchecked human egomania.
The universe doesn't look perfect for life whatsoever. If it did, every planet would have life forms on it.
@QueeqegF Gravity is essential for the formation of stars and planets (which would otherwise be clouds of cosmic dust) and is thus essential to produce the conditions for life to form. Not to mention the fact that Stars are vital to create the higher elements through Nuclear fusion, and so without gravity you have no carbon, so no organic chemistry or DNA, and so no life. I'm afraid to say in this case Thunderf00t was incorrect in his statement that Gravity isn't essential for life.
Forgive me if my question is stupid, i am fairly ignorant about science, its not my field. But the person in the video says that Gravity is not needed for life? but i thought the only reason the earth and the other planets revolve around the sun was due to the gravitational pull of the sun. And life wouldn't exist in this planet if it was not in an orbit the right distance from a star like the sun. Atleast thats what i was taught. Could someone enlighten me on why gravity is not needed for life?
@yidofromindia It is not needed for molecules to bind. As shown in his example of the protein, gravitational force is a non-factor on the microscopic level, where the electromagnetic force would be dominant. I do not know how life would be without gravity, but it is not necessary for life to be created in the first place.
3m17s Sorry to correct you, slightly, TF: but you said "finitely" when you meant "nonzero". Zero is finite. You cannot put infinitely many strips of nonzero size (measure) together in a finite space. I know that's what you meant.
mphello 2 days ago
99% of all species that once lived on Earth are now extinct, and this is some sort of design..?
NowKillYourself 3 days ago
@NowKillYourself
nonono.
they never lived, the ones that "lived before humans" are placed there by satan to trick us into believing in science.
and the ones that were extinct by humas are of course extinctions inspired by Satan.
or "Gods ways are mysterious"
hahaha
that's probably the best you'll get out of a christian.
OndskapensHersker 3 days ago
The creationists are making the mistake that life existed before the universe. If that were true, then the universe was built around us. But the universe came first. Life fits into the universe. As the universe changes, life has to adapt and evolve or perish.
therealjammit 6 days ago 2
Without gravity wouldn't there be no stellar nucleosynthesis and no higher elements than hydrogen? Pretty hard to have life with only hydrogen.
aquamonkeyeg 6 days ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
Faith- How to blindly reject fact.
Bogg50 1 week ago
Creationists - you gotta laugh at them!
TheAikenHead 1 week ago
The point about gravity you made is wrong, while I agree with the rest of what you said. The problem is not life staying alive without gravity, it's about life even forming in the first place, which it probably couldn't.
NorthCitySider 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NorthCitySider
"The problem is not life staying alive without gravity, it's about life even forming in the first place, which it probably couldn't"
Well we're here....which suggests it probably could....and DID!
DIGITALSCREAMS 1 week ago
@NorthCitySider Agreed. Gravity is essential to the formation of stars and planets, both of which are necessary for the beginning of life, and its survival. Other than this, as you said, this video says it all.
freshprnce987 1 week ago
Why do creationists think that because they are a creationist it qualifies them as a scientist?
ciuacoatl 2 weeks ago
That's called adaptation not evolution guy! No, I mean genome look it up.
lividmachine 2 weeks ago
@lividmachine hes already referenced evolution towards adaption in his previous videos.
scribbie145 2 weeks ago
If creationism is such a big thorn in your fucking ass why even give your time to make a comment?? There is absolutely nothing to back evolutionists shit either! We're the only creature on earth with a FUSED GENOME that is not evolution folks that is genetic tampering!! I don't give a fuck what you believe in the evidence is in ourselves; we have been modified!!
lividmachine 2 weeks ago
@lividmachine
« There is absolutely nothing to back evolution »
Well, except of course observed adaptation and speciation, as well as the nested hierarchies of biology, and the matching diverging progressions of traits in palaeontology, the numerous morphological intermediates in the fossil record, numerous atavisms, ERV distribution patterns, human chromosome #2, and so on.
MrGralgrathor 2 weeks ago
@lividmachine
« We're the only creature on earth with a FUSED GENOME »
Fused chromosome, you mean? Nope. Many lifeforms show signs of having undergone chromosomal fusion at one time or another. It's just a thing that occasionally happens, just like chromosomal duplication.
MrGralgrathor 2 weeks ago
I like how the guy in the creationist video says gravity. "grAvity"
XxI3ioHazardxX 3 weeks ago
I didn't know gravity was a distance. Thank you Mr. Strobel!
18booma 3 weeks ago
you still need gravity because if there was none hydrogen wouldn't clump to form stars and black holes wouldn't form to hold galaxies together
diegonikki 4 weeks ago
@diegonikki
Hydrogen clumps together due to molecular bonds (H2).
However, living without gravity would be extremely improbable, as stable molecules would have no reason to clump together.
Could there be something that we may or may not define as life in the void of space? Yes, but it would be extremely improbable without gravity. The video considers only the micro aspect, and not the macro.
In other words, gravity is essential for life.... as we know it.
pngwn56 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
diegonikki 4 weeks ago
if gravity was a bit stronger life still will exist wed all just be shorter by a bit
diegonikki 4 weeks ago
this one is a bit silly, you NEED gravity for sure. maybe no weak force, but definitely gravity :/
mrtoshko 1 month ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
Btw, another (and easier) point to debunk the fine-tuning bullshit - life in our universe is dependent on laws of our universe because it was evolving under them. if our universe had different laws, life in it would depend on those laws as much as we depend on the laws we have.
MidnightSt 1 month ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
@MidnightSt
9hello123 3 weeks ago
@MidnightSt A better way is we only know the gravitational constant to 5 decimal places. There's no possible way we could say if changed in by one tiny fraction it would effect the universe by a large amount, as we don't know it to a tiny fraction. Not even remotely similar to how precise that retard claims it to be.
9hello123 3 weeks ago
oooh, i so much love smart people totally destroying creationist bullshit so i don't have to do it all the time :-D
MidnightSt 1 month ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
I used to be a creationist. Then I took an arrow in the knee.
vegapoky 1 month ago
Creationism is egoism. Creationism is based upon the idea that everything exists for us.
Even god exists to create humans and a world in which we fit. Perhaps we fit because "we
are the world" rather than seperate as our ego tells us. God is fundamentally the human ego
as the old testament testifies "the I am".
mentalphysicalism 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Kent Hovind is in jail because he was trying to warn the world that their is a dark agenda out there that aims at destroying the morality of every man woman and child making them into beasts. In fact Darwinism states that we evolved from mere beasts. God says you should hold your head up because you have been given free will by an all powerful all wise and all loving Creator. Jesus answered "Woe to them who worship the Created (Monkeys/Primates) rather then the Creator."
JamesRideout123 1 month ago
i do beleive that creationism is stupid, however if gravity was 0.01% stronger the sun would burn up way to fast for life to occur, and 0.01% weaker the sun wouldnt be able to burn, life can now exist without gravity however for life to have formed it would have at one stage required the energy from the sun. Now i am only 16 and am saying what i have been taught. if i am wrong please correct me as i HATE being wrong
hazzapratt 1 month ago
@hazzapratt i don't know the science, but the argument here is about 'scale'. if anything this occurs regularly throughout the universe. out of all the stars that are created, the chances that the gravitational pull of some or even many of the stars being incorrect, would be quite believable. when looking at a whole universe of stars, however astronomical the probability, there are bound to be instances of life.
hjbarratt 1 month ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists
@hazzapratt I cannot say it for sure, but I believe you're wrong. Why did your teachers say if gravity was .01% stronger it would burn out so much more quickly? If gravity were stronger, it would just allow for (using our same scale of mass) less massive hydrogen bodies to become 'functioning' stars. If gravity were weaker, the bodies would have to be more massive. The sun however is far from being either a very massive or nonmassive hydrogen body, so it would make little difference.
5k4k1dhtp 1 month ago
@5k4k1dhtp not teachers. Scientists. I have a subscription to New scientists and a few months ago the main article was about gravity . i will try and find it and refer you to it. it is quite interesting
hazzapratt 1 month ago
@hazzapratt even if you are not wrong, the question is CAN gravity be weaker or stronger?Maybe the strength of the forces are determined by a physical, naturalistic underlying principle (which is now considered more probable than it was before) see the wikipedia article on "fine-tuning argument"
sinachiniforoosh 1 week ago
I'm an atheist too, but thunderf00t, ad hominem attacks aren't cool. they don't accomplish or prove anything. leave them out in future videos.
me835 1 month ago
Fuck, now i'm atheist.
CocktailGaming 1 month ago
HA HA BLACK PEOPLE
seththegra 1 month ago
not that i in any way am defending or agreeing with creatonist, but without gravity no stars or planets would form thus higher elements than hydrogen wouldnt be created, and there would also be no light or water for life to evolve in.... i cant imagine any kind of life excisting without gravity
danoodledooddle 1 month ago
Comment removed
FelipeOrlandi207 1 month ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
This has been flagged as spam show
@danoodledooddle I think you missed the point. It's true that gravity and stellar interactions are important to create heavy elements. But he was only talking about molecular interations that could have created life, it's a whole diferent scale, where gravity is not applicable. It's Like compare General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
FelipeOrlandi207 1 month ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
@danoodledooddle Well, if ions were more common in the universe, it is possible that the EM force would handle all the work that gravity does.
5k4k1dhtp 1 month ago
Comment removed
Kalahridudex 2 months ago
@1dekidejo Ah, yes. I kind of thought about that after a while and you are right. But there can not be alot.
oOToStopANightmareOo 2 months ago
Though I must say that gravity is necessary to set in motion the processes intrinsic to life, ie: planetary bodies, stars to produce heavy elements, let us bear in mind the guy wasn't arguing that life couldn't exist without gravity but that it needed to be "just right" which is demonstrably false. And also it bothered me that you said zero gravity, everything with mass exerts gravitational pull so even in spacecraft there is still gravity, though small it may be.
cannibalcarrot666 2 months ago
did phyists find an omega principle. by which expansion will fix its self to 1 in other words no fine tunning. dr craigs reply 2 this was "theres no imperical evidence 4 expansion" what a hypocrite
thejewishagnostic 2 months ago
@LiberalsUtopian Please tell me you're joking right? Here is an example, there is NO gravity on the Moon, and it's still there. AHHH I GOT YOU NOW. Idiot. Open up a science book once in a while.
oOToStopANightmareOo 2 months ago
@oOToStopANightmareOo yes there is gravity on moon.it is just not as strong as it is on earth
1dekidejo 2 months ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
@1dekidejo 1/6th earths gravity to be exact.
evejunkie1942 2 months ago
@evejunkie1942 yes i know.i was responding to a claim that there is no gravity on moon
1dekidejo 2 months ago
@1dekidejo I know i was supporting your argument. Sorry if it didn't seem clear.
evejunkie1942 2 months ago
@1dekidejo no bad.
1dekidejo 2 months ago
Now it is 1 in 7 Billion.
nashkita77 2 months ago
Life without gravity??
Saying gravity has little to no effect on life compared to EM force doesn't mean you can just toss it out of the window
EuroNoobz 2 months ago 2
Because if there was no gravity then there are no planets or solar systems you idiot.
LiberalsUtopian 2 months ago
I agreed with everything in this video except not needing gravity to have life. If there were no gravity we wouuld all just float into outer space. And No stars would be formed. Gravity is intrinsic to life. However, if gravity were twice as strong we may have evolved to adapt to it. or even if were about at the moon's gravity life would be possible. (1/6 of earth)
icanhearthings 2 months ago
Isn't gravity necessary for the formation of stars, which are necessary for the existence of life?
dragonsder 3 months ago
"If things were different, they wouldn't be the same."
P0weredByPie 3 months ago
If a multiverse exists, the fine tuning argument is finished..Chance alone can easily explain the formation of the Earth since there were so much elements, space, and time interacting in space, being drawn together by gravity. Out of the probably trillions of planets, one suitable for life finally happened to form. This can be applied to our universe if it's one of trillions of other universes with different levels of physical laws, or completely different, inconceivable physical laws.
itzahazylife 3 months ago
thumbs up for the Gdm-arg stacking
judicum 3 months ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
YOUTUBE Sex in Space (The Universe 3) part 15 of 48
Txwes12122012 3 months ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
YOUTUBE THE UNIVERSE - Sex In Space Part 1 Of 3
Txwes12122012 3 months ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
YOUTUBE THE UNIVERSE - Sex In Space Part 1 Of 3
watch this about Gravity is a must for life so far as we now know, like meaning maybe things were different back then but maybe now who knows???
Txwes12122012 3 months ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
Take one of the smartest people on the planet, introduce them to Creationism, make them believe it. TADA! you got the dumbest people ever!
ChaosShadoWolfe 3 months ago
I think creationists are simply backwards in their thinking. They conclude that because the Earth is such a perfect haven for life to exist, that it was made for that purpose. It's actually just the opposite. The universe wasn't created for us to exist in, we exist because the universe evolved the way it did. We are children of the universe, no less than the trees, and are a reflection of life adapting to it's surroundings, not the other way around..
420Travesty 3 months ago
I can't even imagine that the lawyer in this video is necessarily a creationist. He's a lawyer-he might just be a guy hired to argue for them.
dRevan64 3 months ago
@dRevan64 I'm wondering if he's a lawyer at all.
HimesInu 3 months ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
wow I'm amazed that we still have living neanderthals around, must be a proof of god aye?
gemgus87 3 months ago
so one paper proposing that the universe would be unchanged without the weak force is all you need to declare that scientific fact?
Jesus, you sound like a creationist! Your arguments usually rely on far more basic and observable truths, you don't need to pull some paper out of your arse.
v9video 3 months ago
@v9video
Try reading the paper. It has some exceptionally compelling mathematical arguments. Given the accuracy of the models it describes and then alters by omitting the weak force, it would not be the least surprising if science figured out how to eliminate the weak force and nothing happened in the lab.
TheZooCrew 3 months ago
a long hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...... I usually agree......
MrLittletomdj 4 months ago
Not much of a real bashing here, the previous ones are far better. Lee Strobel was a Journalist for much if not most of his career, not exactly "lawyer" bashing material. Actually, considering the bias in the media and their propensity to lie on behalf of it would have been more effective than the lawyer thing.
NativeNewMexican 4 months ago
people are selfish creatures that define themselves as special, and refuse to realise their part in the timeline of spacetime, some are just scared i suppose, not scoring points, just making an observation, i think that's still allowed.....
angelusmortis1412 4 months ago
Thankyou very much for this Thunderbolt...i live in Oregon and about 2 yrs ago a Elementary school closed in this very rural area ....there were many churches then ...but well funded Mega church people bought it ..and turned it into a Christian Fellowship huge church ...a large amount of people that usde to go to the smaller churches now go there and ...yes it is based on Creationism...now people I used to get along with despite my non-belief in Reglion I can barely talk with.They have gone nuts
copycoonie 4 months ago
Strobble (spelling) apparently doesn't know that the current laws of Gravity are not complete, so you can not say that the constant of gravity in a universal equation let's say can not be determined fully yet, if we go by Einstein's Gravity, his gravity does not account for Quantum Mechanical interactions at all.
Dominacao1686 4 months ago
I disagree with your science completely. based on Steven Hawkings explanation of the weak and strong anthropic principle. if the laws of physics were slightly different, life couldn't be possible.
Actually if the weak force was slightly stronger or weaker, the electrons orbit in an atom would be unstable, and elements as we know them couldn't exist. if the strong force was any weaker by a very small amount, the nucleus in atoms would fall apart and atoms couldn't exist.
AdamLemireEC 4 months ago
@AdamLemireEC
The anthropic principle explains this easily. If the laws were any different, we simply wouldn't be here to observe them because we wouldn't exist. The anthropic principle explains everything we see, but lots of people don't like it :)
AdamLemireEC 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Life is so flexible and ready to adapt given time. Think he meant wipe out one of those principles and there's no HUMAN life. Because if a huge catastrophe occured and wiped it the human race, life would go on, if the earth was scorched and blackened and the oceans boiled, given enough time, life would emerge once again. We're only afraid of our existence being threatened.
pat5168 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Svoig Life is possible without gravity, I read an article about scientists' ideas of what such animals would look like and they resembled jellyfish and algae. Of course, you can't go anywhere in the universe without having gravity affect you, so that's kind of a vague impression. Do you mean could life be possible in gas giants or just driftin in space or....?
pat5168 4 months ago
Now I totally agree with thunderf00t here, but I can't help wondering whether life could have come to be without gravity for the simple reason that it creates stars, which create most of the elements in the universe and provide suitable environments for life on planets.
But I concede that maybe there could have been a kind of life so different from ours that I can't conceive of it, and that this life could have survived without gravity.
Svoig 4 months ago
Lets not forget the new form of molecular life that was found that lives off arsenic....
jakes10 5 months ago
It's simple. Evolution fine tuned life to fit the current universe and will continue to due so as it changes
redlion7277 5 months ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (Donated) For Debates And Governance
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS FOR CREATIONISM-EVOLUTIONISM DEBATE (See Subchapter 10.2.2, Chapter 10, of Part Two.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
balancedway1.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
Gravity is necessary for the development of human life, isn't it?
SuperHappyCow 5 months ago
That's a lie. Dr. Nick isn't qualified to do brain surgery.
recurveninja 5 months ago
there is a 1 in 6.4 billion chance that i am here on this sight making a comment. seems the odds are totally against it so it is not happening or should never happen. BUT WAIT! Here i am anyway?
nashkita77 5 months ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists? 64
@nashkita77 there's a 1 i 1 chance you can't spell site
FranticSelf 5 months ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
@FranticSelf There was apparantly a 1 in 1 chance that you couldn't spell "in", too. (Don't you just love it when the universe stacks all odds it has left over against you whenever you criticize someone elses typos in written form in order to ensure that you make a typo?)
GrahamChapman 5 months ago
@GrahamChapman I think we both have to agree that I was just bitchslapped by Karma
FranticSelf 5 months ago
@FranticSelf Indeed so, indeed so. And you have no idea how common that particular carmatic bitchslap is... Me, I don't get typos especially often, yet, when I remark upon the typos of others I have a roughly 2 out of 3 chance to get a typo myself unless I spellcheck every single word... Keep your eyes peeled for instances where people correct what others have written, and I think you'll find that my estimation of the odds adds up pretty well.
GrahamChapman 5 months ago
@FranticSelf A typo!! Is that all you got?
nashkita77 5 months ago
@nashkita77 dude I misspelled "in" so I'm not in the best position to say anything right now
FranticSelf 5 months ago
@FranticSelf Dude, at least you stuck around and took your comeuppance. I've been there, I have chronic foot "in" mouth disease. Really funny though, made me smile anyway.
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@nashkita77
That simply goes to show that it was all god's doing :|
TheUnchainedMind 4 months ago
@TheUnchainedMind You Wish. You dream. You fantasize. You wake up and still don't see reality.
nashkita77 4 months ago
@nashkita77 it must be god ! oh lord holy pray to hesoes christ !
machielste1 4 months ago
@nashkita77 The same odds apply for me replying to this comment. 6 billion times 6 billion is 3.6 x 10 to the 19th. CLEARLY THIS ISN'T HAPPENING
RyanKaufman 3 months ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
@nashkita77 God placed you there, right? ;) jk
LeeviON 3 months ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
@nashkita77 Well said, sir! Said with poise and erudition....
ManDudeYeah 2 months ago
@nashkita77
What are the chances of me seeing this reply, of all the videos, with personality and small events that could redirect me, and replying back? Probably 1 in billions.
Oh shit, I am going to win the lottery.
fonkymaster 2 months ago in playlist More videos from Thunderf00t
@nashkita77 Its the will of Allah!
Not2Sane 2 months ago
@nashkita77 Please, you're just a figment of my imagination.
RustlessPotato 1 month ago
But without gravity things like air wouldn't have been clustered together, so how could life have been in the first place? sure if everything is already there it could function without certain forces but it could not be created without them.
StealthNinjaK 5 months ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
@StealthNinjaK You are thinking in the narrow terms of the life as we know it now, in these conditions. If the conditions were different at the beginning, life could evolve in a different way too. Organisms could function differently, have different cell structure etc.
Bibken 5 months ago
@Bibken No, if gravity didn't exist, life would not form at all, because matter would not remain concentrated in any location long enough for it to happen. Seawater, the medium in which life is thought to have first occurred on Earth, has a density on the order of 10^21 particles per cubic centimeter. Some of the most dense interstellar regions of the galaxy (star-forming nebulae) have 1 particle per cubic centimeter, and you wouldn't even get this density if not for gravity.
Zoharial 5 months ago
LOL, lawyers will not like this episode...
Firithfenion 5 months ago 20
I don't think these questions are very relevant. So little is known about the early stages and the inner workings of the universe that the best anyone can do is speculate. Having said that, why anyone would think a cosmic wizard is a likely hypothesis is beyond me.
MrIssq 5 months ago
I cant watch any of these videos anymore its too much - i mean your info is real good but the creationist guys are just too stupid for me to bare
DarronTheDamaga 5 months ago
But don't we need gravity for birth and sex? Every time I watch a show about life in space, the one problem the scientist bring up is the problem of sex and birth in space.
HimesInu 5 months ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
@HimesInu hm, maybe yes, but you referring to "live as we know it". Living organisms under zero gravity would develop other mechanisms for reproduction which were adopted to their environment. Thunderfoots point is that life in a zero gravity universe is not completely unthinkable, although it would look probably very different from life as we know it.
Firithfenion 5 months ago
@Firithfenion And that's what I'm asking about, gravity bound mechanics of sex.
HimesInu 5 months ago
I am not sure but If gravity is stronger, the sun would be hotter and heavier than is in our universe and would beheave like a much masive star. If that is the case, our planet need to be farter and smaller than it is to be habitable. Even in that case life will be form in our planet, the only problem would be the sun exploding like a supernova and Jupiter would be a star.
shadowmax889 5 months ago
Strobel(?) got the diameter of the Universe wrong too.
AlanKey86 5 months ago
i love the python inserts.lol. Get on with it!
zenmaher 5 months ago
1:46
i enjoy your videos, really i do
but without gravity while our bodies would be uneffected, the planets woulden't always been in our habitable zone that the earth maintains in it's oval-like orbit around the sun
on a large scale we need gravity, on a small scale we don't
just thought i'd point that out =/
kionay 5 months ago 2
Creationists can prove that IF the universe was different, it would be different !
And that is about as logical as the ever get.
gregrutz 6 months ago
The theory of parallel universes suggests that there may be different functions for the forces at work - we just aren't able to exist in those domains so we never observe them. Moreover, the changing of these forces *at this moment*, well yes that would have catastrophic consequences. But not so much if you make those alterations at the start.
DenoNomer 6 months ago
so wouldn't be charged so the EM force wouldn't act on it , Helium is even worse in this respect as it doesn't react, this restricts us to ions, mainly H+ and H-. 2) A large structure of ions would be torn apart by EM's repulsive force, also it would be very difficult to form due to the fact the attractive and repulsive forces would cancel each other out. Finally the anthropic principle is common among string theorists as an explanation of the huge landscape of possible formulations.
jez2718 6 months ago in playlist Favourites
Comment removed
jez2718 6 months ago in playlist Favourites
Furthermore my father is a Professor of Applied Mathematics at the University of Bath as has worked with Physicists on many occasions and is friends with one of the inventors of the Anthropic principle (John Barrow). What is your formal education in Physics ZooCrew? Also 2 of the four forces (SN and WN) have ranges <the diameter of an atom. As for the EM for it wouldn't be able to form large structures like stars for 2 reasons: 1) Hydrogen would quickly for into H2 atoms and..
jez2718 6 months ago in playlist Favourites
Comment removed
jez2718 6 months ago
Comment removed
jez2718 6 months ago
As for my formal education in Physics: I took a Triple science GCSE which meant taking physics as a separate subject, I got an A in my coursework, an A* in my 1st exam and am awaiting my final grade. Other than this i have read at least 10 books on particle physics and cosmology by well acclaimed authors and have read a number of Wikipedia articles on related topics as well as some Physics lectures on Youtube.
jez2718 6 months ago
My understanding of the relevance of the (weak) Anthropic Principle in this argument is as follows :
1)Any universe containing life must have conditions suitable for life . (Tautology)
2)Any creature that observed the universe would therefore observe these "fine-tuned" conditions. (Obvious)
3)Therefore the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from from this "fine-tuning" is that life exists.
4)Hence the conclusion of the existence of a creator is fallacious.
jez2718 6 months ago
I know people have weighted in on this already, but I'll add my two cents about the gravity thing too. Without gravity, there wouldn't be an atmosphere, which woud be a rough obstacle for life.
IseeRightThrough2you 6 months ago
Dude,, You should be a talkshow host with ur own talkshow ofcourse, were u burn creationists like u do in ur vids.. It would be my favorite show man!
Tr0llinTroll 6 months ago
Hey thunderf00t. I'm wondering if you're right with that gravity thing. As far as I know from the anthropic principle is that if some of the forces of the universe had to be changed slightly (for instance gravity) life couldn't exist. Without gravity no stars or planets would form.
According to many physicists this could be seen as a fine tuned universe, unless of course there are many other universes, but at the moment that'd be mere speculation.
Am I right?
LobarRobotic 6 months ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
@LobarRobotic
Correction...life AS WE KNOW IT couldn't exist. The minute we find evidence of life that developed outside of an Earth environment is the minute the Anthropic Principle shatters completely.
Do we really know if stars or planets couldn't form without gravity? There are three other forces. Who knows what would happen in a universe where the electromagnetic force was dominant?
The paper about the universe existing without the weak force is complicated, but legit.
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@TheZooCrew Yeah thats exactly as I saw the anthropic principle before I read up on it. I'm really confused now, because the scientists that are in agreement with the anthropic principle say with such certainty that if the traits of this universe were off even slightly life and stars etc couldnt exist. The way they say it is that life in any form couldn't exist. If you are correct then I will go back to my original thoughts on it and say the anthropic principle is as stupid as schrodingers cat.
LobarRobotic 6 months ago
@LobarRobotic
Schrodinger's cat and the Anthropic Principle are two very, very different ideas. Schrodinger's cat is also useful.
How much formal education in physics do you have? And why are these anonymous "scientists" who cling to the Anthropic Principle? They certainly aren't scientists if they're drawing asinine conclusions from tautology.
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@TheZooCrew I'm not saying the two are in any way similar, but I find Schrodingers cat (which is meant to be be ridiculous) ridiculous, because, for one, it assumes some sort of importance of a human observer above all others. But really I don't want a debate on this.
Otherwise, I have zero formal education. I'm a layman who is just interested in this stuff. Google any (non-religious) source on the anthropic principle for scientists who take it seriously. Also, Richard Dawkins for one.
LobarRobotic 6 months ago
@LobarRobotic
Anyone who's touched quantum physics will tell you that Schrodinger's cat carries an important message about events like radioactive decay.
I doubt Richard Dawkins actually takes the anthropic principle seriously. Acknowledging that if any of the constants we've defined were to suddenly change RIGHT NOW, the universe would alter severely doesn't not mean the anthropic principle is taken seriously.
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@TheZooCrew I'm just saying that the actual analogy of a cat being dead and alive in a box and is only in one of the specific states when another observer observes it is ridiculous (which is what he meant it to be). However, its linked to the uncertainty principle isn't it? I'm fine with that, when it's got to do with microscopic particles etc.
I've heard Richard Dawkins say a few times in talks that he thinks the anthropic principle should be looked at more seriously actually. But...
LobarRobotic 6 months ago
@TheZooCrew (continued...) But, from what I originally understood from the anthropic principle is exactly what you're saying now. The best you can make it is that "if the universe were unable to sustain life we wouldn't be here to question it". Which is simple. If the universe were different, life may be completely different or non existent. And who says life cannot exist in a diff universe? I read something that Steven Hawking said on it too but I can't remember if he took it seriously or not.
LobarRobotic 6 months ago
I'm an atheist and I love your videos. I'll be fair and say that life without gravity can't work. I'm going back to fundamentals. No gravity, no stars, no planets, no life. Also, if you take gravity out of the equation once life had formed then our bones would leak calcium and our bodies would shrivel and weaken due to lack of use of muscles.
TheMessiersAndromeda 6 months ago
More critical notes:
- Physicists came up with the idea of a fine-tuned universe.It was Brandon Carter, who stated: "If gravity had been stronger or weaker by one part in 10^40, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist.” This led him to the anthropic principle, and the theory of multiple universes as explanation. But there's no scientific concensus.
- Ridiculing the ruler because it should extend to infinity is nitpicking. It's an acceptable illustration of what Carter said imo
Belgianmeth 6 months ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
@Belgianmeth
Brandon Carter is not "physicists." He's A physicist. The Anthropic Principle is tautology. It isn't testable or falsifiable and makes no predictions. No scientist uses the Anthropic Principle in any study because it's entirely meaningless...basically, "If things were different, then things would be different."
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
This part is less convincing than the previous ones. Saying that gravity is not needed for the functioning of life ignores the fact without it, you'd probably lack the conditions for that life to develop in the first place.
And the suggestion that being a lawyer disqualifies that person from understanding science could be countered with the example of Leibniz, a "Doctor of Laws", whose achievements were belittled by Newton and Voltaire, and weren't truly recognized till long after his death.
Belgianmeth 6 months ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
isnt this entire point so very moot? I mean, if God wanted us to grow corn on mars, he could make it happen. Why argue physics?
CorndogMaker 6 months ago
Religious people and agnostics (agnostic=p***y atheist) stumbling upon the only niche they can exploit with speculations (without making complete fools out of themselves)-the Anthropic principle
"cogito ergo mundus talis est"
"Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being"
GOD as hight as the idea goes-is a human justification of the missing MEANING behind existence and only that
-a creator god wouldn't escape this causality of being an observer,and not a real god
echafaud 6 months ago
great video. the most annoying argument by far that poses as critical thought is this cosmic narcissism that the creator of the universe made it for humans.
georgek19 6 months ago
not to mention they only say "tuned for life" as if it is some acception to nature. life is just metabolic machines, no more or less valuable to the universe than black holes
quantum8kid 6 months ago
Great series!! Couldnt help think of the "hitch-hikers guide to the gallaxy" when you were summing up!! The place where Douglas Adams calculates the population of the universe as zero! but there is still a lot of sex going on! lol - keep up the good work.
aden302000 6 months ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
I simply dn't understand why creationist argue that our gravity is perfect for life, it's perfect for current life because that's what animals have adapted to but there are plaenty of examples of animals that differentiate in their gravitational needs. aquatic animals for example experience different gravity or at least different effects of gravity upon them. a jellyfish cannot retain it's form on land because it has evolved to live on water. if the gravity differed on earth life would adapt
Nixom1334 6 months ago
I like the final argument. Good job!
invincibletom 6 months ago
Fucking insane cult savages. Look at the fucking crooks trying to swindle morons out of money.
NotSoOldHippy 6 months ago
5:51 - Thats my wallpaper :L
gioisafaggot 6 months ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
A Few Good Men is an awesome movie.
Draginvry2 6 months ago
@TheZooCrew The only other force that could form stars would be the EM force. The Strong and Weak have a range that is ~the diameter of an atom so couldn't form a massive structure like a star. However because the EM force is also repulsive it can't form large structures of charged particles because it would rip apart, and if the particles weren't charged then the EM force wouldn't act on them at all.
jez2718 7 months ago in playlist Favourites
Saying there is a god and religion is correct is the same as me saying a magic fairy just came down, fed my family, told me vague inuedos on how we should act, and took quite a liking to my sex life..Tell me im mad..I'll tell you it's faith.
LondonCAFC 7 months ago
Oh giirlll he did NOT just take it to the microscopic level of molecular dynamics using the bee sting protein melanin! Hold my earrings!
Maffuman1 7 months ago
We do need gravity to make stars. and the stars make the heavier elements needed for life
WAZZA1235 7 months ago
@WAZZA1235
We need gravity to make the stars as we see them today, but we don't really know what the universe would look like without gravity. It's not like there aren't other forces on matter when gravity is taken out of the equation.
It's true that life as we know it today couldn't form without gravity, but to suggest that life of some type could not form without gravity is a tautology.
TheZooCrew 7 months ago
@TheZooCrew I stand corrected
WAZZA1235 7 months ago
@TheZooCrew I never said he was, my statement was that I thought his argument wasn't entirely conclusive as it still allowed for design with life in mind, which would be a partial acceptance of the design argument and I thought the anthropic principle illustrated how the design explanation is a non-explanation based on a fallacy. I agree with him, but he could've argued it better IMO.
jez2718 7 months ago
"The assertion that the universe could have been "configured" to not support life is wholly unfounded." Explain the meaning of this statement. The universe wasn't configured to not support life. The universe isn't configured to do anything (or rather the statement that it’s configured is unfounded). The anthropic principle states that "observations of the universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it". To make conclusions based on this compatability is thus a fallacy.
jez2718 7 months ago
@jez2718
Exactly...the universe isn't configured. It's not "designed." There's no way to test for "design." It's an ad hoc explanation at best, tautology at worst.
Thunderf00t isn't arguing that the universe is fine-tuned for hydrogen. He's lambasting the Anthropic Principle by arguing that if design COULD be argued, life wouldn't be the intent of the design, which is yet another failure of the "design" argument.
TheZooCrew 7 months ago
@TheZooCrew I never said that the environment (by which i assume you in some respects are refering to the universe as a whole) adapts to life, I never said that at all. The anthropic principle is in some senses a tautology in that it is self-consistant, however it is not an explanation for life it is a way of illustrating the wrongness of the aforementioned statement about fine-tuning.
jez2718 7 months ago in playlist Favourites
@TheZooCrew I perhaps haven't been clear. My point with the anthropic principle is that it demonstrates the question "why does the universe seem designed for life?" is a meaningless tautology. The universe does indeed not care if it can be seen or not, but the fact that it can be observed determines certain features of it such as the fact that life is possible (there must be an observer). When i say perfect for life i mean that the conditions of the universe are sufficient for life to exist.
jez2718 7 months ago in playlist Favourites
@jez2718
"When i say perfect for life i mean that the conditions of the universe are sufficient for life to exist."
Everything we've seen concludes that life adapts to its environment, not the other way around. The Anthropic Principle is tautology because it's not testable nor falsifiable. The assertion that the universe could have been "configured" to not support life is wholly unfounded. You're doing nothing except repeat yourself. "If things were different, then things would be different."
TheZooCrew 7 months ago
0:18 And we're the three best friends that anybody could have!
BeneePhoenix 7 months ago
As for the argument "the universe is perfect for life therefore it was designed for life" Thunderf00t's argument argues that the universe's primary purpose isn’t life and it would be more rational to argue it was fine tuned for Hydrogen, it doesn't disprove "the universe was designed so it could have life in it". I find the anthropic principle sufficient; the universe looks perfect for life because without life nothing would see it so the fact it CAN be seen implies it’s perfect for life.
jez2718 7 months ago
@jez2718
The Anthropic principle is meaningless tautology and you just proved that yet again with your rehashed argument. Science does not make teleological arguments. The universe doesn't care whether it's "seen" or not, as it's not a conscious entity. The Anthropic Principle is just unchecked human egomania.
The universe doesn't look perfect for life whatsoever. If it did, every planet would have life forms on it.
TheZooCrew 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@QueeqegF Gravity is essential for the formation of stars and planets (which would otherwise be clouds of cosmic dust) and is thus essential to produce the conditions for life to form. Not to mention the fact that Stars are vital to create the higher elements through Nuclear fusion, and so without gravity you have no carbon, so no organic chemistry or DNA, and so no life. I'm afraid to say in this case Thunderf00t was incorrect in his statement that Gravity isn't essential for life.
jez2718 7 months ago
Comment removed
jez2718 7 months ago
Comment removed
jez2718 7 months ago
@xsamuelx L.Ron Hubbard beat you to the punch.
MonTag666 7 months ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
where can i get an iso for the entire series of videos put together as one
aj19bcx 7 months ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
@aj19bcx TF did it, go to his channel
FlyingSpaghettiMoner 7 months ago
Forgive me if my question is stupid, i am fairly ignorant about science, its not my field. But the person in the video says that Gravity is not needed for life? but i thought the only reason the earth and the other planets revolve around the sun was due to the gravitational pull of the sun. And life wouldn't exist in this planet if it was not in an orbit the right distance from a star like the sun. Atleast thats what i was taught. Could someone enlighten me on why gravity is not needed for life?
yidofromindia 7 months ago
@yidofromindia It is not needed for molecules to bind. As shown in his example of the protein, gravitational force is a non-factor on the microscopic level, where the electromagnetic force would be dominant. I do not know how life would be without gravity, but it is not necessary for life to be created in the first place.
QueeqegF 7 months ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
@QueeqegF , ok thanks for clarifying that
yidofromindia 7 months a