law in physics is descriptive, not prescribe by anyone (i.e. u can never violate it even if u hv freewill), and disorder itself is a law in thermodynamics (although often misused...). There are plenty of good videos on youtube, if you are really interested in science. An introductory course of statistical mechanics in any proper institution can also help.
the last probability calculation is quite amusing... wt do each of the factor mean, and how do u assign a 1/10 probability to each (or any probability)? Remember: each microstate is equally unlikely, until we start grouping microstates together. U'll find out that simple multiplication is way too fictitious to describe our universe.
I hoped to see a better scientific illustration of the 2nd law, not this kind of crap...
I hate how science has to have so many atheists using it to disprove God. It gets old. If it did disprove god then there would be no possible way anyone would still be believing in god. Btw this video fucking sucked, i was trying to learn about fucking second law of thermodynamics and this mother fucker starts talking about how earth should form. Fuck, this is stupid.
The big bang caused the universe to come into being. If anything this disproves religion. It shows that the universe began with a huge explosion, and the energy from this explosion is aging and becoming useless.
People trying to argue whether a religion is real or not are the true retards. Its literally the most retarded thing imaginable. Why? You're trying to prove/disprove something intangible. Why bother?
OH WAIT I KNOW WHY
Athiests simply like to argue from what I notice so they can attempt to sound smart -- You know what people deem that as? Being a pseudo-intellectual
Christians get mad when you try to prove their God wrong and will try to convert you. Athiests, just SHUTUP.
well darwinism is... jack and the bean stock magic bean theory.. nO evidence NO examples.. NO nothing.. just a nice little dogma... that they want to say is.. science.. hahahah
you know i f they find signs of life, prespently or previously on mars ( which is pretty likely). then what this video is trying to get any would be totally Wrong. if life developed possibly twice in our own solar sytem then the universe is full of life.
They keep saying that all of these conditions on earth are just right to have complex life. But life on earth developed under these conditions, so it's more like life (on earth) has just the right needs to be compatible with the planet. They are putting the cart before the horse.
The enormous size of the universe, the sextillion number stars in it mean that for the last 13.7 billion years the universe has had innumerable 'attempts' at forming a life supporting planet, the sheer number of stars and the constant forming of them over such a long period mean that no matter how long the odds against having just the right elements; life is bound be created.
What would be unbelievable is that if it didn't happen. It’s got nothing to do any silly 'god'.
Plate tectonics might also not be neccecary, we simply don't know that. The ratio of liquid water and continents is completely irrelevent, a planet with no land can probably support life just fine, it doesn't need to be a terrestrial planet either, in theory it is possible to have life up high in the atmosphere of a gas giant, and a moderate rate of rotation is also unneccecary.. And that's just the first 10 seconds.. I'm not going to watch this video..
Most of the points in the first 10 seconds are pretty off. We aren't sure about the galactic habitable zone, any main sequence star can support life, if it's a big one that just means the habitable zone is further out, protection by gas giants is unneccecary, oxygen rich is also not really right.. early earth didn't have much oxygen, correct mass is also not right, life is possible even without gravity, and while a large moon is helpful with seasons and floods and stuff, it's not neccecary.
I wasn't able to go to my thermodynamics lecture due to me being drunk off my ass that day. I decided to watch this video to prepare for that exam. This was very informative and has awesome music so I felt like I need to learn this. I failed that exam.
I don't see why the anger about the facts in the video, most people have never thought about the tremendous odds of everything fitting together. Without the moon there would be no sea currents or tides, sea life would be doomed, thus taking everything else with it. The odds of one protein arising because of chance is greater then the odds displayed in the video.
to be honest i dont even care because if there is the people with the power on this planet will just tortcher rape & kill it.. humans are the skum of the universe due to our laziness to overcome negitivity... we love being bad for some fucked up reason...
What science actually says: there are a hundred trillion galaxies in the universe and so trillion trillion stars that are orbited by an uncountable number of planets that such very low probability of combinations as shown in the video is still possible and bound to exist. And it is because these combinations happened to exist in the Solar system that life was allowed in the first place. Life came as a result of such combinations, it is not that those combinations came to support an intended life
Same old long debunked creationist garbage. The second law applies to a closed system only. The Earth is a open system, with the sun constantly adding energy (100,000 Lux or Lumins per square meter at the Earth's surface (avg.)).The Universe has been observed to be undergoing accelerated expansion, making it open as well. The assertion about the moon is debunked by Venus, a moonless planet that is not in synchronous lock with the sun. The laughable statistics ignore the trillions of galaxies...
@cansurfer1 in the universe, making the existence of life on a plethora a planets highly probable. The assertion that oxygen is necessary for life ignores plants, that use CO2 for life, and excrete oxygen as a waste product, as well as cyanobacteria (google Black Smokers). The idea that life as we know it is the only possibility is not tenable, and is nothing more than egotistical ignorance. This post is an epic fail.
@HildyMusic That's quite the off topic question. The onus is not on me to prove anything, other than the logical fallacies, strawmen and outright misrepresentations made in this post. If you would like to know more about how order and chaos are intimately linked: watch?v=uF7gdlTrCQY. This is, of course, a brief overview for laymen. To get a real feel for the idea, spend several years of study at a reputable university.
@frank0067 people like you who would assert to know someone else's level of knowledge on such subjects merely from one comment... i find have no understanding of the need for evidence to base such claims.
The composition of the atmosphere, shown in this video, is not correct. Carbon dioxide only makes up 0.03 % of the volume. Acutally it is Argon that makes up nearly 1 % (0.9%).
No actually it's not all true in the vid. Life doesn't neccesarily need a "giant gas planet", having a large moon or "correct mass" for example. These are just things our life on earth are adapted to.
If gravity would be stronger life would be less tall with stronger legs for example. Without a moon there would be irregular climate thus every creature would be able to cope with a larger array of climate differences (like some of our animals can, but most are adapted to our stable seasons)
What this video does is argue from the point that life needs to be like us, which is an ignorant argument. You don't go around looking for features (hobbies/looks/job/etc..) of lottery winners to see what you need to do in order to win the lottery.
That stupid calculation they put in the video for example, they're just adding a random made up number. Comparing this to "science" and saying things like "even evo-scientists agree" shows your lack of knowledge and understanding of it.
If things were different they wouldn't be the same. We ARE the consequences of this environment. If the earth was different then we wouldn't be here. 10^-15? Times the 100s of billions of galaxies of course. now how is this proof of a diety placing the right planet in the right location? A diety who could no doubt change the laws to allow life to exist on any planet going around any star.
@smartbrick Actually it's just the opposite. The fact that so many things need to go "just right" in order for complex life to develop means that most of the universe is lifeless. All that empty, wasted, useless space... Hardly the mark of an intelligent design.
From the "allaboutscience" website that made the video:
"If matter cannot be created, where did it come from? It is certainly here, and nothing natural can create it. This makes a supernatural source more than just a possible conclusion - it makes it the only conclusion that fits the Laws of Thermodynamics."
Translation: I don't understand Special Relativity, therefore God did it.
@terrymorse Matter can be created and destroyed, enerygy cannot be created or destroyed - only changed/transofrmed. A supernatural force is a ridiculous idea.
Is there any detailed explanation about how these conclusions were made. Particularly the one involving size of star , planets proximity and the effect of those factors on the planets duration of rotation.
Who cares how we got here, has anyone ever gotten the idea that we aren't supposed to know every question that we have about getting here??? I'm sick of everyone fucking arguing, if people are set on believing or non believing that's their fucking choice, you're NOT going to change their view points. I've taken the road to believe in God because it just doesn't seem fatual that all of this happened by accident, that's my view. Arguing on youtube is like trying to breathe underwater POINTLESS.
you know whats funny? The estimates of the probability of having a planet with all the features of ours is about 10 to the 80th power. And the estimate of the number of planets in the universe is currently about 10 to the 90th power. That means the probability of having a planet with the features of the Earth's is exactly 100%. So much for unlikely.
that guy said there were only a 100 billion stars. thats an approximation from the information we have now. that number could change at anytime when we discover something new. there is no way for us to know now how far the universe stretches. as penn and teller would say... "Bullshit.". and WTF i wanted to know about thermodynamics
And as this user suggests in the description, Entropy plays a big part. However there is only one thing he forgets to mention. The Earth is not a closed system, nor is the Universe.
The information here is so out of date and/or wrong. If the earth were closer to the sun, I will not necessarily become in tidally locked.
The atm contains 0.03% CO2 and not 1% as these idiot say
ANd most importantly, the sun is perfect for our needs....We are adapted for the kind of sun we have. These people are putting the cart before the horse in their logic.
@5tonyvvvv Yes because I obviously believe my ancestor was an oak tree.... I don't know. I would argue with you but I can't even pinpoint what the hell you are trying to say. I am not trying to disprove god and/or science. I'm just trying to say that taking these stupid probabilities into account doesn't prove/disprove anything. Like someone else mentioned: Anthropic principal, nothing to see here.
"What are the odds that the mold we feast on grows in the habitable zone (the Ionosphere) of our planet Zantral!? Life just couldn't exist without such a large electron density."
Oh I see.. Kelvin Planck and Clausius were right. lmao? The 2nd law has to do with refrigerators and heat pumps and heat engines, what the hell is this hahaha
entropy doesnt only apply to heat pumps, refrig, heat engins etc, thats used to explain it in engineering terms so it will be easier to understand
this is a defination of the second law but EXTREAMLY indirect. according to the second law it pretty much states that a planet that supports another life CAN but doesnt have to exist
Here is an equation for you. What is the probability that the planet that someone makes a youtube video on supports life. The answer? 100%. Ta-da. We have a 100% chance of living on a planet that supports life.
Is such an occurance rare within this arbitrary galaxy? Most likely so. Is that impossible? Clearly not. Is that rare in the universe? Well wouldn't you have to know the size of the universe to calculate that?
The only thing that needs to happen in order for life to develop is the appearance and sustained presence of self-replicating molecules. This process alone is not exactly easy or frequent, but once this occurs, then life will adapt to its environment and will either become more complex or obtain true equalibrum.
We're around to be able to remark on the fact that our planet suits us well. Yes, Earth is well placed, and the right size, and has many other factors going for it that would be conducive to life. But is the planet made for us? Or, are we adapted to fit the planet we've existed on? There are MANY planets that fall within the temperate sweet spot around other stars, and many with a mix of elements that bond well. Life could have, and probably has, arisen on other worlds.
The presence of free oxygen may be necessary to prevent photolysis of water at high altitude and loss of the hydrogen, though. Free oxygen allows ozone to form at high altitude, causing the stratospheric temperature inversion that prevents convective transport of water to high altitude. It may be that Venus, lacking an ozone layer, lost most of its hydrogen by this route.
That equation is bullshit. It estimates the probability of a planet similar to earth, not of a planet which can support life. Who tells you that all life has to be identical to our own?
@lennyhipp The uploader is a covert Bible-pusher. He wants to argue that God fine tuned the conditions of earth and that the second law, often explained incorrectly in Planck-Thomson terms as the universal tendency towards death or disorder, is proof of God’s existence. Correctly, humans are 26-element animate molecules, synthesized by the driving force of the sun’s heat (not by God), that react for a number of years, according to the laws of chemical thermodynamics.
I don't know a lot about astrophysics, but from what i understand: (simplifed) "Over time, differences in temperature and pressure equiliberate in a closed system". The above vid talks about the extreme inplausibility of life evolving on earth. There's two logical fallacies as i see it:
1) when you have only a single sample to go by, the liklihood of that event happening is ONE.
2) we don't know if we are alone in our own galaxy, as we are only just now able to observe other planets. (cont)
(cont) Given that ours is a smallish galaxy, and one of hundreds of billions of observable galaxies, however improbable it might seem, (given the enormity of the universe) it's pretty much mathematically GUARANTEED to happen somewhere at some time.
if you'd like to explain how this relates to the 2nd law, or why my limited/simplified understanding of it is wrong... and can't do it in 500 characters, feel free to send me a PM. i'd like to learn more about it
the web-site I accessed this video from labeled this video as Theory of Relativity video. I thought it was going to be a video about how Theory of Relativity plays its role for existence of life on Earth.
"this video was used in the "Why people make fun of creationist" series of videos and was claimed to be a creationist video, I don't think anywhere in the video did they attempt to propagate a belief in god"
this isn't the video you're thinking about. the one you're thinking about was from kent hovind i believe
This shit makes no sense. Who says life couldn't form without our moon giving us temperate seasons. Half of these probabilities only apply to human living conditions that we currently live on. Who's to say that other humanoid creatures can't live without every single probability. Scientists just found a multi-celled organism living without oxygen recently. That alone disproves so much in this video. The only people that accept these theories are just afraid of the actual truth that nobody knows.
@Zephy73 I'm disinclined to think that the oxygenless organisms disprove this... they would if they had originated on another planet, but they didn't. Just because they can survive without oxygen doesn't mean that they could come into being without oxygen.
@Zephy73 I'm disinclined to think that the oxygenless organisms disprove this... they would if they had originated on another planet, but they didn't. They're from planet earth. Just because they can survive without oxygen doesn't mean that they could come into being without oxygen.
@4800Sarah That's exactly what I was trying to say. Or at least I think so ( little bit confusing with the double negative) Who's to say that organisms NEED oxygen to survive? We only know of organism that originated with oxygen because we only know of organisms on planet earth. How do you not know that on some distant planet there are not complex organisms living on nitrogen or hydrogen?
@Zephy73 all in all your point is very valid... scientists have even conceived of creatures who might be based on silicon rather than carbon... out of all the knowledge that can be had, humanity has a rather small percentage, and it is narrow-minded to think we're the only possible form of intelligent life.
@4800Sarah actually, life began without oxygen. The atmosphere was not infused with it until after life forms began to photosynthesize (turning CO2 into O2), and it was highly toxic to current life forms at that point. It was later mutations and evolution that caused organisms to begin to respirate it.
@Zephy73 Well, so far we know that other, intelligent life atleast, cannot form because it would have done so, somewhere within 100 light years distance (according to Hawkins). Till we find that evidence, I will assume other humanoids will NOT be able to 'survive' and 'adapt'
@Zephy73 it makes perfect sense..u just dont like it because it invokes intelligence..rather than chance..as far as life by chance is ZERO..scientists have no chemistry to back it ...so called primitive cells never existed and cant be made its a stale mate do to chirality..imaginary atheist chemistry is all u have..which does not work and has been tested and life is never made
@5tonyvvvv Invokes intelligence? The only intelligence you've invoked is the ability to not think for yourself, you are brainwashed, and have the grammar of a 6th grader. What is imaginary atheist science? Is it the same science that tells us we share 70% of our DNA with an oak tree? Just because we cant replicate life in a test tube doesn't mean we were created by a god. I didn't come here to argue about religion. I came here to argue the stupidity in this movie
@Zephy73 Grammar..which you read just fine..you fuckin dork..please explain digital code?..where is it evolving from??..DNA evolving from some mud puddle or in some deep sea vent..thats science..its stubborn arrogance..You have nothing in common with an oak tree..that shows your ignorance..DNA fingerprint is found in all life..does not mean you had some common ancestor with an oak tree MORON!
@xSerialVelocity First u have the major problems of Homochirality.and the RNA world is going no where!!..scientists cant do anything with it..u dont get life from RNA..its just another direction they think life started ,u need a template and base which scientists still copy to get the replication going..its bullshit..all we do now is copy life..and say look we created something..lies!!
@5tonyvvvv exactly, you don't. rna is blueprints, not a living organism. the blueprints are useless without a user. Here's the paradox: it takes a living cell to use rna, but it takes rna to make a living cell.
@xSerialVelocity yes Iam for intelligence,not bullshit chance.its ridiculous,sorry man if your an atheist,I used to be one its fuckin pointless to ignore to chemistry..you would have to be pretty stubborn to think life could assemble it self..
@5tonyvvvv no no no no no no no no no im not atheist.... no no no i am a 100% Christian. Yes, evolution is built on faith and wishy washy thinking. Religion/theism is built on logic, science, and consideration of all facts. Stanley Miller showed that a lightning bolt passing through his "experiment" could form amino acids, which is what proteins are made of, which proteins are the building blocks of life. The thing is, amino acids DO NOT assemble unless in a living cell!! XD stupid atheists :D
@xSerialVelocity ..scientists are copying the bases and templates..the RNA world is going no where..just desperate chemists running out of grant money..RNA is not forming in to life, putting molecules together and watching them replicate is not life..and no where near to making life...put two rats in a box and watch them mate..look we made life the scientists say!!..wow what bullshit!!!
@Zephy73 The Earth wouldn't sustain life on it if the moon wasn't orbiting us... the moon helps us by controlling water, and tides, and stuff.. in the short version, water would go insane, and be disastrous without the moon.
AsTheSunBumsOut? What does the sun have to be bummed out about it?
(heh heh) Frankly, I think Earth has too much damned water on it. Only 1% of it is "drinkable" water, anyway (and that's before you extract it). We need more land area. I DO laugh at the wildly conjectured values of those probabilities.A more serious problem is how does one DEFINE a probability for each random variable.
People who just ASSUME a value (and I am guilty sometimes, too, but I KNOW I'm guilty) don't understand
This short video is flawed with bad science. Please done believe half of the things in it. The amount of stars in our universe is much greater. Try 10^22, that is ten sextillion stars that could support life. With that being said we could have many other planets that could support life "like us". Around 10,000 - 1,000,000 on the low end.
@casperfromenc, you just stated the most obvious things in the world, questions are "answered" they dont "come to live" and dummber is not a word LMAO...okay now you can feel dummber
~~~> Please take time to read ~~~> 6:33 mins were pointless. I seriously feel DUMMBER. All I know is, we are killing our only ONE planet (Earth,duh). Put it this way, YOU will never live to see the day ANY of YOUR questions come to live. Sorry, but that's reality.
@AsTheSunBurnsOut You said "This video was not meant to prove the existence of a Christian God, only a creator. "
Well, it it's that improbable for us to exist, imagine how much more improbable it must be for something so much more complicated like a creator to exist. It is totally unjustified to jump to the conclusion that a creator exists without giving a similar analysis of why that is more probable.
@TheQRabbit You could not be any further from from the point that I just made. You don't even know if I'm a Christian or not, but you randomly start an argument. My statement was unbias, but you suddenly came to the conclusion that I MUST be a Christian. Please, don't make your self look dumb by jumping to conclusions & starting arguments for no reason.
@AsTheSunBurnsOut I don't recall saying you were a Christian. My point was that it did not prove a creator which you said was the point of the video. Chill out.
@TheQRabbit My mistake, but I never said that it DID prove the existence of a creator, that was just the point of the video, it doesn't need to actually prove the existence of a creator for that to be the point
@AsTheSunBurnsOut And as you might also notice, I never said that you DID say it proved the existence of a creator. I was using your comment, which I believe accurately pointed out the point of the video, to show that the video did not prove the point that it set out to prove so, as I said before, chill out.
The science in this video is WAY off. First its not a fact that we have a iron core. Second if our star was smaller and we had a closer orbit we would not be cooked. so much bs.
Anyone who sees this as evidence for God or some other divine 'creator', please look up the 'Anthropic Principle'. Stephen hawking's book 'A brief history of time' is good at explaining this. Then one should be able to get to grips with the non-theological explanation of natural history, and why atheism is intellectually fulfilled and NOT a faith in itself.
Good luck people - I hope you have made the scientifically valid conclusion about the origins of life!
The Anthropic principle at work. We're here to discuss it, so it doesn't matter how small the chance was at the beginning, the fact that we're here proves the fact that it could happen, and more than that: it did. There's also a small chance for anyone to win the lottery, but people do. There's nothing remarkable about it. Space is very, very big, strange shit happens all the time. Life is just one of those things, it happens. And it happened to happen here. Otherwise, we wouldn't marvel at it.
@TheHomelessCripple You could be right. But did the video tell true science or not? I was looking for more info on the thermodynamic laws but still enjoyed this video.
@gregrutz it takes more than heat to make things become more complex. It takes intelligent design. In fact the illustration evolutionists usually give is that a tree grows larger and more complex over time. Trees do, but rocks don’t, because trees contain intelligent instructions in their DNA. Without the control of the information in the tree’s DNA, heat does not grow trees. Undirected heat burns down forests!
@purpleleach1 Yes, it takes more than heat, it takes the laws of nature, matter and energy. Does God make every snow flake design? Or does He make the laws of matter and let it happen?
Life ''burns'' sugar for energy [heat]. Life evolved to use proteins to harness this energy. DNA makes these proteins. Make a bubble, cell wall, and some DNA, and life can evolve from there.
This video is missing the fact that all these conditions are merely temporary. The earth`s center will eventually cool, the sun will enevtually die out. Even oxygen wasn`t always here.
It`s not like our planet is perfect for life and that`s it. It`s more like there is a very temporary situation in which life can arise, evolve and eventually go extinct.
This comment is directed at the description of the video...Isn't there an assumption being overlooked here? They assume the universe is a closed system...I'm no physicist, but I believe Prof. Lawrence Krauss says that the universe is not a closed system, but an open one...Is there agreement in the scientific community on this question? Also, I've seen other video's on YouTube that discuss this very point that creationists try to argue with. Listen to both sides, and see who has it right.
The reason why an infinite number of monkeys playing with typewriters won't write Shakespeare is because that particular information does not reside in their consciousness.
The reason why the universe and DNA exist is because that information does indeed reside in God's consciousness.
@Purushadasa No, it`s because the laws of physics rule that matter and energy behave in certain ways. Stuff doesn`t just happen randomly like monkeys typing on a typewriter. They happen according to well defined rules and laws.
The reason why monkeys can never type Shakespeare is because the information does not exist in their consciousness.
The reason why impersonal laws cannot produce DNA is that the DNA information is not within those laws, but that information is within God's consciousness.
@Purushadasa Actually, the information of DNA is contained within living cells - which reproduce themselves natually according to the laws of physics and chemistry. No divine intervention required.
I didn't posit any intervention -- divine or otherwise -- so your comment is an irrelevant straw-man logical fallacy.
However, the DNA information is not contained in the laws of physics or in any other impersonal entity, so the information for the first living cell/DNA had to come from an intelligent informer that did possess that information.
The universe is governed by Laws not disorder, there Evolution is farcical in the extreme.
FirebrandNIRE 3 days ago
@FirebrandNIRE
law in physics is descriptive, not prescribe by anyone (i.e. u can never violate it even if u hv freewill), and disorder itself is a law in thermodynamics (although often misused...). There are plenty of good videos on youtube, if you are really interested in science. An introductory course of statistical mechanics in any proper institution can also help.
AkasakaS2000 2 days ago
the last probability calculation is quite amusing... wt do each of the factor mean, and how do u assign a 1/10 probability to each (or any probability)? Remember: each microstate is equally unlikely, until we start grouping microstates together. U'll find out that simple multiplication is way too fictitious to describe our universe.
I hoped to see a better scientific illustration of the 2nd law, not this kind of crap...
AkasakaS2000 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I hate how science has to have so many atheists using it to disprove God. It gets old. If it did disprove god then there would be no possible way anyone would still be believing in god. Btw this video fucking sucked, i was trying to learn about fucking second law of thermodynamics and this mother fucker starts talking about how earth should form. Fuck, this is stupid.
martiandog89 1 week ago
The big bang caused the universe to come into being. If anything this disproves religion. It shows that the universe began with a huge explosion, and the energy from this explosion is aging and becoming useless.
Insanity2365 1 week ago
ths is nt abt 2nd law of thermodynamics bt sm geology ...:@
MTalhaSaleem1 2 weeks ago
People trying to argue whether a religion is real or not are the true retards. Its literally the most retarded thing imaginable. Why? You're trying to prove/disprove something intangible. Why bother?
OH WAIT I KNOW WHY
Athiests simply like to argue from what I notice so they can attempt to sound smart -- You know what people deem that as? Being a pseudo-intellectual
Christians get mad when you try to prove their God wrong and will try to convert you. Athiests, just SHUTUP.
Tinzert 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Tinzert 2 weeks ago
well darwinism is... jack and the bean stock magic bean theory.. nO evidence NO examples.. NO nothing.. just a nice little dogma... that they want to say is.. science.. hahahah
IT'S A blatant religion is what it is !!
frank0067 2 weeks ago
the darwinists run when they are presented real science and logic ..
that number is very very very conservative ... in fact its such a huge number .. it speaks of impossibilities !
WITH GOD. all things are possible
frank0067 2 weeks ago
@frank0067 considering there's no such thing as "darwinists", there's nobody TO run.
god of the gaps/fine tuning argument? so much for "real science & logic" lulz...
you merely assert that it is "impossible", yet you can't demonstrate that.
just b/c your personal incredulity doesn't permit such a possibility doesn't mean it didn't happen.
with god, all things are unsubstantiated, unfalsifiable & indistinguishable from fanstasy
kapwns 2 weeks ago
@kapwns so you like jack and the bean stock answers to lifes grand questions... sorry that kind of religious nonsense doesn't fit with real life.
darwinism is a bias, set to block higher leveal of knowledge, its an egenda ridden junk sciece movement.
The God argument is saying.. higher complex mind knowledge wisdom and relm..
they don't even want to SEE possibilities of other relms or dimensions..IS THAT BLANTENT religion or not.
frank0067 2 weeks ago
@frank0067 i'm not the one who prides himself in blindly believing an unsubstantiated fairy tale, you are.
you want to talk about not fitting with real life, have you actually read your holy book?
the bias is one towards reality, evidence &demonstrability, things your god claim lacks & fears.
funny, it's science that's suggesting other dimensions & looking for evidence of them, not religion.
lol & to think i felt guilty about misspelling fantasy...
kapwns 2 weeks ago
@kapwns confused person.. other dimension IS the beyond .. that darwinists reject .. yet they call themselves associated with science.. phff hardly
like i said before it's a religion
frank0067 2 weeks ago
@frank0067 funny b/c no where did darwin or evolutionary science speak about other dimensions.
lol at this point i don't think you can even define science while remaining consistent with your previous positions.
there's no evidence for your other realms/dimensions, let alone anything that substantiates your claims to knowing anything about them.
religion is based on believing without evidence that's why it tries to glorify "faith". atheists/skeptics only believe with evidence.
kapwns 2 weeks ago
This is not about the second law of thermodynamics. Please remove this video and re-upload it with a different title.
Fourmalletz 3 weeks ago
this sounds like its more about the "drake equation" than "entropy"..... fagot ass christians!!! i hate you!!
michaelofGB45 1 month ago
Comment removed
michaelofGB45 1 month ago
10^(11) x 10^(-19) = 10^(-8) or 1/100,000,000
71184austin 1 month ago
idiots don't think...
MouniraHalabi 1 month ago
This video is here to prove that earth didn't happen just by chance. That a higher being put us here for a reason...
DjKurdo10 1 month ago
@DjKurdo10 ...and yet it fails horribly at proving any of that
kapwns 2 weeks ago
you know i f they find signs of life, prespently or previously on mars ( which is pretty likely). then what this video is trying to get any would be totally Wrong. if life developed possibly twice in our own solar sytem then the universe is full of life.
HariXretro 1 month ago
I got 300,000 civilizations in Milky Way...."rare" my ass
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
They keep saying that all of these conditions on earth are just right to have complex life. But life on earth developed under these conditions, so it's more like life (on earth) has just the right needs to be compatible with the planet. They are putting the cart before the horse.
RobertSHilton 2 months ago
I believe this is a video that VenomFangX used once.
TheBarkingAtheist 2 months ago
The enormous size of the universe, the sextillion number stars in it mean that for the last 13.7 billion years the universe has had innumerable 'attempts' at forming a life supporting planet, the sheer number of stars and the constant forming of them over such a long period mean that no matter how long the odds against having just the right elements; life is bound be created.
What would be unbelievable is that if it didn't happen. It’s got nothing to do any silly 'god'.
jasonx1972 2 months ago
Plate tectonics might also not be neccecary, we simply don't know that. The ratio of liquid water and continents is completely irrelevent, a planet with no land can probably support life just fine, it doesn't need to be a terrestrial planet either, in theory it is possible to have life up high in the atmosphere of a gas giant, and a moderate rate of rotation is also unneccecary.. And that's just the first 10 seconds.. I'm not going to watch this video..
omgwtfbbqxD 2 months ago
Most of the points in the first 10 seconds are pretty off. We aren't sure about the galactic habitable zone, any main sequence star can support life, if it's a big one that just means the habitable zone is further out, protection by gas giants is unneccecary, oxygen rich is also not really right.. early earth didn't have much oxygen, correct mass is also not right, life is possible even without gravity, and while a large moon is helpful with seasons and floods and stuff, it's not neccecary.
omgwtfbbqxD 2 months ago
I wasn't able to go to my thermodynamics lecture due to me being drunk off my ass that day. I decided to watch this video to prepare for that exam. This was very informative and has awesome music so I felt like I need to learn this. I failed that exam.
w1tl3z 2 months ago
This actually has NOTHING to do with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
adisa091 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
isn't the science or god argument getting old? how about you all just enjoy life instead of fighting about who is right?
KasonNine 3 months ago
this means evolution is the science without math...lol
roniepao 3 months ago
If all the content of this video is true, then, I don't know what is real science.
tangmars 3 months ago
My teacher has been teaching me the wrong 2nd law!
maxasok 3 months ago
I don't see why the anger about the facts in the video, most people have never thought about the tremendous odds of everything fitting together. Without the moon there would be no sea currents or tides, sea life would be doomed, thus taking everything else with it. The odds of one protein arising because of chance is greater then the odds displayed in the video.
smoothpeople33 4 months ago
to be honest i dont even care because if there is the people with the power on this planet will just tortcher rape & kill it.. humans are the skum of the universe due to our laziness to overcome negitivity... we love being bad for some fucked up reason...
HappyBirthdaySANTA 4 months ago
This video didn't explain much of anything.
kloveless82 4 months ago 4
What science actually says: there are a hundred trillion galaxies in the universe and so trillion trillion stars that are orbited by an uncountable number of planets that such very low probability of combinations as shown in the video is still possible and bound to exist. And it is because these combinations happened to exist in the Solar system that life was allowed in the first place. Life came as a result of such combinations, it is not that those combinations came to support an intended life
CJones990 5 months ago
Same old long debunked creationist garbage. The second law applies to a closed system only. The Earth is a open system, with the sun constantly adding energy (100,000 Lux or Lumins per square meter at the Earth's surface (avg.)).The Universe has been observed to be undergoing accelerated expansion, making it open as well. The assertion about the moon is debunked by Venus, a moonless planet that is not in synchronous lock with the sun. The laughable statistics ignore the trillions of galaxies...
cansurfer1 5 months ago
@cansurfer1 in the universe, making the existence of life on a plethora a planets highly probable. The assertion that oxygen is necessary for life ignores plants, that use CO2 for life, and excrete oxygen as a waste product, as well as cyanobacteria (google Black Smokers). The idea that life as we know it is the only possibility is not tenable, and is nothing more than egotistical ignorance. This post is an epic fail.
cansurfer1 5 months ago
@cansurfer1 so this explains how order could come from disorder how?
HildyMusic 5 months ago
@HildyMusic That's quite the off topic question. The onus is not on me to prove anything, other than the logical fallacies, strawmen and outright misrepresentations made in this post. If you would like to know more about how order and chaos are intimately linked: watch?v=uF7gdlTrCQY. This is, of course, a brief overview for laymen. To get a real feel for the idea, spend several years of study at a reputable university.
cansurfer1 5 months ago
What has this to do with 2nd law of Thermodynamics?
junwenteh 5 months ago
Henry Poincare named the conception of "entropy "
as a " surprising abstract " Lev Landau wrote:
" A question about the physical basis of the
entropy monotonous increasing law remains open "
One physicist said :
" The entropy is only a shadow of energy“
#
the formula of Entropy is : h*f = kT logW .
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
socratus1 5 months ago
silly religion, stop trying to deny science while also trying to use it to prove religion
kapwns 5 months ago 12
@kapwns people like you who say things like that.. i find have no understand ing what science or religion is both !
frank0067 2 weeks ago
@frank0067 people like you who would assert to know someone else's level of knowledge on such subjects merely from one comment... i find have no understanding of the need for evidence to base such claims.
bearing false witness, much?
kapwns 2 weeks ago
The composition of the atmosphere, shown in this video, is not correct. Carbon dioxide only makes up 0.03 % of the volume. Acutally it is Argon that makes up nearly 1 % (0.9%).
RumoDog 5 months ago 2
To be fair, this video does do a good job of explaining why we haven`t been visited by little green men. Earth did win a lottery!
mdo686 7 months ago
GREAT VIDEO!!!!! It really shows there is no god. What god would be dumb enough to design a universe like that?
mdo686 7 months ago
thumbs up if you're watching this now.
tomhh74 7 months ago
@LycaonsBane Who says you need to be any shown proof, you... What cha think about that bud
orange70383 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
wow what a moron
Zareste 7 months ago
well fuckAdoodleDo simply crapTacular
FUwogs 8 months ago
@FUwogs god dun it
FUwogs 8 months ago
Sounds like a lot of creationist inspired bullshit thinking.
Phyrexious 8 months ago
@Phyrexious But ya know it's all true. Even evo-scientists agree on this list. What cha think about that bud...
orange70383 7 months ago
No actually it's not all true in the vid. Life doesn't neccesarily need a "giant gas planet", having a large moon or "correct mass" for example. These are just things our life on earth are adapted to.
If gravity would be stronger life would be less tall with stronger legs for example. Without a moon there would be irregular climate thus every creature would be able to cope with a larger array of climate differences (like some of our animals can, but most are adapted to our stable seasons)
Phyrexious 7 months ago
2/2
What this video does is argue from the point that life needs to be like us, which is an ignorant argument. You don't go around looking for features (hobbies/looks/job/etc..) of lottery winners to see what you need to do in order to win the lottery.
That stupid calculation they put in the video for example, they're just adding a random made up number. Comparing this to "science" and saying things like "even evo-scientists agree" shows your lack of knowledge and understanding of it.
Phyrexious 7 months ago
If things were different they wouldn't be the same. We ARE the consequences of this environment. If the earth was different then we wouldn't be here. 10^-15? Times the 100s of billions of galaxies of course. now how is this proof of a diety placing the right planet in the right location? A diety who could no doubt change the laws to allow life to exist on any planet going around any star.
snakeguy76 9 months ago
Surprise! Conditions here are capable of supporting life!
As though, it could be otherwise and still have us here viewing this video.
This isn't evidence of anything. Conditions will always allow life anywhere that Life asks the question NOT MATTER HOW THE LIFE GOT THERE.
So if Life arrived by accident or by magic, either way it's going to look exactly the same, it's going to look like conditions allow it. DUH!
dimbulb23 9 months ago
OMG ! If it was different and life could not live here then there would be no life on earth !!!!!!! And we would not be here !!!!!
And Evolution would not have happened !!!!!
gregrutz 9 months ago
There are life forms that can withstand high temperatures and that can survive without oxygen. So extra-terrestrial life forms are still possible.
lexhus 9 months ago
3:03 i see a massive open mouth
lexhus 9 months ago
i came to learn the second law of thermodynamics and just ended up listening to completely alien words that have nothing to do with it... *angry*
girlie786 10 months ago
titan and europa are pretty big contenders for life in our own solar system. you dont need a planet, or a habitable zone
myco578 10 months ago
This is proof that God exists.
smartbrick 10 months ago
@smartbrick Actually it's just the opposite. The fact that so many things need to go "just right" in order for complex life to develop means that most of the universe is lifeless. All that empty, wasted, useless space... Hardly the mark of an intelligent design.
studentofsmith 9 months ago
@studentofsmith It is if that's how you wanted it when you made it. What cha think about that bud...
orange70383 7 months ago
@smartbrick This just says that earth-like planets are rare, it is not a proof.
libor2 9 months ago
This idea has been debunked long ago. It's funny how so many still cling to this fallacy.
1960pj 10 months ago
From the "allaboutscience" website that made the video:
"If matter cannot be created, where did it come from? It is certainly here, and nothing natural can create it. This makes a supernatural source more than just a possible conclusion - it makes it the only conclusion that fits the Laws of Thermodynamics."
Translation: I don't understand Special Relativity, therefore God did it.
terrymorse 10 months ago
@terrymorse Matter can be created and destroyed, enerygy cannot be created or destroyed - only changed/transofrmed. A supernatural force is a ridiculous idea.
Hipp3LykRS 10 months ago
@Hipp3LykRS Thank you for being someone else who was paying attention in Physics class.
terrymorse 10 months ago
This is about the Drake equation, not the second law of thermodynamics.
kjun13 10 months ago
Is there any detailed explanation about how these conclusions were made. Particularly the one involving size of star , planets proximity and the effect of those factors on the planets duration of rotation.
mandarpowale 10 months ago
1% is not carbon dioxide but argon. carbon dioxide ampount is much smaller than that.
roboticmehdi 11 months ago
I call creationism on this vid. If conditions were different; we would not have life as we know it, but I'm betting there'd still be life.
averyellis 11 months ago
Who cares how we got here, has anyone ever gotten the idea that we aren't supposed to know every question that we have about getting here??? I'm sick of everyone fucking arguing, if people are set on believing or non believing that's their fucking choice, you're NOT going to change their view points. I've taken the road to believe in God because it just doesn't seem fatual that all of this happened by accident, that's my view. Arguing on youtube is like trying to breathe underwater POINTLESS.
litledevel15 11 months ago
you know whats funny? The estimates of the probability of having a planet with all the features of ours is about 10 to the 80th power. And the estimate of the number of planets in the universe is currently about 10 to the 90th power. That means the probability of having a planet with the features of the Earth's is exactly 100%. So much for unlikely.
shldflght 11 months ago
why they named it "Second Law Of Thermo"
Anumanu1711 1 year ago
that guy said there were only a 100 billion stars. thats an approximation from the information we have now. that number could change at anytime when we discover something new. there is no way for us to know now how far the universe stretches. as penn and teller would say... "Bullshit.". and WTF i wanted to know about thermodynamics
180sxdrft123again 1 year ago
Note to everyone watching this video.
This has NOTHING to do with the Second Law.
And as this user suggests in the description, Entropy plays a big part. However there is only one thing he forgets to mention. The Earth is not a closed system, nor is the Universe.
pythor2 1 year ago
The information here is so out of date and/or wrong. If the earth were closer to the sun, I will not necessarily become in tidally locked.
The atm contains 0.03% CO2 and not 1% as these idiot say
ANd most importantly, the sun is perfect for our needs....We are adapted for the kind of sun we have. These people are putting the cart before the horse in their logic.
missinformation1221 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv Yes because I obviously believe my ancestor was an oak tree.... I don't know. I would argue with you but I can't even pinpoint what the hell you are trying to say. I am not trying to disprove god and/or science. I'm just trying to say that taking these stupid probabilities into account doesn't prove/disprove anything. Like someone else mentioned: Anthropic principal, nothing to see here.
Zephy73 1 year ago
I want to know about second law of thermo!
"What are the odds that the mold we feast on grows in the habitable zone (the Ionosphere) of our planet Zantral!? Life just couldn't exist without such a large electron density."
Anthropic principle. Next video.
bgdsux 1 year ago
Oh I see.. Kelvin Planck and Clausius were right. lmao? The 2nd law has to do with refrigerators and heat pumps and heat engines, what the hell is this hahaha
grybok1ng 1 year ago
@grybok1ng
entropy doesnt only apply to heat pumps, refrig, heat engins etc, thats used to explain it in engineering terms so it will be easier to understand
this is a defination of the second law but EXTREAMLY indirect. according to the second law it pretty much states that a planet that supports another life CAN but doesnt have to exist
johann7gohan 1 year ago
@johann7gohan ah i see. cause entropy is a measurment of a processes irreverisibilities. so it makes sense
grybok1ng 1 year ago
Here is an equation for you. What is the probability that the planet that someone makes a youtube video on supports life. The answer? 100%. Ta-da. We have a 100% chance of living on a planet that supports life.
Is such an occurance rare within this arbitrary galaxy? Most likely so. Is that impossible? Clearly not. Is that rare in the universe? Well wouldn't you have to know the size of the universe to calculate that?
wemustdissent 1 year ago
The only thing that needs to happen in order for life to develop is the appearance and sustained presence of self-replicating molecules. This process alone is not exactly easy or frequent, but once this occurs, then life will adapt to its environment and will either become more complex or obtain true equalibrum.
beren082 1 year ago
We're around to be able to remark on the fact that our planet suits us well. Yes, Earth is well placed, and the right size, and has many other factors going for it that would be conducive to life. But is the planet made for us? Or, are we adapted to fit the planet we've existed on? There are MANY planets that fall within the temperate sweet spot around other stars, and many with a mix of elements that bond well. Life could have, and probably has, arisen on other worlds.
EricZombie 1 year ago
The presence of free oxygen may be necessary to prevent photolysis of water at high altitude and loss of the hydrogen, though. Free oxygen allows ozone to form at high altitude, causing the stratospheric temperature inversion that prevents convective transport of water to high altitude. It may be that Venus, lacking an ozone layer, lost most of its hydrogen by this route.
rocketplumber 1 year ago
With the size of the univers, rare things are bound to happen all the time...
argh523 1 year ago 7
That equation is bullshit. It estimates the probability of a planet similar to earth, not of a planet which can support life. Who tells you that all life has to be identical to our own?
guyboy625 1 year ago
This does not talk about the 2nd law!!!!
Bakerb1942 1 year ago
@ReactorStudios ok, i see, it does use some of the same graphics. didn't the "why people laugh at creationists" featured lee stroebel though
lennyhipp 1 year ago
i want to know what this has to do with the 2nd law?!
lennyhipp 1 year ago 65
@lennyhipp The uploader is a covert Bible-pusher. He wants to argue that God fine tuned the conditions of earth and that the second law, often explained incorrectly in Planck-Thomson terms as the universal tendency towards death or disorder, is proof of God’s existence. Correctly, humans are 26-element animate molecules, synthesized by the driving force of the sun’s heat (not by God), that react for a number of years, according to the laws of chemical thermodynamics.
HumanChemistry101 1 year ago
@HumanChemistry101 i know! was being sarcastic, but at the same time driving home the point that it has nothing to do with the second law
lennyhipp 1 year ago
@lennyhipp Everything has something to do with the second law, it is one of the two laws that govern the entire universe.
HumanChemistry101 1 year ago
Comment removed
lennyhipp 1 year ago
I don't know a lot about astrophysics, but from what i understand: (simplifed) "Over time, differences in temperature and pressure equiliberate in a closed system". The above vid talks about the extreme inplausibility of life evolving on earth. There's two logical fallacies as i see it:
1) when you have only a single sample to go by, the liklihood of that event happening is ONE.
2) we don't know if we are alone in our own galaxy, as we are only just now able to observe other planets. (cont)
lennyhipp 1 year ago
(cont) Given that ours is a smallish galaxy, and one of hundreds of billions of observable galaxies, however improbable it might seem, (given the enormity of the universe) it's pretty much mathematically GUARANTEED to happen somewhere at some time.
if you'd like to explain how this relates to the 2nd law, or why my limited/simplified understanding of it is wrong... and can't do it in 500 characters, feel free to send me a PM. i'd like to learn more about it
lennyhipp 1 year ago
@lennyhipp
the web-site I accessed this video from labeled this video as Theory of Relativity video. I thought it was going to be a video about how Theory of Relativity plays its role for existence of life on Earth.
mandarpowale 10 months ago
"this video was used in the "Why people make fun of creationist" series of videos and was claimed to be a creationist video, I don't think anywhere in the video did they attempt to propagate a belief in god"
this isn't the video you're thinking about. the one you're thinking about was from kent hovind i believe
lennyhipp 1 year ago
This shit makes no sense. Who says life couldn't form without our moon giving us temperate seasons. Half of these probabilities only apply to human living conditions that we currently live on. Who's to say that other humanoid creatures can't live without every single probability. Scientists just found a multi-celled organism living without oxygen recently. That alone disproves so much in this video. The only people that accept these theories are just afraid of the actual truth that nobody knows.
Zephy73 1 year ago 34
@Zephy73 Their talking about complex life not multi celled organisms
Bakerb1942 1 year ago
@Zephy73 I'm disinclined to think that the oxygenless organisms disprove this... they would if they had originated on another planet, but they didn't. Just because they can survive without oxygen doesn't mean that they could come into being without oxygen.
4800Sarah 1 year ago
@Zephy73 I'm disinclined to think that the oxygenless organisms disprove this... they would if they had originated on another planet, but they didn't. They're from planet earth. Just because they can survive without oxygen doesn't mean that they could come into being without oxygen.
4800Sarah 1 year ago
@4800Sarah That's exactly what I was trying to say. Or at least I think so ( little bit confusing with the double negative) Who's to say that organisms NEED oxygen to survive? We only know of organism that originated with oxygen because we only know of organisms on planet earth. How do you not know that on some distant planet there are not complex organisms living on nitrogen or hydrogen?
Zephy73 1 year ago
@Zephy73 all in all your point is very valid... scientists have even conceived of creatures who might be based on silicon rather than carbon... out of all the knowledge that can be had, humanity has a rather small percentage, and it is narrow-minded to think we're the only possible form of intelligent life.
4800Sarah 1 year ago
@4800Sarah actually, life began without oxygen. The atmosphere was not infused with it until after life forms began to photosynthesize (turning CO2 into O2), and it was highly toxic to current life forms at that point. It was later mutations and evolution that caused organisms to begin to respirate it.
beren082 1 year ago
@Zephy73 Well, so far we know that other, intelligent life atleast, cannot form because it would have done so, somewhere within 100 light years distance (according to Hawkins). Till we find that evidence, I will assume other humanoids will NOT be able to 'survive' and 'adapt'
Great video!
SocialScruples 1 year ago
@Zephy73 it makes perfect sense..u just dont like it because it invokes intelligence..rather than chance..as far as life by chance is ZERO..scientists have no chemistry to back it ...so called primitive cells never existed and cant be made its a stale mate do to chirality..imaginary atheist chemistry is all u have..which does not work and has been tested and life is never made
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv Invokes intelligence? The only intelligence you've invoked is the ability to not think for yourself, you are brainwashed, and have the grammar of a 6th grader. What is imaginary atheist science? Is it the same science that tells us we share 70% of our DNA with an oak tree? Just because we cant replicate life in a test tube doesn't mean we were created by a god. I didn't come here to argue about religion. I came here to argue the stupidity in this movie
Zephy73 1 year ago
@Zephy73 Grammar..which you read just fine..you fuckin dork..please explain digital code?..where is it evolving from??..DNA evolving from some mud puddle or in some deep sea vent..thats science..its stubborn arrogance..You have nothing in common with an oak tree..that shows your ignorance..DNA fingerprint is found in all life..does not mean you had some common ancestor with an oak tree MORON!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv Exactly. We have 75% the same DNA as a nematode. Whos to say that we are not all nematodes? lol
xSerialVelocity 1 year ago
@xSerialVelocity First u have the major problems of Homochirality.and the RNA world is going no where!!..scientists cant do anything with it..u dont get life from RNA..its just another direction they think life started ,u need a template and base which scientists still copy to get the replication going..its bullshit..all we do now is copy life..and say look we created something..lies!!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv exactly, you don't. rna is blueprints, not a living organism. the blueprints are useless without a user. Here's the paradox: it takes a living cell to use rna, but it takes rna to make a living cell.
xSerialVelocity 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv are u supporting god's existence, or against it?
xSerialVelocity 1 year ago
@xSerialVelocity yes Iam for intelligence,not bullshit chance.its ridiculous,sorry man if your an atheist,I used to be one its fuckin pointless to ignore to chemistry..you would have to be pretty stubborn to think life could assemble it self..
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv no no no no no no no no no im not atheist.... no no no i am a 100% Christian. Yes, evolution is built on faith and wishy washy thinking. Religion/theism is built on logic, science, and consideration of all facts. Stanley Miller showed that a lightning bolt passing through his "experiment" could form amino acids, which is what proteins are made of, which proteins are the building blocks of life. The thing is, amino acids DO NOT assemble unless in a living cell!! XD stupid atheists :D
xSerialVelocity 1 year ago
@xSerialVelocity ..scientists are copying the bases and templates..the RNA world is going no where..just desperate chemists running out of grant money..RNA is not forming in to life, putting molecules together and watching them replicate is not life..and no where near to making life...put two rats in a box and watch them mate..look we made life the scientists say!!..wow what bullshit!!!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv "put two rats in a box and watch them mate..look we made life the scientists say!!..wow what bullshit!!!"
No, more like, let's put random chemicals in a box! These chemicals will join together, and in time, a human will form! lol
xSerialVelocity 1 year ago
@Zephy73 could not agree more
Jarrodmontelius 10 months ago
@Zephy73 The Earth wouldn't sustain life on it if the moon wasn't orbiting us... the moon helps us by controlling water, and tides, and stuff.. in the short version, water would go insane, and be disastrous without the moon.
bigbossman985 8 months ago
AsTheSunBumsOut? What does the sun have to be bummed out about it?
(heh heh) Frankly, I think Earth has too much damned water on it. Only 1% of it is "drinkable" water, anyway (and that's before you extract it). We need more land area. I DO laugh at the wildly conjectured values of those probabilities.A more serious problem is how does one DEFINE a probability for each random variable.
People who just ASSUME a value (and I am guilty sometimes, too, but I KNOW I'm guilty) don't understand
deskset24 1 year ago
@deskset24 .. how probabilities are defined. I've taught probability and passed 2 actuarial exams which are all about probabilities.
My point is, if you are given no information about a random variable, X,
say, X = number of glipglops who have evolved on the backside of Saturn,
then there is not even a well-defined definition of Pr(X=x), for some nonnegative integer x.
deskset24 1 year ago
This short video is flawed with bad science. Please done believe half of the things in it. The amount of stars in our universe is much greater. Try 10^22, that is ten sextillion stars that could support life. With that being said we could have many other planets that could support life "like us". Around 10,000 - 1,000,000 on the low end.
boostingcav 1 year ago
@casperfromenc, you just stated the most obvious things in the world, questions are "answered" they dont "come to live" and dummber is not a word LMAO...okay now you can feel dummber
thehatterslady 1 year ago
Comment removed
thehatterslady 1 year ago
~~~> Please take time to read ~~~> 6:33 mins were pointless. I seriously feel DUMMBER. All I know is, we are killing our only ONE planet (Earth,duh). Put it this way, YOU will never live to see the day ANY of YOUR questions come to live. Sorry, but that's reality.
casperfromenc 1 year ago
Ah, creationist propaganda.. I liked the part where they didn't even mention the Second Law.
thinghurlos 1 year ago
can we even prove that the universe is an Isolated system?
hempartist420 1 year ago
Very True!
KiwiChristian 1 year ago
This is making me so cofused this video is way off!!!!!!!
L3ann3n4 1 year ago
what the heck this is making me so confused
L3ann3n4 1 year ago
This video was not meant to prove the existence of a Christian God, only a creator. This has nothing to do with religion.
AsTheSunBurnsOut 1 year ago
@AsTheSunBurnsOut Well Said
KiwiChristian 1 year ago
@AsTheSunBurnsOut You said "This video was not meant to prove the existence of a Christian God, only a creator. "
Well, it it's that improbable for us to exist, imagine how much more improbable it must be for something so much more complicated like a creator to exist. It is totally unjustified to jump to the conclusion that a creator exists without giving a similar analysis of why that is more probable.
TheQRabbit 1 year ago
@TheQRabbit You could not be any further from from the point that I just made. You don't even know if I'm a Christian or not, but you randomly start an argument. My statement was unbias, but you suddenly came to the conclusion that I MUST be a Christian. Please, don't make your self look dumb by jumping to conclusions & starting arguments for no reason.
AsTheSunBurnsOut 1 year ago
@AsTheSunBurnsOut I don't recall saying you were a Christian. My point was that it did not prove a creator which you said was the point of the video. Chill out.
TheQRabbit 1 year ago
@TheQRabbit My mistake, but I never said that it DID prove the existence of a creator, that was just the point of the video, it doesn't need to actually prove the existence of a creator for that to be the point
AsTheSunBurnsOut 1 year ago
@AsTheSunBurnsOut And as you might also notice, I never said that you DID say it proved the existence of a creator. I was using your comment, which I believe accurately pointed out the point of the video, to show that the video did not prove the point that it set out to prove so, as I said before, chill out.
TheQRabbit 1 year ago
Mis-titled. Nothing to do w/ the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
The Oxygen on the earth came from life. The earth evolved as life evolved.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Hi Greg, long time no see. Funny to find you here :)
KiwiChristian 1 year ago
The science in this video is WAY off. First its not a fact that we have a iron core. Second if our star was smaller and we had a closer orbit we would not be cooked. so much bs.
probe26 1 year ago
Anyone who sees this as evidence for God or some other divine 'creator', please look up the 'Anthropic Principle'. Stephen hawking's book 'A brief history of time' is good at explaining this. Then one should be able to get to grips with the non-theological explanation of natural history, and why atheism is intellectually fulfilled and NOT a faith in itself.
Good luck people - I hope you have made the scientifically valid conclusion about the origins of life!
Lepilad 1 year ago
The Anthropic principle at work. We're here to discuss it, so it doesn't matter how small the chance was at the beginning, the fact that we're here proves the fact that it could happen, and more than that: it did. There's also a small chance for anyone to win the lottery, but people do. There's nothing remarkable about it. Space is very, very big, strange shit happens all the time. Life is just one of those things, it happens. And it happened to happen here. Otherwise, we wouldn't marvel at it.
crixus 1 year ago
This said NOTHING on thermodynamics. I'm thinking this is some kind of creationist video.
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
@TheHomelessCripple You could be right. But did the video tell true science or not? I was looking for more info on the thermodynamic laws but still enjoyed this video.
KiwiChristian 1 year ago
there is only 12 plates not more
silverface125 1 year ago
Does the video have a point? Shit happenes.
Teach people just enough science you can mislead them.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Yes, plate techtonic does happen, done it for millions of years.
Water was here before oxygen.
gregrutz 1 year ago
''IF the earth was different, things would be different'' Stupid video.
The earth evolved WITH life. Early Life made the oxygen we breath.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz for the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the problem for evolution is that it lacks a mechanism for applying energy in an organized manner
purpleleach1 1 year ago
@purpleleach1 Life does that, you are using energy to organize molecules.
Life can't exist if you idea of the 2nd law was true.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz it takes more than heat to make things become more complex. It takes intelligent design. In fact the illustration evolutionists usually give is that a tree grows larger and more complex over time. Trees do, but rocks don’t, because trees contain intelligent instructions in their DNA. Without the control of the information in the tree’s DNA, heat does not grow trees. Undirected heat burns down forests!
purpleleach1 1 year ago
@purpleleach1 Yes, it takes more than heat, it takes the laws of nature, matter and energy. Does God make every snow flake design? Or does He make the laws of matter and let it happen?
Life ''burns'' sugar for energy [heat]. Life evolved to use proteins to harness this energy. DNA makes these proteins. Make a bubble, cell wall, and some DNA, and life can evolve from there.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system.
YES! Lock yourself in a room [closed system] for 100 years and you will turn to mush.
Eat lunch and you get energy [open system] from the sun.
Why can't creationists understand science?
Because they have never read a science book.
They get all there propaganda from Kent, Ken, Billy and Pat.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@ReactorStudios It is a creationist video.
Their point is, It is unlikely, so god dun it.
gregrutz 1 year ago
This video is missing the fact that all these conditions are merely temporary. The earth`s center will eventually cool, the sun will enevtually die out. Even oxygen wasn`t always here.
It`s not like our planet is perfect for life and that`s it. It`s more like there is a very temporary situation in which life can arise, evolve and eventually go extinct.
paolo27th 1 year ago
This comment is directed at the description of the video...Isn't there an assumption being overlooked here? They assume the universe is a closed system...I'm no physicist, but I believe Prof. Lawrence Krauss says that the universe is not a closed system, but an open one...Is there agreement in the scientific community on this question? Also, I've seen other video's on YouTube that discuss this very point that creationists try to argue with. Listen to both sides, and see who has it right.
bombersimon 1 year ago
In order for the universe to be "an open system," there would have to be something else existing outside it.
Congratulations -- you have just preached in favor of Theism.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
@Purushadasa The earth and it's life is an open system, we get energy from the sun. The universe is a closed system, there is nothing outside it.
gregrutz 1 year ago
The reason why an infinite number of monkeys playing with typewriters won't write Shakespeare is because that particular information does not reside in their consciousness.
The reason why the universe and DNA exist is because that information does indeed reside in God's consciousness.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
@Purushadasa No, it`s because the laws of physics rule that matter and energy behave in certain ways. Stuff doesn`t just happen randomly like monkeys typing on a typewriter. They happen according to well defined rules and laws.
paolo27th 1 year ago
Every law has a personal origin.
The reason why monkeys can never type Shakespeare is because the information does not exist in their consciousness.
The reason why impersonal laws cannot produce DNA is that the DNA information is not within those laws, but that information is within God's consciousness.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
@Purushadasa Actually, the information of DNA is contained within living cells - which reproduce themselves natually according to the laws of physics and chemistry. No divine intervention required.
paolo27th 1 year ago
I didn't posit any intervention -- divine or otherwise -- so your comment is an irrelevant straw-man logical fallacy.
However, the DNA information is not contained in the laws of physics or in any other impersonal entity, so the information for the first living cell/DNA had to come from an intelligent informer that did possess that information.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam