If there was (or maybe going to be) a civilization in the very distant future and, all they can see is their local group of galaxies, due to the expansion of the universe, could they deduce the history of the universe as we have?
So...I took some time of my life (unfortunately) and spend last half an hour reading these comments. And I can say only one thing: there are so many unknown scientists commenting on Youtube, I can't believe it! Guys, what are you doing in front of the computer?? You should be somewhere, earning money just for being so clever! With so much intelligence this world will never end! *sarcasm*
space i think smashes physics laws... and is simply nothingness or a storage (hard drive) if you will, with gardens (solar systems) programmed to specific time continu-ums to harbour life according to the time continu-um.. maybe our gods from all these years ago we carved in stone and wrote about are stil in fact ALIVE? in a different time continu-um?? where a day to them is a 100 yrs to us? id be willing to gamble on it.
@buzinazz if you are willing to say "space i think smashes physics laws.." then you obviously don't know anything about physics. Go visit your library and learn something then come back and make something resembling and intelligent comment.
if they let you guys just sit in a room for years think of what might come out?? thoughts are manifested somewhere... its easy to say there is more out there.. infact its obvious... we just need to get there! i'd be willing to travel myself and die a hero just to find out.
10-20 yrs? 10-20 days if bill gates, trump, jay z, p diddy, ect.. came together and wanted more outta this life.. we could prolly buy a ticket to anywhere non? why does it cost human existence a FEE or MONEY to better mankind?? THEY WANT US HERE FOR A REASON! it wouldnt cost us if people cared about people.
@Alexplus20 True SETI has not found anything, but remember they are searching via Radio Telescopes, and are looking for a specific signal. What if that civilization uses another form of communication? Also they have searched maybe 1% of our Universe. Also what if a Civilization is out there like us, but are what we were 1000 years ago? They would have yet to discover that type of Technology. Our Radio signals have only been going out to space for the last 70 years.
@Mickayeel11 exactly so any civilisation further that 70 light years away will think that there is no life on earth is they use the same techniques as SETI. its hardly surprising that we have found nothing yet.
Let's face it already...we are the supreme beings and the pinacles of creation and evolution. Nothin else compares. Does life exist elsewhere? SETI hasn't picked up shit I think that alone speaks for it self. Heil Humanity! Troll lol lol.
To think we live in a society where people are more interested in Kim Kardashian’s wedding or which celebrity is dating who, rather than the potential of finding life in the universe. The men in this video should be on the front of magazines and newspapers not superficial celebrities.
@Mickayeel11 The front page is is determined by people's interest. Sadly, most people are perfectly content with their current ideologies and don't want their ideas challenged. And, in addition, most people simply don't have the fundamental understanding of the sciences to have a fertile discussion of the topic. Or, perhaps they don't like the feeling of the ignorance of their concepts made apparent to them.
Humans kill me. We use our tiny little brains and limited senses to discuss such things. What if the other life forms are so far advanced that we cannot even begin to understand, intellectualize, sense, detect their existence? They're all probably sitting around making jokes about our limitations and rudimentary science OR dismissing us as a race of simple, uncivilized (by their standards) nincompoops?
@2tim149 I'd be very surprised if any life as advanced as you posit has ever existed. I'd be surprised if any life as intelligent as humans has ever existed. I'm sure life exists elsewhere in the universe, and it may be fairly common, but intelligent life is completely different.
@RussianAssassin21 there is nothing in physics to suggest that a civilisation could not be over a million years old by now. Can you imagine what humanity could achieve in a million years? I think you are blinkered to the actual possibilities based on our own existence.You think we are as good as it gets because on earth - we are as good as it gets.
Humans kill me. We use our tiny little brains and limited senses to discuss such things. What if the other life forms are so far advanced that we cannot even begin to understand, intellectualize, sense, detect their existence? They're all probably sitting around making jokes about out limitations and rudimentary science OR dismissing us as a race of simple, uncivilized nincompoops?
@mzedong001 i think you are just extrapolating the Gia theory which also has no real evidence. The universe is 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999927% lifeless and dead (there could be a couple more nines in there). Yet you think it is conscious? You should read more.
Doesn't life at the bottom of the ocean require dead living matter sustained by the sun to make it down for them to eat? What is its evolutionary tree? (Did it evolve from sunlight requiring life and adapt to feed on other stuff?). I don't know enough about this stuff heh.
@ninjatoothpaste Yes and no. Many deep sea organism feed on the carcases of, for instance, dead whales. But there are also "Black Smokers", volcanic undersea springs of hot water, which provide the necessary energy.
You can actually smell the fear of Christians that we might find life on other planets. It would make their human God sound even more ridiculous then it now.
@iamnicompoop Roman Catholic Church recognises possibility of extraterrestrial life and has no problem with it. What's your problem, lad? Spend less time hating, more time doing something productive.
@anonseppxx The existence of an advanced extra-terrestrial civilization, would make it clear we (humans) are not the sole reason for the universe, and we are certainly not created in god's image. Imagine finding purple octopus-looking beings more advanced then we are and trying to convince them humans are made in God's image. How impressed would a ET from some ancient civilization be with our religions, based on human history and human nature.?
@metalmilitia - I have no doubt the life we see today "evolved on earth". Evolving is the easy part, making the system that can evolve is the challenge. There are theories that combinatorial chemistry occurring between sheets of mica could have produced the first forms of replicating systems. This uses mechanical work from gravitational fluctuations to make and break bonds. I think the assumption that it takes 200 million years to create the life we see today is very "Earth Centric".
@jpbida Well, it's 200 million years to get it going on Earth. There's no way to tell any earlier than that. But no one's saying that it didn't form on other worlds long before the Earth even formed. Maybe it was made there and came here, maybe "our life" assembled here. Maybe a combination of both. In either case, it's an interesting thought. That's the joy of science, we keep studying, exploring, experimenting, & discovering. It doesn't end. One answer will lead to a greater question.
I like how at 17:00 he assumes life originated on Earth when coming to the conclusion that it only took 200 million years to evolve. It could have taken life 1 trillion years to evolve and then crash into the right environment. I am sure there are bacteria tucked away in the battery compartment of Voyager awaiting a host planet.
@jpbida Very true statement. However, if life can evolve somewhere else and seed Earth, it's very possible that life on Earth, at least some of it, may have originated here too. I'm not saying this out of a "Earth-centered view", but because the Earth became very conducive to life after it cooled. But yes, I agree that everything we send out into space on a one-way trip, may be contaminating the universe, or at least it may in the long-term future.
that music at the end is absolutely awesome! the credits I mean, not the stupid pompous fanfare at the end! Brilliant talk as well. That's the kind of dinner parties I want to have when I grow up! (ahem: I'm 31)
I love how that old guy refers to alchemy as a "wonderfully compelling idea", but yet earlier makes completely unnecessary religious references and other platitudes without seeing the parallel. What a nut.
This was in 2006. They hadn't yet found 100 planets. It is now 2011 and we are looking at 10,000+ more within the next few releases on Kepler data. That is on top of the 1,000+ they have already found with the amazing device.
@zzzIdividedbyzerozzz true, if sagan was still alive he would be probably my second fave after kaku and tyson would be my third favorite, maybe my fourth favorite as I am especially fascinated with Jill Tarter of the SETI institute as I think building an entire career around finding alien life is fascinating.
Most opinions expressed by jqs under "comments" are extrictly related to two theories that i have developed which represent composites of my creative immagination and does not reflect directly or indirectly in any structured intellectual developmental theories of other authors.
I further disclaim that i'm an astrophysicist, and must clarify that the the oveall subject of the universe and its mystifying and codifyed secrets is one that embelishes my immagination and enamours all of my sences.
Life is not endemic to planet earth alone as it is of a pluralistic nature throughout many of the worlds of all of the galaxies that are scatered in the universe.
Those that we may consider to be intellectualy developed do not necessarily convey their feelings desires and emotions in the same fashion that we as humans do. Their radial technological achievents may also be unparalleled to ours therefore electronics communications with them may be absolutly imposible.
A gravitational force field is made of two components. One is what i've named the X-gravity field factor which is an excursive component of the force, and the incursive component which coalesces and unifyes matter compressing it towards a mutual point of concentricity.
The X-gravity factor repels other planets and forces them into individual orbital corridors impeding them from colliding with one another. This field repels the moon with an approximate force of 587,999,940 pounds per sq. in.
@jqs1943 sorry - Newtonian physics is way better than your idea and 300 years older. Plus he uses maths to back it up. Try that and i'll help you verify - would be interesting to see an alternative to Newtons laws of motion. You could win a nobel prize.
gosh ... its about Secrets .... if THEY want to make the most important things on Earth secret then they must NOT make all info from ET secret. I have ideas, in a billion people we can have THE idea. (actually pisses me off, this secrecy)
@WaitFor2012 "if the universe is infinite, then it's mathematically IMPOSSIBLE for there to NOT be other life in it." it's also impossiable then for ther eto BE life. consider this, is it possiable that an agent can exsist within an infinite universe that would render life everywhere impossiablle? if you said yes then your original premise is wrong if you said no then your universe is not infinite. I think the universe, is not infinit =D.
@googoo120 In a way, it is infinite. The universe is expanding faster than you'd ever be able to travel to get to the edge of it. Don't think of it as the edges expanding outward like an explosion, but rather all space, everywhere, is expanding. The space between your hands has a pressure to expand. It boggles the mind doesn't it? But very interesting.
@metalmilitia1977 What may appear to be a expanding universe is actually an illusion that comes about from observing galaxies that are spinning in opposite an direction to the spin of the one we occupy.
When we look at objects in space our reasoning can easily be betrayed. some times the moon appears to be large and later on the same day, it appears to be smaller. Earth's atmosphere acts as a magnefying lens. Towards the horizon our vision traverses 4062 miles of atmosphere verses 62 upward.
@jqs1943 The spin of a galaxy will not redshift the light of the entire galaxy. What you are speaking of, I think, is radial velocity, which is a technique used to measure the blue/red shift to detect planets. The spin of a galaxy, no matter which direction it's spinning, will always have a side that is blue-shifted and spinning towards us. The atmosphere is not a factor with space telescopes. The universe is not static. A static universe would be in violation of general relativity.
@jqs1943 we know the universe is expanding NOT because we look through the atmosphere but because of the predictions of general relativity and good old Edwin Hubble's observations. We have confirmed this with observations from space using a rather fantastic telescope named after Hubble. There is no atmospheric lens effect fooling us - as you suggest. Plus the spin of a galaxy happens over such a vast period of time that to us, they are not spinning at all.
@metalmilitia1977 Think of the matter in the universe (stars, galaxies etc) existing on the inside surface of a balloon as dots drawn by a marker pen. Now blow it up and you have the expanding universe. The dots move away from each other as the balloon expands but in relation to themselves do not change. So the space between your fingers is the same but your fingers are moving further away from the fingers of the guy in the next galaxy.
@WaitFor2012 True but its not infinite, it has boundaries so therefore life elsewhere is not a certainty. It is however very likely based on what we know about biology/chemistry/physics from our own planet.
Most likely there are no intelligent life out there in the Universe even in the micro biological level. The only life out there in the Heavens are God and His Angels. If ever the earth is destroyed for some reason then we are doomed and every living thing on earth. Science can't even create biological life here on earth where there is an abundance of life, the closest science can do is create artificial intelligence. The God who created us is our only hope and future.
@DLando I know for a fact that all living life here on earth happened through evolution. And I know evolution to be 100% true, not 99.99% but I know it's 100% true. So if it happens that I am right then who are intelligent designers ....a liar?
I know that what Bible says in first few chapters are metaphors and not literal stuff, but only metaphors and If I am right on this subject then that makes intelligent designers the Liars!!!!!
@DLando "The only life out there are God and His Angels"? You are kidding right? If not, then this whole discussion was a bit over your head wasn't it? Where exactly are those angels in the sky?
You have bent view of faith. It is your own view. It is not true faith of Catholic Church as the answer to revelation of God through Jesus, Son of God. Never was any atheist who could understand faith of Catholic Church. If atheist starts to understand it he ends be atheist. No atheist any more. You are still atheist? You don't understand faith of Catholic Church yet! Study more, pray to God to understand it. God's mind and heart. Truth and Love. Not killing conceived babies any more. Amen.
@Manjo1981 now they are six maybe they are creationist do not ask to much to them their psyche are very narrow and yong just have petty on them cause they are deluted they wont ever see the beauty and the grandeur and be amaze about the universe the world ect..
@Manjo1981 Because your average person has the attention span of a goat when it comes to science. I always found the sheeple metaphor to be invalid; because sheep at least look up.
@BrendanBTC I watched Shaun of the Dead, and apparently dogs can't look up, and sheep are basically wooly dogs so they must not be able to look up either :p hehe
It blows my mind to think that there are intelligent beings in our very own GALAXY (let alone universe), that are asking these same exact questions, but our universe is so huge that we will probably never meet them. I hope we do though. And I hope we like each other haha.
@tpstrat14 we've met some of them...don't be fooled by the media. research youtube for - 'Phil Snieder kills two greys' & 'Philip Corso's Day After Roswell'
To all of those who like listening to Tyson, I highly recommend reading his books. He's just as entertaining and you'll get a lot of science out of it. He's a fantastic writer and he teaches the universe in a way that is easily absorbed by the reader. Mixed with his humor, it's really hard to put the book down.
@playazcircle111 Speculation is Tyson's job it seems. But if you're going to speculate, then SPECULATE. Talk of the moral fabric of humanity and how it fits into black holes and other space-time incongruencies. For me, this means that every person exists in their own universe and dark matter is a mysterious force that we all recognize as "other people". But even though we can't experience each others' lives directly, we experience them indirectly and we must give heed to each others' needs.
@MultiUniv3rsal that guy is probably the third most interesting scientist I have ever seen after Carl Segan and MIchio Kaku. I never tire of listening to him even when I do not agree with some of his opinions.
Sorry I gave up listening after 14 minutes as I have a long busy day tomorrow nad my beautiful wife is alone in our bed, but I got the impression these guys were spending a lot of time waffling, philosophising, slapping each other's backs and talking up the chances of extraterrestrial life of which NOT ONE SQUEAK OR SNIFF has yet been seen, heard or otherwise measured.
the most that science can say in response to the question 'Is the universe full of life?' is 'we aint seen nothing yet'
@crazymanstephen - Because you don't understand the vastness of the universe. We have scanned but an extremely tiny fraction of our own galaxy. There are billions of galaxies in the universe. The distances are so vast that we would never see, reach, or communicate with them. There is your reason as to why we haven't discovered life yet. We cannot be the only life forms in the universe when we as humans are made up of the very elements that make up the stars.
@SuperluminalStudios Thanks. I appreciate something of the vastness of the universe, even if only as a Star Trek Voyager fan-these guys have been travelling at warp 6 for years and still aren't even clear of the Delta quadrant of our galaxy. It is theoretically possible that life exists elsewhere and we will never know as the speed of light cannot be exceeded.
The fact remains that we have as yet heard and seen zilch. And science has no explanation for the origin of life.
Any one who even remotely grasps a tiny iota of a concept of the size and age of the universe will realize that it is a virtual mathematical impossibility for there NOT to be life elsewhere within it.
@deviroth That depends on several assumptions. Firstly, that planets like our won which orbit the right kind of sun at exactly the right distance and fulfil various other 'Goldilocks' critera are abundant, and secondly that life emerges spontaneously on such planets.
Granted the vastness of space, the first criterion is possible. But despite all the resources that science has thrown at the problem, there is not a micron of evidence for the spontaneous emergence of life, and plenty against it.
@crazymanstephen Define "spontaneous emergence of life". There isn't a way, ever, to go back far enough to see how the first life formed, because we don't know what the first cells were. But, that's not the job that science is trying to do. Science is trying to unfold the process that life needed to get started in the first place. And if you check out Science News Magazine, you can read an article on how we have already created a synthetic cell (using a natural cell membrane) but with ..
@crazymanstephen continued... engineered and lab created genes and DNA. This is pretty close for scientists as far as humans "creating life". Just give it time and we will get there. What does this say for life elsewhere? Well, once we can do it in the lab, we will have a better idea of how it happened originally on Earth, and the rest of the universe in-turn.
Being at the right star-type, in the goldilocks zone, and having a rocky planet may have only made this planet invested with life.
@metalmilitia1977@metalmilitia1977 Thanks. I am familiar with the recent work of Dr Venter and his team to which you refer. Basically they started with a living bacterium, stripped down and re-assembled part of it and it still worked. This is nowhere neear 'pretty close' to scientists 'creating life' and even if they had created a bacterium from simple compounds, it would only have proved that a well resourced and highly intelligent team can make a close copy of something that already exists.
@crazymanstephen Life may have just exploded in diversity here, just because the conditions are right. But it may thrive elsewhere in the universe in more modest forms. Over 100 billion galaxies. Each with 100's of billions of stars. Most of which have planets..... We can't be the only ones. It is self-centered and ego-centric to think that we are the only game in town. It seems if we were, as big as the universe is, it would be a big waste of perfectly fine space.
@metalmilitia1977 Thanks again. you make assumptions about meaning with phrases like 'self centred..egocentric...waste'. I've said that we have as yet no evidence of life elsewhere- this doesn't prove there is none, but there can only be life as we know it either if it was created OR if it emerges spontaneously. And as i have implied in my last response, we have studied life down to the roots and discovered it to be awesomely complex with a probability of spontaneous emergence close to zero.
You’re the one assuming life has to emerge spontaneously. We don’t yet know how it emerges, but the point is that if certain criteria are met it can.
Given the vastness of the universe, even if the probability of the criteria being met and life emerging on a planet was 1 in a billion, then there would still be life on over a thousand billion planets. Keep in mind that that’s just within the observable universe.
@deviroth Thanks. I don't assume life emerges spontaneously, I am a Christian and a creationist. I'm just saying that in the assumed absence of an intelligent designer, if life emerges, it must do so sponteneously. Given what modern science tells us about the profound and irreducible complexity of life at the most basic level, this seems implausible, certainly never observed. A very big and very old universe doesn't negate the observations that here on earth life only ever comes from life.
@crazymanstephen I see. Thanks for your response. I disagree however. Animate matter, and inanimate matter are all made from the same elements. Organization of molecules and compounds is all it takes to set the stage for "life" Whether there is a "Creator", as you say, no one will ever know. Your faith will be good enough for you, that I understand. But the probability of the Jewish/Christian God existing and creating everything in the way that the Bible states, is almost 0.
You’re presuming that if it’s not “A” it HAS to be “B”. You should be aware that abiogenesis isn’t the only scientific answer as to the origin of life.
The idea of "irreducible complexity" is an erroneous idea that has already been proven to be false.
Regardless of the origin of life- given the immeasurable immensity of the universe, I see nothing outside of subjective superstitious anthropocentrism to think that the earth is the only planet where life could ever emerge.
@deviroth >>>The idea of "irreducible complexity" is an erroneous idea that has already been proven to be false.<<
this bold assertion is entirely incorrect.
Abiogenesis means life coming from non life. I am aware that there is more than one speculative scenario, but from the structure of the word -'a' meaning non, 'bio' meaning biological life' and 'genesis' meaning beginning, is it quite plain than abiogenesis is the only alternative to special creation.
Nothing in nature has ever been demonstrated to be irreducibly complex; all of the arguments for it have been falsified.; the entire idea has been recognized as nonscientific by the scientific community; and even US law recognizes that it is not science.
So I ask you- how is this a bold assertion on my part, and how is it entirely incorrect?
@deviroth I am astonished that you would assert that 'even US law recognises that (irreducible complexity) is not science' . So activist judges define science? Please!
it would be more accurate to say that EVERYTHING in nature has been demonstrated to be irreducibly complex (IC) than nothing, as you say. Behe's mousetrap is still a good example of IC, but if you look at, say Krebs cycle or chlorophyll, or DNA check and repair, or any protein synthesis-immeasurably more so.
@stephenhayesuk PLEASE NOTE to avoid confusion, crazymanstephen and stephenhayesuk are the same person, forgot to log out and log back in again.
I don't have time to continue to respond to every response, besides I know that people who have strongly made up minds rarely change them, but if anyone wants to ask themselves whether biochemical processes are irreducibly comploex, try Googling on Krebs cycle, photosynthesis, toll like receptors, melanin synthesis etc etc and judge for yourself.
First off its not an assertion it is a fact. Second, no, judges don't define science; the scientific community does. Which is why I mentioned them FIRST. The point was that the scientific community has rejected ID and US law has recognized this.
BTW that "activist judge" is a christian.
The mouse trap, the bacterial flagellum, at other such examples were all discredited at the very legal case I was referring too. I suggest you look into it. (KItzmiller v. Dover)
@crazymanstephen And my point is that you can not presume any probability that life didn't arise spontaneously. Presuming that it was created is closer to zero than it being spontaneous. You're talking about supernatural things that there is no evidence to support. None. Because something hasn't been fully worked out doesn't mean there is a probability that it is zero, especially when there is a theory that can be tested,retested and so on. Faith, religion, and God, are not testable theories
@metalmilitia1977 The possibility of life self assembling has been tested to destruction-notihng but dead ends. But atheists must go on believing it.
God is not a 'testable theory' in the sense of metallurgy or gas chromatography. However there is sound evidence to support the historical basis of the Christian faith. This format is too limited to explore it, Lee Strobel has written several helpful books including 'The case for Christ' if anyone wants to explore the evidence
Life potentially had anywhere from several hundred thousand to a few million years to assemble on earth. How does studying one theory for a couple decades even come close to "testing it to destruction." The important thing is that it CAN and IS being tested.
Even if the bible was historically accurate (which is debated by historians) that says nothing as to the veraciousness of the supernatural claims it makes.
@deviroth If the Bible is historically accurate, then the veraciousness of the supernature claims it makes can be proven. You know why? Because if many things can be proven in the bible, that means that there is a very low probability that it's wrong. Get it dog? Ok I'm done dog. Done.
Nope, that’s a fallacy of composition. It doesn’t matter how many things in the bible are true, the rest doesn’t simply default to being true as well. Not to mention you are invoking special pleading for the bible. As for supernatural claims being provable- we can test things like NDE’s and the efficacy of prayer, and they all fail miserably.
“Dog?” Is this your superiority complex at work? LOL you’re pathetic cretin.
@deviroth No they don't fail miserably. You annoying idiot, I said, if many things in the bible can be PROVEN, then there's a low chance that the bible is wrong. Supernatural things do sometimes occur. This world doesn't narrow-minded people like you. Go away from here, you sac of negative energy.
@OldaurGold hu? what supernatural things sometimes occur? i've never heard of any. Actually as far as i know every time anyone has tried to test the existence of anything supernatural it has ended in failure. Supernatural things do not occur in the real world outside of religious scripture. If you know of something then please do tell - i'm all eyes and ears.
@OldaurGold There is very little that could be considered scientific or historical in the bible. There are so may contradictions that using any of it to support supernatural claims or the "truth" is just ridiculous. Anyone who uses the bible as proof of the existence of god is being being self defeating.Using those methods you could also prove the existence of Harry Potter who is of course, a fictitious characters. Perhaps if those books had been written 2k yrs ago you would believe in Hogwarts.
@crazymanstephen The Bible is a collection of stories scribed by different writers. Some stories are historical events that did take place(most were misinterpreted by the people of the time because they didn't know any better), and a lot of them were fables of non-events to teach a doctrine to the mass public. Many books were removed from the Bible from the Catholic Church.
Jesus himself may have existed, however there were many just like him who claimed to be the messiah and die in the same way
@crazymanstephen Nothing in the Bible PROVES there is any God. It's faith. You don't need proof if you have faith. So, why should I care? Because you have faith means you can believe without evidence, just because a book, a church, or (most likely) your parents told you so, doesn't make something true. The problem rationalists and realists have with people like yourself is that you try and manifest so-called evidence for something you can not demonstrate.
@crazymanstephen continued.... Science has never knocked on the door of the Church to say that they are wrong (although it wouldn't be a bad idea). So why do creationists try to? I don't get how a group of people in the 21 century, with physical and mathematical proof that the earth is more than 10,000 years old and dinosaurs did not exist at the same time as humans, are still trying to brainwash the public to be ignorant and zombie Jesus freaks who can't think for themselves.
@crazymanstephen So before you go calling me an atheist (creationists favorite put-down name) , let me tell you one thing. I don't know if there is NOT a "supreme being" or "God" . But on the same note, I can't say there is one. I've never seen or witnessed it's presence in any way, physical, or mathematical, and neither have you.
TODAY!
Forehead2Brick 2 days ago
universe is full of god slave.
1extenderpro 1 week ago
It is full of life. There are no lifeless regions in some universe to my knowledge.....
mzedong001 3 weeks ago
If there was (or maybe going to be) a civilization in the very distant future and, all they can see is their local group of galaxies, due to the expansion of the universe, could they deduce the history of the universe as we have?
SLewis958 3 weeks ago in playlist Neil deGrasse Tyson Speaks
Today :)
kessass83 1 month ago
I knew that geologist guy could not be trusted. He doesn't have a moustache.
basstard013 1 month ago
Epic intro music.
basstard013 1 month ago
Religious comments on a science video? *FACEPALM*
aigg 3 months ago
Today!
cagv818 3 months ago in playlist Liked
So...I took some time of my life (unfortunately) and spend last half an hour reading these comments. And I can say only one thing: there are so many unknown scientists commenting on Youtube, I can't believe it! Guys, what are you doing in front of the computer?? You should be somewhere, earning money just for being so clever! With so much intelligence this world will never end! *sarcasm*
Structureflex1 3 months ago
@Structureflex1 Don't those creation scientists make discoveries all the time too? I can't believe it, they just keep churning it out! :O
tweaker1bms 3 weeks ago
space i think smashes physics laws... and is simply nothingness or a storage (hard drive) if you will, with gardens (solar systems) programmed to specific time continu-ums to harbour life according to the time continu-um.. maybe our gods from all these years ago we carved in stone and wrote about are stil in fact ALIVE? in a different time continu-um?? where a day to them is a 100 yrs to us? id be willing to gamble on it.
buzinazz 3 months ago
@buzinazz if you are willing to say "space i think smashes physics laws.." then you obviously don't know anything about physics. Go visit your library and learn something then come back and make something resembling and intelligent comment.
Realityprogramming 3 weeks ago
if they let you guys just sit in a room for years think of what might come out?? thoughts are manifested somewhere... its easy to say there is more out there.. infact its obvious... we just need to get there! i'd be willing to travel myself and die a hero just to find out.
buzinazz 3 months ago
10-20 yrs? 10-20 days if bill gates, trump, jay z, p diddy, ect.. came together and wanted more outta this life.. we could prolly buy a ticket to anywhere non? why does it cost human existence a FEE or MONEY to better mankind?? THEY WANT US HERE FOR A REASON! it wouldnt cost us if people cared about people.
buzinazz 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Universe and Life are the same
alternateEgotist 4 months ago
The Universe and Life are the same
alternateEgotist 4 months ago
@Alexplus20 True SETI has not found anything, but remember they are searching via Radio Telescopes, and are looking for a specific signal. What if that civilization uses another form of communication? Also they have searched maybe 1% of our Universe. Also what if a Civilization is out there like us, but are what we were 1000 years ago? They would have yet to discover that type of Technology. Our Radio signals have only been going out to space for the last 70 years.
Mickayeel11 4 months ago 2
@Mickayeel11 exactly so any civilisation further that 70 light years away will think that there is no life on earth is they use the same techniques as SETI. its hardly surprising that we have found nothing yet.
Realityprogramming 3 weeks ago
Let's face it already...we are the supreme beings and the pinacles of creation and evolution. Nothin else compares. Does life exist elsewhere? SETI hasn't picked up shit I think that alone speaks for it self. Heil Humanity! Troll lol lol.
Alexplus20 4 months ago
To think we live in a society where people are more interested in Kim Kardashian’s wedding or which celebrity is dating who, rather than the potential of finding life in the universe. The men in this video should be on the front of magazines and newspapers not superficial celebrities.
Mickayeel11 4 months ago 30
@Mickayeel11 You, sir, are correct. Thumbs up
alolfan1 4 months ago
@alolfan1 What a prick.
GetOutsideMr 4 months ago
@Mickayeel11 You are 110% correct.
CaribbeanAC 3 months ago
@Mickayeel11 The front page is is determined by people's interest. Sadly, most people are perfectly content with their current ideologies and don't want their ideas challenged. And, in addition, most people simply don't have the fundamental understanding of the sciences to have a fertile discussion of the topic. Or, perhaps they don't like the feeling of the ignorance of their concepts made apparent to them.
dldodson123 3 weeks ago
These are the types of guys I want to hang out with. F all of the other dopes.
sastaroo 4 months ago
is that...carlton?
horhey89 4 months ago
Tyson is the best! I could listen him for days...
NewScienceAu 5 months ago
hmmmm
sentesays 5 months ago
awesome video
sentesays 5 months ago
Comment removed
sentesays 5 months ago
neil tyson is the man
devtowntown 5 months ago
This intro was unnecessarily long.
jebugers 5 months ago
More people would be in to science if they taught this kind of stuff in the class room instead of having children dissect frogs and monkey brains.
sastaroo 5 months ago
Humans kill me. We use our tiny little brains and limited senses to discuss such things. What if the other life forms are so far advanced that we cannot even begin to understand, intellectualize, sense, detect their existence? They're all probably sitting around making jokes about our limitations and rudimentary science OR dismissing us as a race of simple, uncivilized (by their standards) nincompoops?
2tim149 5 months ago
@2tim149 I'd be very surprised if any life as advanced as you posit has ever existed. I'd be surprised if any life as intelligent as humans has ever existed. I'm sure life exists elsewhere in the universe, and it may be fairly common, but intelligent life is completely different.
RussianAssassin21 5 months ago
@RussianAssassin21 my point exactly.
2tim149 4 months ago
@RussianAssassin21 there is nothing in physics to suggest that a civilisation could not be over a million years old by now. Can you imagine what humanity could achieve in a million years? I think you are blinkered to the actual possibilities based on our own existence.You think we are as good as it gets because on earth - we are as good as it gets.
Realityprogramming 3 weeks ago
Humans kill me. We use our tiny little brains and limited senses to discuss such things. What if the other life forms are so far advanced that we cannot even begin to understand, intellectualize, sense, detect their existence? They're all probably sitting around making jokes about out limitations and rudimentary science OR dismissing us as a race of simple, uncivilized nincompoops?
2tim149 5 months ago
I love him!
2tim149 5 months ago
there are no lifeless regions in any universe - that is why universes are living beings.....full of self - awareness.
mzedong001 5 months ago
@mzedong001 Do you actually think you just wrote something very deep and spiritual?
KryzMasta 5 months ago
@mzedong001 i think you are just extrapolating the Gia theory which also has no real evidence. The universe is 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999927% lifeless and dead (there could be a couple more nines in there). Yet you think it is conscious? You should read more.
Realityprogramming 3 weeks ago
Evolution is the theory of the biology. Life accumulate data, reproduces, alters that data, and then passes that altered data onto its offspring.
Wouldn't it be remarkable to discover some alien life that exhibited Lamarckian evolution?
TacticusPrime 5 months ago
I wish I had just a fucking penny every time I visit a science page and it's tainted with ridiculous comments from religious trolls.
metalmilitia1977 6 months ago 30
Love the Star Trek sideburns Neil
ben6killer 6 months ago
this seemed pretty badly edited :O
LDNLeon 6 months ago
dj shadow
wallpaperkilla 6 months ago
lol, tyson is such a dick sometimes.
TODAY
TODAY
TODAY
haha.
NuclearThermos 7 months ago
Doesn't life at the bottom of the ocean require dead living matter sustained by the sun to make it down for them to eat? What is its evolutionary tree? (Did it evolve from sunlight requiring life and adapt to feed on other stuff?). I don't know enough about this stuff heh.
ninjatoothpaste 7 months ago
@ninjatoothpaste Yes and no. Many deep sea organism feed on the carcases of, for instance, dead whales. But there are also "Black Smokers", volcanic undersea springs of hot water, which provide the necessary energy.
TomFynn 6 months ago
@TomFynn Thanks :)
ninjatoothpaste 6 months ago
1:45 The talk begins
ninjatoothpaste 7 months ago
i luv tyson
vdofam 7 months ago
The opening music lol
Riposte8 8 months ago
You can actually smell the fear of Christians that we might find life on other planets. It would make their human God sound even more ridiculous then it now.
iamnicompoop 8 months ago
@iamnicompoop Roman Catholic Church recognises possibility of extraterrestrial life and has no problem with it. What's your problem, lad? Spend less time hating, more time doing something productive.
anonseppxx 8 months ago
@anonseppxx The existence of an advanced extra-terrestrial civilization, would make it clear we (humans) are not the sole reason for the universe, and we are certainly not created in god's image. Imagine finding purple octopus-looking beings more advanced then we are and trying to convince them humans are made in God's image. How impressed would a ET from some ancient civilization be with our religions, based on human history and human nature.?
iamnicompoop 8 months ago
@anonseppx it's easy to find other reasons to hate the roman catholic church.
Olsonic 6 months ago
@metalmilitia - I have no doubt the life we see today "evolved on earth". Evolving is the easy part, making the system that can evolve is the challenge. There are theories that combinatorial chemistry occurring between sheets of mica could have produced the first forms of replicating systems. This uses mechanical work from gravitational fluctuations to make and break bonds. I think the assumption that it takes 200 million years to create the life we see today is very "Earth Centric".
jpbida 9 months ago
@jpbida Well, it's 200 million years to get it going on Earth. There's no way to tell any earlier than that. But no one's saying that it didn't form on other worlds long before the Earth even formed. Maybe it was made there and came here, maybe "our life" assembled here. Maybe a combination of both. In either case, it's an interesting thought. That's the joy of science, we keep studying, exploring, experimenting, & discovering. It doesn't end. One answer will lead to a greater question.
metalmilitia1977 8 months ago
I like how at 17:00 he assumes life originated on Earth when coming to the conclusion that it only took 200 million years to evolve. It could have taken life 1 trillion years to evolve and then crash into the right environment. I am sure there are bacteria tucked away in the battery compartment of Voyager awaiting a host planet.
jpbida 9 months ago
@jpbida Very true statement. However, if life can evolve somewhere else and seed Earth, it's very possible that life on Earth, at least some of it, may have originated here too. I'm not saying this out of a "Earth-centered view", but because the Earth became very conducive to life after it cooled. But yes, I agree that everything we send out into space on a one-way trip, may be contaminating the universe, or at least it may in the long-term future.
metalmilitia1977 9 months ago
that music at the end is absolutely awesome! the credits I mean, not the stupid pompous fanfare at the end! Brilliant talk as well. That's the kind of dinner parties I want to have when I grow up! (ahem: I'm 31)
lewisrain 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I love how that old guy refers to alchemy as a "wonderfully compelling idea", but yet earlier makes completely unnecessary religious references and other platitudes without seeing the parallel. What a nut.
leplsre 9 months ago
Comment removed
leplsre 9 months ago
This was in 2006. They hadn't yet found 100 planets. It is now 2011 and we are looking at 10,000+ more within the next few releases on Kepler data. That is on top of the 1,000+ they have already found with the amazing device.
Truly thrilling.
g0tcadaver 9 months ago
Tyson is almost as interesting as michio kaku. Nobody is as interesting as Kaku but he comes pretty damned close.
Zurround100 9 months ago
@Zurround100 I think Sagan was one of the best though.... its unfortunate he is no longer with us :(
zzzIdividedbyzerozzz 9 months ago
@zzzIdividedbyzerozzz true, if sagan was still alive he would be probably my second fave after kaku and tyson would be my third favorite, maybe my fourth favorite as I am especially fascinated with Jill Tarter of the SETI institute as I think building an entire career around finding alien life is fascinating.
Zurround100 9 months ago
Ok Neil Degrasse Tyson with Dj Shadow playing in the background
so fucking awesome
jakewelty92 11 months ago
6 were abducted by Aliens but forgot to come back with any proof.
JRod8885 11 months ago
Most opinions expressed by jqs under "comments" are extrictly related to two theories that i have developed which represent composites of my creative immagination and does not reflect directly or indirectly in any structured intellectual developmental theories of other authors.
I further disclaim that i'm an astrophysicist, and must clarify that the the oveall subject of the universe and its mystifying and codifyed secrets is one that embelishes my immagination and enamours all of my sences.
jqs1943 11 months ago
Life is not endemic to planet earth alone as it is of a pluralistic nature throughout many of the worlds of all of the galaxies that are scatered in the universe.
Those that we may consider to be intellectualy developed do not necessarily convey their feelings desires and emotions in the same fashion that we as humans do. Their radial technological achievents may also be unparalleled to ours therefore electronics communications with them may be absolutly imposible.
jqs1943 11 months ago
A gravitational force field is made of two components. One is what i've named the X-gravity field factor which is an excursive component of the force, and the incursive component which coalesces and unifyes matter compressing it towards a mutual point of concentricity.
The X-gravity factor repels other planets and forces them into individual orbital corridors impeding them from colliding with one another. This field repels the moon with an approximate force of 587,999,940 pounds per sq. in.
jqs1943 11 months ago
@jqs1943 sorry - Newtonian physics is way better than your idea and 300 years older. Plus he uses maths to back it up. Try that and i'll help you verify - would be interesting to see an alternative to Newtons laws of motion. You could win a nobel prize.
Realityprogramming 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Online naughty women dating site benaughtyman.info
shenwotson12 1 year ago
gosh ... its about Secrets .... if THEY want to make the most important things on Earth secret then they must NOT make all info from ET secret. I have ideas, in a billion people we can have THE idea. (actually pisses me off, this secrecy)
xx0ODaveO0xx 1 year ago
I could listen to this all day! I love this stuff.
ZombieTacticalStore(dot)com
scubaguy007 1 year ago
basic shit i know all this and i go to community college
specter290 1 year ago
@specter290 Good for you.
DoctorRx14 1 year ago
Awesome ... but 28 Minutes? lol
mythmanjay 1 year ago
if the universe is infinite, then it's mathematically IMPOSSIBLE for there to NOT be other life in it.
WaitFor2012 1 year ago 2
@WaitFor2012 "if the universe is infinite, then it's mathematically IMPOSSIBLE for there to NOT be other life in it." it's also impossiable then for ther eto BE life. consider this, is it possiable that an agent can exsist within an infinite universe that would render life everywhere impossiablle? if you said yes then your original premise is wrong if you said no then your universe is not infinite. I think the universe, is not infinit =D.
googoo120 1 year ago
@googoo120 In a way, it is infinite. The universe is expanding faster than you'd ever be able to travel to get to the edge of it. Don't think of it as the edges expanding outward like an explosion, but rather all space, everywhere, is expanding. The space between your hands has a pressure to expand. It boggles the mind doesn't it? But very interesting.
metalmilitia1977 1 year ago
@metalmilitia1977 What may appear to be a expanding universe is actually an illusion that comes about from observing galaxies that are spinning in opposite an direction to the spin of the one we occupy.
When we look at objects in space our reasoning can easily be betrayed. some times the moon appears to be large and later on the same day, it appears to be smaller. Earth's atmosphere acts as a magnefying lens. Towards the horizon our vision traverses 4062 miles of atmosphere verses 62 upward.
jqs1943 11 months ago
@jqs1943 The spin of a galaxy will not redshift the light of the entire galaxy. What you are speaking of, I think, is radial velocity, which is a technique used to measure the blue/red shift to detect planets. The spin of a galaxy, no matter which direction it's spinning, will always have a side that is blue-shifted and spinning towards us. The atmosphere is not a factor with space telescopes. The universe is not static. A static universe would be in violation of general relativity.
metalmilitia1977 11 months ago
@metalmilitia1977 Too much jargon for my mind
OldaurGold 9 months ago
@jqs1943 we know the universe is expanding NOT because we look through the atmosphere but because of the predictions of general relativity and good old Edwin Hubble's observations. We have confirmed this with observations from space using a rather fantastic telescope named after Hubble. There is no atmospheric lens effect fooling us - as you suggest. Plus the spin of a galaxy happens over such a vast period of time that to us, they are not spinning at all.
Realityprogramming 3 weeks ago
@metalmilitia1977 Think of the matter in the universe (stars, galaxies etc) existing on the inside surface of a balloon as dots drawn by a marker pen. Now blow it up and you have the expanding universe. The dots move away from each other as the balloon expands but in relation to themselves do not change. So the space between your fingers is the same but your fingers are moving further away from the fingers of the guy in the next galaxy.
Realityprogramming 3 weeks ago
@googoo120 Yup - nobody in the field believes the universe is infinite any more.
Realityprogramming 3 weeks ago
@WaitFor2012 True but its not infinite, it has boundaries so therefore life elsewhere is not a certainty. It is however very likely based on what we know about biology/chemistry/physics from our own planet.
Realityprogramming 3 weeks ago
And now theres 500 + exoplanets.
brutsi 1 year ago
@brutsi yeah thats true, weve deteced 500 right but theres more
specter290 1 year ago
Most likely there are no intelligent life out there in the Universe even in the micro biological level. The only life out there in the Heavens are God and His Angels. If ever the earth is destroyed for some reason then we are doomed and every living thing on earth. Science can't even create biological life here on earth where there is an abundance of life, the closest science can do is create artificial intelligence. The God who created us is our only hope and future.
DLando 1 year ago
@DLando Thats a load of shit and you bought it. Stsy away from our kids or else, capeesh. Good, have a happy day
splicedenergy 1 year ago
@splicedenergy Capeesh? Are you Italian? I love italian food...
DLando 1 year ago
@DLando Since when would using the word capeesh be restricted to italians?
splicedenergy 1 year ago
@splicedenergy So what mafia do you belong then? Man I really feel like eating some spaghetti now...
DLando 1 year ago
@DLando I know for a fact that all living life here on earth happened through evolution. And I know evolution to be 100% true, not 99.99% but I know it's 100% true. So if it happens that I am right then who are intelligent designers ....a liar?
I know that what Bible says in first few chapters are metaphors and not literal stuff, but only metaphors and If I am right on this subject then that makes intelligent designers the Liars!!!!!
sonnydey 1 year ago
@DLando "The only life out there are God and His Angels"? You are kidding right? If not, then this whole discussion was a bit over your head wasn't it? Where exactly are those angels in the sky?
coolgreyoneabby 1 year ago
I like tyson, but i must say i hate how often he interupts the other speakers, as he allways do. He should instead let them finnish.
ThermalHD 1 year ago
at this point, I favorite Neil's material before even hearing it !
mysterymediacorp 1 year ago
"Ideals separate us, dreams and anguish bring us together." -Eugene Ionesco
dreadedhalo 1 year ago
One of the best spent half-hours of my life.
bonanzaguy04 1 year ago
Have the extremofiles evolved in extreme environments or did they gradually adapt to extreme environments? Some did, other didn't?
Elvarks 1 year ago
Everyone else seems like such a stiff compared to tyson
blackplastic7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You have bent view of faith. It is your own view. It is not true faith of Catholic Church as the answer to revelation of God through Jesus, Son of God. Never was any atheist who could understand faith of Catholic Church. If atheist starts to understand it he ends be atheist. No atheist any more. You are still atheist? You don't understand faith of Catholic Church yet! Study more, pray to God to understand it. God's mind and heart. Truth and Love. Not killing conceived babies any more. Amen.
akwinata1 1 year ago
why would 5 ppl dislike this ? may be that 1% of genes missing.
Manjo1981 1 year ago 41
@Manjo1981 was exactly thinking the same thing
rtgadde 1 year ago
@Manjo1981 or creationist's
Amazingtuna 1 year ago
@Manjo1981 now they are six maybe they are creationist do not ask to much to them their psyche are very narrow and yong just have petty on them cause they are deluted they wont ever see the beauty and the grandeur and be amaze about the universe the world ect..
mystisme 11 months ago
@Manjo1981 why dont you like other people having different opinions to you? maybe you're the 1% missing hey?
JayDee98765 9 months ago
@Manjo1981 1% of genes missing? Dumbass
OldaurGold 9 months ago
@Manjo1981 I think there the missing link!
CDPuffer 9 months ago
@Manjo1981 Because your average person has the attention span of a goat when it comes to science. I always found the sheeple metaphor to be invalid; because sheep at least look up.
BrendanBTC 8 months ago
@BrendanBTC I watched Shaun of the Dead, and apparently dogs can't look up, and sheep are basically wooly dogs so they must not be able to look up either :p hehe
ninjatoothpaste 7 months ago
It blows my mind to think that there are intelligent beings in our very own GALAXY (let alone universe), that are asking these same exact questions, but our universe is so huge that we will probably never meet them. I hope we do though. And I hope we like each other haha.
tpstrat14 1 year ago 2
@tpstrat14 we've met some of them...don't be fooled by the media. research youtube for - 'Phil Snieder kills two greys' & 'Philip Corso's Day After Roswell'
mysterymediacorp 1 year ago
To all of those who like listening to Tyson, I highly recommend reading his books. He's just as entertaining and you'll get a lot of science out of it. He's a fantastic writer and he teaches the universe in a way that is easily absorbed by the reader. Mixed with his humor, it's really hard to put the book down.
metalmilitia1977 1 year ago
The only thing that bothers me about this video is that it is edited. I think viewers would get more out of it if the full version was shown.
metalmilitia1977 1 year ago
Tyson is a gem
playazcircle111 1 year ago
@playazcircle111 Speculation is Tyson's job it seems. But if you're going to speculate, then SPECULATE. Talk of the moral fabric of humanity and how it fits into black holes and other space-time incongruencies. For me, this means that every person exists in their own universe and dark matter is a mysterious force that we all recognize as "other people". But even though we can't experience each others' lives directly, we experience them indirectly and we must give heed to each others' needs.
tpstrat14 1 year ago
15:28 Hardened Electronics... whooooooo, the coolest word I heard lately...
georgemargaris 1 year ago
One can never get enough Tyson.
MultiUniv3rsal 1 year ago 85
@MultiUniv3rsal that guy is probably the third most interesting scientist I have ever seen after Carl Segan and MIchio Kaku. I never tire of listening to him even when I do not agree with some of his opinions.
Zurround100 1 year ago
@Zurround100 I agree with your comment 100%.....Also my favourites , in that order.
Cheers!
emgee65 1 year ago
@MultiUniv3rsal I beg to differ. We can get enought of Tyson, the secular, cold-hearted dog
OldaurGold 9 months ago
@OldaurGold Explain secular cold-hearted? What makes him cold-hearted?
metalmilitia1977 9 months ago
@OldaurGold The fuck are you talking about?
MultiUniv3rsal 9 months ago
@MultiUniv3rsal Tyson's the kind of guy you wish your dad was, or atleast the ideal role model for people!
TBayM 5 months ago
This moderator needs to learn how to play devils advocate...
horryclutch 1 year ago
Go bruins Boston Bruins!
DanielEdwardStreet 1 year ago
god is an arbitrary concept. No proof of god exists except in an old dusty book written by peasants. What do they knew about science?
Neueregel 1 year ago
4 creationists (fucking idiots) disliked this video.
MarvelsofaLifetime 1 year ago
Sorry I gave up listening after 14 minutes as I have a long busy day tomorrow nad my beautiful wife is alone in our bed, but I got the impression these guys were spending a lot of time waffling, philosophising, slapping each other's backs and talking up the chances of extraterrestrial life of which NOT ONE SQUEAK OR SNIFF has yet been seen, heard or otherwise measured.
the most that science can say in response to the question 'Is the universe full of life?' is 'we aint seen nothing yet'
crazymanstephen 1 year ago
@crazymanstephen - Because you don't understand the vastness of the universe. We have scanned but an extremely tiny fraction of our own galaxy. There are billions of galaxies in the universe. The distances are so vast that we would never see, reach, or communicate with them. There is your reason as to why we haven't discovered life yet. We cannot be the only life forms in the universe when we as humans are made up of the very elements that make up the stars.
SuperluminalStudios 1 year ago
@SuperluminalStudios Thanks. I appreciate something of the vastness of the universe, even if only as a Star Trek Voyager fan-these guys have been travelling at warp 6 for years and still aren't even clear of the Delta quadrant of our galaxy. It is theoretically possible that life exists elsewhere and we will never know as the speed of light cannot be exceeded.
The fact remains that we have as yet heard and seen zilch. And science has no explanation for the origin of life.
crazymanstephen 1 year ago
Any one who even remotely grasps a tiny iota of a concept of the size and age of the universe will realize that it is a virtual mathematical impossibility for there NOT to be life elsewhere within it.
deviroth 1 year ago
@deviroth That depends on several assumptions. Firstly, that planets like our won which orbit the right kind of sun at exactly the right distance and fulfil various other 'Goldilocks' critera are abundant, and secondly that life emerges spontaneously on such planets.
Granted the vastness of space, the first criterion is possible. But despite all the resources that science has thrown at the problem, there is not a micron of evidence for the spontaneous emergence of life, and plenty against it.
crazymanstephen 1 year ago
@crazymanstephen Define "spontaneous emergence of life". There isn't a way, ever, to go back far enough to see how the first life formed, because we don't know what the first cells were. But, that's not the job that science is trying to do. Science is trying to unfold the process that life needed to get started in the first place. And if you check out Science News Magazine, you can read an article on how we have already created a synthetic cell (using a natural cell membrane) but with ..
metalmilitia1977 1 year ago
@crazymanstephen continued... engineered and lab created genes and DNA. This is pretty close for scientists as far as humans "creating life". Just give it time and we will get there. What does this say for life elsewhere? Well, once we can do it in the lab, we will have a better idea of how it happened originally on Earth, and the rest of the universe in-turn.
Being at the right star-type, in the goldilocks zone, and having a rocky planet may have only made this planet invested with life.
metalmilitia1977 1 year ago
@metalmilitia1977 @metalmilitia1977 Thanks. I am familiar with the recent work of Dr Venter and his team to which you refer. Basically they started with a living bacterium, stripped down and re-assembled part of it and it still worked. This is nowhere neear 'pretty close' to scientists 'creating life' and even if they had created a bacterium from simple compounds, it would only have proved that a well resourced and highly intelligent team can make a close copy of something that already exists.
crazymanstephen 1 year ago
@crazymanstephen Life may have just exploded in diversity here, just because the conditions are right. But it may thrive elsewhere in the universe in more modest forms. Over 100 billion galaxies. Each with 100's of billions of stars. Most of which have planets..... We can't be the only ones. It is self-centered and ego-centric to think that we are the only game in town. It seems if we were, as big as the universe is, it would be a big waste of perfectly fine space.
Your thoughts on this?
metalmilitia1977 1 year ago
@metalmilitia1977 Thanks again. you make assumptions about meaning with phrases like 'self centred..egocentric...waste'. I've said that we have as yet no evidence of life elsewhere- this doesn't prove there is none, but there can only be life as we know it either if it was created OR if it emerges spontaneously. And as i have implied in my last response, we have studied life down to the roots and discovered it to be awesomely complex with a probability of spontaneous emergence close to zero.
crazymanstephen 1 year ago
@crazymanstephen
You’re the one assuming life has to emerge spontaneously. We don’t yet know how it emerges, but the point is that if certain criteria are met it can.
Given the vastness of the universe, even if the probability of the criteria being met and life emerging on a planet was 1 in a billion, then there would still be life on over a thousand billion planets. Keep in mind that that’s just within the observable universe.
deviroth 1 year ago
@deviroth Thanks. I don't assume life emerges spontaneously, I am a Christian and a creationist. I'm just saying that in the assumed absence of an intelligent designer, if life emerges, it must do so sponteneously. Given what modern science tells us about the profound and irreducible complexity of life at the most basic level, this seems implausible, certainly never observed. A very big and very old universe doesn't negate the observations that here on earth life only ever comes from life.
crazymanstephen 1 year ago
@crazymanstephen I see. Thanks for your response. I disagree however. Animate matter, and inanimate matter are all made from the same elements. Organization of molecules and compounds is all it takes to set the stage for "life" Whether there is a "Creator", as you say, no one will ever know. Your faith will be good enough for you, that I understand. But the probability of the Jewish/Christian God existing and creating everything in the way that the Bible states, is almost 0.
metalmilitia1977 1 year ago
@crazymanstephen
You’re presuming that if it’s not “A” it HAS to be “B”. You should be aware that abiogenesis isn’t the only scientific answer as to the origin of life.
The idea of "irreducible complexity" is an erroneous idea that has already been proven to be false.
Regardless of the origin of life- given the immeasurable immensity of the universe, I see nothing outside of subjective superstitious anthropocentrism to think that the earth is the only planet where life could ever emerge.
deviroth 1 year ago
@deviroth >>>The idea of "irreducible complexity" is an erroneous idea that has already been proven to be false.<<
this bold assertion is entirely incorrect.
Abiogenesis means life coming from non life. I am aware that there is more than one speculative scenario, but from the structure of the word -'a' meaning non, 'bio' meaning biological life' and 'genesis' meaning beginning, is it quite plain than abiogenesis is the only alternative to special creation.
crazymanstephen 1 year ago
@crazymanstephen- "this bold assertion is entirely incorrect."
Nothing in nature has ever been demonstrated to be irreducibly complex; all of the arguments for it have been falsified.; the entire idea has been recognized as nonscientific by the scientific community; and even US law recognizes that it is not science.
So I ask you- how is this a bold assertion on my part, and how is it entirely incorrect?
deviroth 1 year ago
@deviroth I am astonished that you would assert that 'even US law recognises that (irreducible complexity) is not science' . So activist judges define science? Please!
it would be more accurate to say that EVERYTHING in nature has been demonstrated to be irreducibly complex (IC) than nothing, as you say. Behe's mousetrap is still a good example of IC, but if you look at, say Krebs cycle or chlorophyll, or DNA check and repair, or any protein synthesis-immeasurably more so.
stephenhayesuk 1 year ago
@stephenhayesuk PLEASE NOTE to avoid confusion, crazymanstephen and stephenhayesuk are the same person, forgot to log out and log back in again.
I don't have time to continue to respond to every response, besides I know that people who have strongly made up minds rarely change them, but if anyone wants to ask themselves whether biochemical processes are irreducibly comploex, try Googling on Krebs cycle, photosynthesis, toll like receptors, melanin synthesis etc etc and judge for yourself.
stephenhayesuk 1 year ago
@stephenhayesuk -
First off its not an assertion it is a fact. Second, no, judges don't define science; the scientific community does. Which is why I mentioned them FIRST. The point was that the scientific community has rejected ID and US law has recognized this.
BTW that "activist judge" is a christian.
The mouse trap, the bacterial flagellum, at other such examples were all discredited at the very legal case I was referring too. I suggest you look into it. (KItzmiller v. Dover)
deviroth 1 year ago
@crazymanstephen And my point is that you can not presume any probability that life didn't arise spontaneously. Presuming that it was created is closer to zero than it being spontaneous. You're talking about supernatural things that there is no evidence to support. None. Because something hasn't been fully worked out doesn't mean there is a probability that it is zero, especially when there is a theory that can be tested,retested and so on. Faith, religion, and God, are not testable theories
metalmilitia1977 1 year ago
@metalmilitia1977 The possibility of life self assembling has been tested to destruction-notihng but dead ends. But atheists must go on believing it.
God is not a 'testable theory' in the sense of metallurgy or gas chromatography. However there is sound evidence to support the historical basis of the Christian faith. This format is too limited to explore it, Lee Strobel has written several helpful books including 'The case for Christ' if anyone wants to explore the evidence
crazymanstephen 1 year ago
@crazymanstephen
Life potentially had anywhere from several hundred thousand to a few million years to assemble on earth. How does studying one theory for a couple decades even come close to "testing it to destruction." The important thing is that it CAN and IS being tested.
Even if the bible was historically accurate (which is debated by historians) that says nothing as to the veraciousness of the supernatural claims it makes.
deviroth 1 year ago
Comment removed
metalmilitia1977 1 year ago
@deviroth If the Bible is historically accurate, then the veraciousness of the supernature claims it makes can be proven. You know why? Because if many things can be proven in the bible, that means that there is a very low probability that it's wrong. Get it dog? Ok I'm done dog. Done.
OldaurGold 9 months ago
@OldaurGold
Nope, that’s a fallacy of composition. It doesn’t matter how many things in the bible are true, the rest doesn’t simply default to being true as well. Not to mention you are invoking special pleading for the bible. As for supernatural claims being provable- we can test things like NDE’s and the efficacy of prayer, and they all fail miserably.
“Dog?” Is this your superiority complex at work? LOL you’re pathetic cretin.
deviroth 9 months ago
@deviroth Wow, haven't seen you on in awhile. I've been battling these christian extremists by myself for months! Welcome back!
metalmilitia1977 9 months ago
@deviroth No they don't fail miserably. You annoying idiot, I said, if many things in the bible can be PROVEN, then there's a low chance that the bible is wrong. Supernatural things do sometimes occur. This world doesn't narrow-minded people like you. Go away from here, you sac of negative energy.
OldaurGold 9 months ago
@OldaurGold hu? what supernatural things sometimes occur? i've never heard of any. Actually as far as i know every time anyone has tried to test the existence of anything supernatural it has ended in failure. Supernatural things do not occur in the real world outside of religious scripture. If you know of something then please do tell - i'm all eyes and ears.
Realityprogramming 3 weeks ago
@OldaurGold There is very little that could be considered scientific or historical in the bible. There are so may contradictions that using any of it to support supernatural claims or the "truth" is just ridiculous. Anyone who uses the bible as proof of the existence of god is being being self defeating.Using those methods you could also prove the existence of Harry Potter who is of course, a fictitious characters. Perhaps if those books had been written 2k yrs ago you would believe in Hogwarts.
Realityprogramming 3 weeks ago
@crazymanstephen The Bible is a collection of stories scribed by different writers. Some stories are historical events that did take place(most were misinterpreted by the people of the time because they didn't know any better), and a lot of them were fables of non-events to teach a doctrine to the mass public. Many books were removed from the Bible from the Catholic Church.
Jesus himself may have existed, however there were many just like him who claimed to be the messiah and die in the same way
metalmilitia1977 1 year ago
@crazymanstephen Nothing in the Bible PROVES there is any God. It's faith. You don't need proof if you have faith. So, why should I care? Because you have faith means you can believe without evidence, just because a book, a church, or (most likely) your parents told you so, doesn't make something true. The problem rationalists and realists have with people like yourself is that you try and manifest so-called evidence for something you can not demonstrate.
metalmilitia1977 1 year ago
@crazymanstephen continued.... Science has never knocked on the door of the Church to say that they are wrong (although it wouldn't be a bad idea). So why do creationists try to? I don't get how a group of people in the 21 century, with physical and mathematical proof that the earth is more than 10,000 years old and dinosaurs did not exist at the same time as humans, are still trying to brainwash the public to be ignorant and zombie Jesus freaks who can't think for themselves.
metalmilitia1977 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@metalmilitia1977
@imanoob4
HOLY SHIT PEOPLE , NEW AMAZING FUCKING DISCOVERY
GO TO YOUTUBE USER : XKUNX
NEW PLANET FOUND SEPTEMBER 30 2010 THAT SCIENTISTS SAY IS NEAR 100% CHANCE TO SUPPORT LIFE
WATER FOUND, TEMPERATURES THE SAME AS EARTH
THUMBS UP TO SUPPORT AND GET AWARENESS OUT THERE
THIS IS HOT STUFF
CzechArtigos 1 year ago
@crazymanstephen So before you go calling me an atheist (creationists favorite put-down name) , let me tell you one thing. I don't know if there is NOT a "supreme being" or "God" . But on the same note, I can't say there is one. I've never seen or witnessed it's presence in any way, physical, or mathematical, and neither have you.
metalmilitia1977 1 year ago
Space is dead- no life just pretty colors
teta809 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@teta809 says a smudge of color.
baalisgod666 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@baalisgod666 nice comeback.
serpentisma 1 year ago
Comment removed
coperone2 1 year ago