@brouhahabob no thanks...just gonna note that it comes off like you're trying to start a fight, over the fact that you are part of a religion that doesn't encourage fighting and a fan of a man who'd much rather put aside petty arguments. which is kinda silly.
@Pilaf1984 No. Irrational faith is unscientific. But if you a apply logic and the scientific method to a belief system, you can have reasonable faith that isn't proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It's called an inductive reasoning, and much of science is based of that same reasoning.
Just reading the top comments here. These god freaks have infested far too many youtube videos about science. They're not here out of an interest in science but to proselytize and sermonize. Delete them or I, for one am finished with it. Not even going to watch episode two.
@D3maine no more religious top comments here. try it on hulu or somewhere else. don't let other peoples' conversations stop you from listening to sagan.
I absolutely love this video and Carl Sagan's work as a whole, it never fails to blow my mind. I've seen many science based videos today and in the comments of almost all of them there are heated debates about religion. Why do these debates keep breaking out? What makes people think that science and religion are mutually exclusive and at odds with one another? Surely there are many scientists that practice religions and many religious people who trust in science.
@cubed1OCBZ Because the religions that happen to exist here on earth ARE at odds with science. They claim things that science has either proven not to be true, or things that cannot be proven true and which therefore makes it unscientific to believe that these things exist or occur.
Several months ago I watched the entire series front to back over a period of three days. I was so touched by it that I got off my ass and got back into college. Now I am halfway done with my second semester in school. I am studying to be a research biologist and intend to get a masters... maybe a doctorate. This series gave me the modivation to better my life and the hope that my life can better mankind.
BTW, my excuse for not going to college in the first place was that I was too old...
@xudnoxaj When i look in the mirror i see glass, a substance that reflects light to my eyes and I see me. I see the by-product of 4 Billion years of evolution. When i look to the night starry sky. The twinkling stars are from suns millions of light years away, some of the suns we see in the night sky are probably already dead. IF you wish to pursue your hypothesis of a Universe Created by a Heavenly Body. You must have proof, observation, backed up by data and evidence.
6:1 “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.”
This was made well before I was born, but this must have been the most intense, trippy and beautiful bit of television of its time. And it's still beautiful today.
thx for these wonderfull vids if we are alone in the universe thats realy scarey more so then a universe full of aliens bent on eating us loll peace out
I realize this might get my ass kicked here for pondering this, as this is often thought of as being "woo" by the scientific and archeological orthodoxy, but is it possible that there was ancient technology, possibly advanced, that might have been documented in the library?
@jackiedegracia There is actually good evidence for a technologist/engineer named Hero (if I'm recalling this correctly), who designed automata and machines for temples (holy water dispensers, doors opening on their own - through hydraulics, an early steam-type engine). He would obviously have done other stuff, but most of the documentation seems to be for his work with the temple to Zeus. There was something on one of the "learning" channels about this stuff.
Cosmos is one of most impressive things i have seen either in real life, TV or movies ... it has been a great achievement ... Sagan has done a stupendous job ... thank you Carl
Life is so much more precious and beautiful, the world so much more awe-inspiring, without religion. Religion inspires shame and guilt. It tells us that being human is something pitiable. It tells us that our minds aren't to be trusted, science to be suspected. It tells us that we are slaves, and that we should be glad of our chains. It tells us we NEED their particular brands of deity. It saps joy, stifles freedom of thought, and cheapens life.
@Ashiman12 You don't have a good understanding of what religion is at all, that is what some religions do, such as the abrahamic religions, but religion in general in the exact opposite. Look at Buddhism
@TheWizardWeiss you can't make that assessment, as you don' t know me- weird looking chick may be smarter, she might be dumber, she might be uglier or better looking than me that was not the point of my post- If you are basing what you think is my intelligence on the comment I made- it was a half serious point for those who don't wanna hear Sagan's wife talk, but rather to get right to him talking...
@TheWizardWeissI suppose I could have just wrote "skip to 2:00 if you don't want to hear Carl Sagan's wife talk about how awesome Carl Sagans show is". I do agree though, that a woman as accomplished as she is, could easily be smarter than me- P.S.Sorry if I offended you (or Ann, if you're reading this) by saying weird looking chick. You are right, it was disrespectful.
@TheWizardWeiss She's probably smarter than alot of the people who spend time pointlessly assuming things on youtube threads, including you. The thing is I agree with you that she PROBABLY is smarter than me ( AND you for that matter), but you (or any of us) have no way of determining this based off a couple comments I have made. You may wish to assume, but then you're mentality is no better than the one I had when I posted my original, disrespectful comment.
@TheWizardWeiss There are many types of intellect, well all excel/falter at different things. Sometimes my choice of words for describing people may not be best, and sometimes your basis of how you asses one's intelligence may not be either.
@ITILII Also, Galileo, Newton and such only references God as a pivotal role in any thought when they reached the edges of their knowledge. They only used God to fill the gaps. Their contributions to the world would be no less if they were suddenly to have been atheists.
@ITILII Einstein spoke of the Universe itself as God, in the same metaphorical sense that Stephen Hawking refers to it as such. ''A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)''.
@BostonSportsGuy567 Religion without science is a blind; yet science without Religion, is a cripple - the words of a man who knew a bit about both of these topics, fella by the name of Einstein. Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein....the geniuses who laid the foundation of modern science, and all were religious men who believed in God. Something to consider and learn from, friend. More things in heaven and on earth, Bostonsportsguy, then are dreamt in your philosophy ...peace, friends
@ITILII i suggest you do a little research before you claim they were religious men.. leaving comments on a subject you're ignorant of on an intellectual page such as this is a good way to get ripped in half by people who actually know the facts.
as JayFraser0987 said they understand at the limits of their knowledge it meets an overwhelming sense. people sometimes call it god.. until someone makes a new mathematics or w/e.
I have an intellectual comment to make about Ann Druyan...she was a piece of ass in her day. Nine out of ten scholars agree...they'd "hit that". Forthwith. And such. Perse.
@TheRaellz i think i'd have to wear a giant rubber on my "primary" head, ha ha, before i ever ventured onto the young turks website. i wouldn't want to get syphilis of the brain?! for my secondary head i need only a little one!!
@TheRaellz you can't have it "all ways" man! you or someone else showed us that Einstein used the term impenetrable, meaning of course that there'll be no "new mathematics." it's impenetrable!! see how it works. you can claim that people of faith don't grasp fact, that they just meander around in an emotional rubble of shit, but it's when you claim to have the facts on Albert Einsteins's spiritual workings that just plain make me laugh at how elitist most Wikipedia-scientists actually are!!
@hammerdick777 the knowledge was around far before wikipedia was thought up. i was referring to what he said and responding to it. i highly recommend you check some of Einstein's quotes before you call me wrong.
jumping into something in the middle and assuming you know all the facts.. tsk. how egocentric.
It is based on magical ideas projected on the physical world and now that we have all the physical evidence against it we can disregard it.
As long as we did not have the physical evidence of the world being close to a spherical shape, the belief in a flat world was the common belief. Even after the evidence was presented and it was obvious to those who understood it and allowed themselves to understand it; it was fought against, even until the late 1890's.
2 of X It wasn't until the last 12 years of the Human Genome Project that the evidence became crystal clear against evolution.
Once again: They have discovered over 4600 gentic defects in humans, causing genetic diseases. There are ONLY 4 positive mutations that are believed to have happened. None of the "positive" are verifiable,by the way.
3 of X These, so called "positive" mutations have never been looked for in the entire species of humanity to see if they existed before. It is possible that they are remnants barely hanging on by a very tiny thread in a very tiny number of people.
In time if mutations don't completely take them out, they will try to continue in offspring.
Remember; "Evolution" is a stupid religion of people with blinders on their eyes.
4 of X People simply are in "love" with the idea that we are getting better, when the reality is exactly the opposite. We are genetically degrading faster than ever.
Since 1948, the first year that cancer deaths were studied in the USA, the statistics for death have risen per day by 20% more people dying (2011) in percentage of those that remain alive on any particular day.
In 1948 there was no treatment for cancer except to cut out tumors and watch people die.
5 of X Today with a huge success rate with early detection and several successful treatments, we are still losing the battle to cancer, with 20% higher death rate daily per population in the USA.
6 of X I find it irony that Carl Sagan died of a genetic disease. All of his faith and belief in science could not stop the genetic degradation in his genome from killing him.
Christopher HItchens also died recently of a eugenically caused disease. The human immune system's inability to detect and destroy cancer cells is the main genetic cause of cancer. Mutagens are always present but we were originally designed to destroy any screwed up cancer cell.
@GoodScienceForYou Christopher Hitchens died from esophageal cancer due to smoking, where you're getting that it was 'eugenically caused' I would definitely like to see.
@TheScienceFoundation 1 of 2 Left that in to see if you read anything I write. Cancer is normal in humans. All humans have cancer cells being made right now. The differences are in the immune system.
There are many people who smoke their whole life and never get cancer. They get other problems directly associated with smoking, like ruined lung tissue from continual scaring and blocking the ability to breath, contracting capillaries and reduced blood flow to tissues.
@TheScienceFoundation 2 of 2 The immune system kills cancer cells immediately, if it does not have genetic defects. There are cancers that start in the immune glands and spread to the breasts.
Smoking has decreased in percentages in the US and Cancer is still increasing.
I realize the point you think you're trying to make, it's just the matter of you being utterly wrong. I've already explained, seven times now, that cancer is increasing because of increased life expectancy.
@GoodScienceForYou This will be the eighth time I've pointed out that the cancer rate increase is due largely if not mostly to increased lifespans which allow for the development of more age related cancers.
@TheScienceFoundation Why is it that none of you realize that my number of 4600 is incorrect. It is over 6000 and you never looked to see anything about it. That shows you are not a scientist or a researcher of anything. You are a believer in a religion and keep out anything that disturbs your belief.
@GoodScienceForYou Probably because even if true, it's still irrelevant because there are thousands of beneficial mutations in humans alone and the fact that selection still isn't random.
If you had any idea what made someone a scientist you wouldn't be spouting the same ignorance for weeks (probably years) on end.
@TheScienceFoundation Name one beneficial mutation and the absolute evidence of where it came from?
This is exactly how mutations operate. They do not promote positive results. If a mutation doesn't kill then it propagates the species and causes sickness, weakness and general degradation. There are no magical mutations that fix screwed up genetics.
@TheScienceFoundation This mutation may or may not be new or different but may be an atavism triggered by crappy foods. Anyway it is the only mutation that seems to be new that is positive. But it is the only one out of 6000 bad mutations that cause genetic disease. The NET total is very bad for humanity. This is absolutely irrefutable evidence against evolution. Why don't you wake up and see reality? 1 in 6000 is not evidence for any form of advancement. I wish you well and to be free.
@GoodScienceForYou No, that gene is isolated in that population, it's not atavistic. No, it's one of literally thousands of beneficial mutations in the private human lineage. You're still remaining ignorant of the fact that most mutations are neutral and selection still isn't random. Your ignorance of genetics still isn't an argument against evolution.
@TheScienceFoundation "If you had any idea what made someone a scientist you wouldn't be spouting the same ignorance for weeks (probably years) on end."
Definitely YEARS on end. I have been battling this idiot since early 2009 - 3 years now. He has not gotten any smarter or learned anything in that time. That is no surprise since he simply makes things up.
@GoodScienceForYou I've already explained the increase in cancer statistics to you personally at least half a dozen times so at this point it's just deception on your part. The reason cancer rates have gone up so drastically is that people are living longer therefore are more likely to develop cancer related to age.
@GoodScienceForYou Once again: Genetic entropy is pseudo-science, only 1.9% of mutations in humans are harmful and they can still be acted upon by selection. The biggest reason so many changes go unchecked in humans is genetic drift.
The bit about there only being 4 positive mutations is still outright fabrication on your part, by the way. A search on pubmed for 'beneficial human mutations' returns over 1500 articles.
@GoodScienceForYou Nope, ignorance of biology still doesn't constitute a valid argument against evolution.
Your analogy is erroneous because it was ignorance that allowed flat earth/creationist beliefs to flourish, it was the actual data that led to spherical earth/evolution.
Evolution: "that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character." Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.
1/ Most people are ruled by other people. Theyre tribal by nature and want to belong, to groups. So they get into other forms of indoctrination easily, and don't realize that too is an ideology disguised as something other than the ideology you just got free from. As soon as you profess your allegiance to any man made ideology, you make a mistake and get your ego and relationships with others based on that ideology, thinking it was the right thing to do at the time.
2/ It is like the drunk who has to get away from all his drunk buddies in order to stay sober; No difference. If you write a book or profess it in public, then you really mess up your life and now what do you do? Well all too often people realize they screwed up way late, and have money, livelihood and reputation on the line with this ideology so they die supporting delusions or the confess on their death bed. It is far better to stay away from all HEMG imposed on you and seek only truth.
2.5/ People who teach crap ideologies to children are the most screwed up, because they now have to admit what they have done to these children in order to get free. That is not likely. They normally die with the delusions fully in control. This is the power of indoctrination and submitting your mind over to others for education money prestige and all that crap that humans thing is "good". Most of the bad is from what humans call "good".
3/. So, often the people with the ideology are in positions of authority made by man made icons. religion, phylosophy, science, etc as my videos explain. These authorities are often delusional people who are just repeating what was brainwashed into thier minds and they do it exactly the same way to you that they were brainwashed. They totally believe they are on the correct side of ethics and are the "good" people in any controversy. That is how screwed up humans can get.
4/ In science this idea of peer review, is really just social pressure to conform to the accepted ideological beleifs of the time. Especially in science that is based on inference, implications, beliefs where the ideology comes first and it is superimposed on anything they see or any evidence. Belief destroys credibility for a scientist: scientific suicide. Unless you have absolutely irrefutable physical evidence that is recognized by all people, you can't make any conclusions.
5/ The word conclusion means that your statements are final on the subject and cannot be refuted by anyone. Conclusion means final. Suppositions are not conclusions. inferences are not. In real science we seek only to find the truth in the matter. The truth in the matter requires absolute evidence that cannot be denied by a rational person who is not controlled by ideology. Once you have THAT evidence then every premise, every peice of eivdence only points to that conclusion.
6/ So you test the conclusion by testing against all the evidence we have on the subject. After you test it with at least 1000 peices of data and they all concur you are on the right path. After you test every known idea of this science agaist this conclusion then it is over, that is the law that governs this part of science. It becomes the law and is how real science is done.
7/ When politically driven ideologies rule, like evolution from simple to complex, there is no real truth in them. They are there because the politicians of the time want that for the control they need to stay in power. It is just how humans operate. Sad but true. The institutions are all about politics and the lowest common denomenator, money and power. They don't really give a hoot about the truth or anything. Just money, power, prestige, and feed the ego.
8/ When you as an individual realize this, you are part way on your path to emotional, mental freedom. It is hard to let go of ideas that you may base part of your life on, but that is what is required to grow into the truth. Don't ever conform to other humans for emotional reasons, no matter what.
1.5 The trick is to realize that most every form of human belief system is full of ideology or fantasy projected on the universe. This includes science classes in which they force belief on evidence.
It takes a really strong and intelligent person to stay free from HEMG, human emotional mental garbage, and avoid joining some cult by "accident" by "cultural indoctrination" or by just wanting to learn something.
The real intelligent people avoid all associations of allegiance to some ideology.
@Soundaholic If you are concerned with others' opinions, you will never find the truth, nor peace. When someone projects their fears on me, I just point it out. Your fear of not being accepted is your mental poison. It is that fear that controls you and makes you a slave to society and these ideologies of insanity.
@GoodScienceForYou No, it's not. It's your ignorance of genetics. There is no magic required, we know of and directly observe processes that add functional genes, I've already explained this to you directly.
Evolution is a religion. We now have the evidence in DNA to stop this nonsense. DNA is absolute. There is only genetic degradation shown in all complex creatures. Carl Sagan did not have DNA. He had the normal faith in his religion. /watch?v=spuZtAa80qI
@GoodScienceForYou Wrong, genetics alone has put evolution beyond any reasonable doubt. The notion of genetic entropy is debunked not only by processes that can and do add novel function in the form of novel information but the fact that there are species which breed hundreds of times faster than we do with no sign of genomic degradation.
@TheScienceFoundation DNA is absolute. ALL complex creatures have degenerated. Using bacteria as your species is HEMG. Bacteria is designed to continue no matter what. Without bacteria all life on earth dies as we know it. DNA is absolute, not debatable. DONE.
@GoodScienceForYou DNA has absolutely and spectacularly confirmed common descent. I wasn't even referring to bacteria, but that's a good point. The assertion that they were designed doesn't actually mean they were designed so that's just special pleading on your part to say 'Everything is degrading and anything that doesn't was just designed that way' without actually giving anything that substantiates design in the first place.
The facts are very clear. Yet,faith believers are still perpetuating myths. The fact that you have genetic disease isn't enough for you? The fact that many of your friends are dead of genetic diseases is not enough for you?
We were set free on this planet and we screwed up, not only the planet but our own species and many other species are extinct because of us. There is even genetic degradation in bacteria. The ancient strains can withstand boiling hot water. Why don't you know any of this?
We have common descent from superior to genetic degradation as is shown in all studies of DNA in which we have evidence or even clues of genetic ties to the ancestor. We have the living ancestors of many creatures, all more complex than the speciated, separated species.
@TheScienceFoundation All the evidence we have. The fictional ideology put aside. From the earliest ages, people are indoctrinated in one faith or another. Faith puts blinders on the mind. The modern faith of evolution has been destroyed by the modern evidence. It will take at least a hundred years before this myth is out of science, and only taught in small cults as all myths. There is no common descent from simple to complex. It is a nice myth that humans want to think we are improving.
@GoodScienceForYou Funny because it's based on absolutely nothing you've presented so far and absolutely nothing seen in genetics.
I keep pointing out that ignorance of biology does not constitute a legitimate argument against evolution, you seem to keep missing that though.
I've already given you a paper on the evolution of multi-cellular from single celled, it hardly gets more cut and dried 'from simple to complex' than that.
@TheScienceFoundation You can't see the obvious because you are emotionally driven. Chimps are genetically degraded humans. When you realize this, it is clear where we are heading. There is no evolution. Mutations are bad. You are ignorant in your faith. I am sorry that you have attached yourself to this. Once you declare your allegiance to some cause you are screwed as far as any objective reasoning. So, far all of your statements are about faith and belief and opinions, not about science.
@TheScienceFoundation Bacteria is unique. It only has ONE CELL. It has never evolved. It has never gained in cells, with new functions. It either survives or dies. Complex creatures lose cells, lose genetic information and like you, believe in myths, because of emotionally driving nonsense. There's over 4600 (very conservative) genetic defects in humans. You've a genetic disease. This is guaranteed by the fact that we are degenerated. Once you attach your ego to anything you're screwed.
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe... Attack ships on fire... no, wait..."
screwyou 3 days ago
Wish this was louder.
MacUser428 4 days ago
I'm a Christian, and I love science and Carl Sagan. Wanna fight about it?
brouhahabob 5 days ago
@brouhahabob
Not at all, only ignorant and stupid people believe that science and religion cannot coexist
InfernoPervers 5 days ago 4
@brouhahabob no thanks...just gonna note that it comes off like you're trying to start a fight, over the fact that you are part of a religion that doesn't encourage fighting and a fan of a man who'd much rather put aside petty arguments. which is kinda silly.
Vinco 1 day ago
@Vinco I was actually trying to make a point, not start a needless fight. Faith and science can coexist perfectly fine.
brouhahabob 1 day ago
Comment removed
Vinco 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brouhahabob agreed and understood. just stating it before someone who doesn't notice such tries to start one anyway.
Vinco 1 day ago
@brouhahabob Faith is the exact opposite of science.
Pilaf1984 1 hour ago
@Pilaf1984 No. Irrational faith is unscientific. But if you a apply logic and the scientific method to a belief system, you can have reasonable faith that isn't proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It's called an inductive reasoning, and much of science is based of that same reasoning.
brouhahabob 22 minutes ago
We'll be stars in death. Cool.
Bruz296 6 days ago
26 examples of Darwinism in action.
petenrita 6 days ago
Illumination symbolism big time in the space ship. I see you Carl.
KingDavid478 1 week ago
Just reading the top comments here. These god freaks have infested far too many youtube videos about science. They're not here out of an interest in science but to proselytize and sermonize. Delete them or I, for one am finished with it. Not even going to watch episode two.
D3maine 1 week ago
@D3maine no more religious top comments here. try it on hulu or somewhere else. don't let other peoples' conversations stop you from listening to sagan.
Vinco 1 day ago
I absolutely love this video and Carl Sagan's work as a whole, it never fails to blow my mind. I've seen many science based videos today and in the comments of almost all of them there are heated debates about religion. Why do these debates keep breaking out? What makes people think that science and religion are mutually exclusive and at odds with one another? Surely there are many scientists that practice religions and many religious people who trust in science.
cubed1OCBZ 1 week ago
@cubed1OCBZ Because the religions that happen to exist here on earth ARE at odds with science. They claim things that science has either proven not to be true, or things that cannot be proven true and which therefore makes it unscientific to believe that these things exist or occur.
MrSwedenik 1 week ago
el sonido casi no se escucha
begonagr 1 week ago
You know it only takes one vid like this after weeks of watching crap to remember how much i still like youtube.
iguire 1 week ago
eratosthenes is a boss!
nhall022 2 weeks ago
Several months ago I watched the entire series front to back over a period of three days. I was so touched by it that I got off my ass and got back into college. Now I am halfway done with my second semester in school. I am studying to be a research biologist and intend to get a masters... maybe a doctorate. This series gave me the modivation to better my life and the hope that my life can better mankind.
BTW, my excuse for not going to college in the first place was that I was too old...
SheisseFicken 2 weeks ago 15
@SheisseFicken that is so great!
quitchiboo 4 days ago
Who's high?
drufuss2006 2 weeks ago 10
How arrogant of religion to say that God made ALL of this for us...
jrodc22 2 weeks ago
@jrodc22
GOD exists. Look in the mirror, then look in the sky. You will see the answer if you try !
xudnoxaj 2 weeks ago
@xudnoxaj When i look in the mirror i see glass, a substance that reflects light to my eyes and I see me. I see the by-product of 4 Billion years of evolution. When i look to the night starry sky. The twinkling stars are from suns millions of light years away, some of the suns we see in the night sky are probably already dead. IF you wish to pursue your hypothesis of a Universe Created by a Heavenly Body. You must have proof, observation, backed up by data and evidence.
a348d 2 weeks ago
@a348d
1 Corinthians 15:56-57
56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
xudnoxaj 1 week ago
@xudnoxaj OK, you can read, it's all still just a fairy tale.
TheBardicDruid 1 week ago
@TheBardicDruid
it is not.
xudnoxaj 1 week ago
@xudnoxaj And do you believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny too.
TheBardicDruid 1 week ago
@TheBardicDruid
Matthew 6:1
6:1 “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.”
xudnoxaj 1 week ago
Carl Sagan: Alpha
Does anyone know the song at 30:00?
BL00DYMETAL 3 weeks ago
@BL00DYMETAL
Beethoven - Symphony No. 7 in A major: I. Poco sostenuto
dippydolittle 2 weeks ago
@dippydolittle Fantastic, thanks!
BL00DYMETAL 2 weeks ago
I loved this show when I was younger, now that I'm older, I still can't help but focus on how he says humans...
JoshuaFVrooman 3 weeks ago
Thanks, Ann. You were his best inspiration.
LanskyVoight 3 weeks ago
This was made well before I was born, but this must have been the most intense, trippy and beautiful bit of television of its time. And it's still beautiful today.
AlPapinoPizza 3 weeks ago
26 dislikes so far. what an idiot could do this :)
qwertyqart 4 weeks ago
@qwertyqart Creationists who think disliking this inspiring video will actually change what he's saying.
Nukr666 4 weeks ago
Oh man I love this stuff so much,I don't understand it but I find it amazing and beautiful for some reason .
jonano12 1 month ago
RIP CARL ...You live on forever here on youtube!!!
mtanyc 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GAY
H3LPLESSALPACA 1 month ago
man this chick is hawt
mafr0o 1 month ago
The most beautiful hour of my life...
richmanjack 1 month ago
thx for these wonderfull vids if we are alone in the universe thats realy scarey more so then a universe full of aliens bent on eating us loll peace out
ododargo 1 month ago
Thank you science foundation for this great upload. Carl Sagan was epic
PlatoisInsideme 1 month ago
25 people's mothers are also their sisters.
jackiedegracia 1 month ago
I've always found the destruction of the library at Alexandria to be very upsetting.
UniversalRee 1 month ago
@UniversalRee
I realize this might get my ass kicked here for pondering this, as this is often thought of as being "woo" by the scientific and archeological orthodoxy, but is it possible that there was ancient technology, possibly advanced, that might have been documented in the library?
jackiedegracia 1 month ago
@jackiedegracia There is actually good evidence for a technologist/engineer named Hero (if I'm recalling this correctly), who designed automata and machines for temples (holy water dispensers, doors opening on their own - through hydraulics, an early steam-type engine). He would obviously have done other stuff, but most of the documentation seems to be for his work with the temple to Zeus. There was something on one of the "learning" channels about this stuff.
UniversalRee 1 month ago
Cosmos is one of most impressive things i have seen either in real life, TV or movies ... it has been a great achievement ... Sagan has done a stupendous job ... thank you Carl
ticklewit 1 month ago
the lady in the beginning reminds me of the lady from xfiles for some reason ahah wut
TheCunningAndFought 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
23:00
mentioning pluto like that, back then, im sure was fine but now that just insensitive!
poor pluto
meistersamwise 1 month ago
Comment removed
meistersamwise 1 month ago
Life is so much more precious and beautiful, the world so much more awe-inspiring, without religion. Religion inspires shame and guilt. It tells us that being human is something pitiable. It tells us that our minds aren't to be trusted, science to be suspected. It tells us that we are slaves, and that we should be glad of our chains. It tells us we NEED their particular brands of deity. It saps joy, stifles freedom of thought, and cheapens life.
Ashiman12 1 month ago 2
@Ashiman12 well said,i just wish i could put that on a shirt.
WinstonThirstkill 1 month ago
@Ashiman12 You don't have a good understanding of what religion is at all, that is what some religions do, such as the abrahamic religions, but religion in general in the exact opposite. Look at Buddhism
gtas321 1 week ago
Carl Sagan > Your God!
deeppurple28 1 month ago
@deeppurple28
Not really. Their god would have to exist for that to be the case...
In other words you're saying: Carl Sagan > nothing
Ann Druyan does not approve.
jackiedegracia 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Skip to 2:00 if you don't want to hear Ann Druyan talk about how awesome the show is.
Nikola808 2 months ago
Comment removed
Nikola808 2 months ago
Comment removed
Nikola808 2 months ago
Comment removed
Nikola808 2 months ago
Comment removed
Nikola808 2 months ago
Comment removed
Nikola808 2 months ago
Comment removed
Nikola808 2 months ago
@Nikola808 that weird looking chick was carl sagan's wife...
oklookhereguys 2 months ago
@oklookhereguys whoever she is, she is weird looking.
Nikola808 2 months ago
@Nikola808 The weird looking chick is smarter than you will ever be
TheWizardWeiss 2 months ago
@TheWizardWeiss you can't make that assessment, as you don' t know me- weird looking chick may be smarter, she might be dumber, she might be uglier or better looking than me that was not the point of my post- If you are basing what you think is my intelligence on the comment I made- it was a half serious point for those who don't wanna hear Sagan's wife talk, but rather to get right to him talking...
Nikola808 2 months ago
@Nikola808 So you are saying I can't make that assessment , but you can judge her that amazing scientist , by calling her weird looking chick ?
TheWizardWeiss 2 months ago
Comment removed
Nikola808 2 months ago
Comment removed
Nikola808 2 months ago
Comment removed
Nikola808 2 months ago
Comment removed
Nikola808 2 months ago
Comment removed
Nikola808 2 months ago
Comment removed
Nikola808 2 months ago
Comment removed
Nikola808 2 months ago
Comment removed
Nikola808 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheWizardWeissI suppose I could have just wrote "skip to 2:00 if you don't want to hear Carl Sagan's wife talk about how awesome Carl Sagans show is". I do agree though, that a woman as accomplished as she is, could easily be smarter than me- P.S.Sorry if I offended you (or Ann, if you're reading this) by saying weird looking chick. You are right, it was disrespectful.
Nikola808 2 months ago
@Nikola808 It's not like she may be be smarter , she might be dumber , she IS SMARTER
TheWizardWeiss 2 months ago
@TheWizardWeiss She's probably smarter than alot of the people who spend time pointlessly assuming things on youtube threads, including you. The thing is I agree with you that she PROBABLY is smarter than me ( AND you for that matter), but you (or any of us) have no way of determining this based off a couple comments I have made. You may wish to assume, but then you're mentality is no better than the one I had when I posted my original, disrespectful comment.
Nikola808 2 months ago
@TheWizardWeiss There are many types of intellect, well all excel/falter at different things. Sometimes my choice of words for describing people may not be best, and sometimes your basis of how you asses one's intelligence may not be either.
Nikola808 2 months ago
@Nikola808 blah blah blah , she's still smarter than you
TheWizardWeiss 2 months ago
@ITILII Also, Galileo, Newton and such only references God as a pivotal role in any thought when they reached the edges of their knowledge. They only used God to fill the gaps. Their contributions to the world would be no less if they were suddenly to have been atheists.
JayFraser0987 2 months ago
@ITILII Einstein spoke of the Universe itself as God, in the same metaphorical sense that Stephen Hawking refers to it as such. ''A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)''.
JayFraser0987 2 months ago
And people think that their religion is awe inspiring....
BostonSportsGuy567 2 months ago 40
@BostonSportsGuy567 Religion without science is a blind; yet science without Religion, is a cripple - the words of a man who knew a bit about both of these topics, fella by the name of Einstein. Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein....the geniuses who laid the foundation of modern science, and all were religious men who believed in God. Something to consider and learn from, friend. More things in heaven and on earth, Bostonsportsguy, then are dreamt in your philosophy ...peace, friends
ITILII 2 months ago
@ITILII i suggest you do a little research before you claim they were religious men.. leaving comments on a subject you're ignorant of on an intellectual page such as this is a good way to get ripped in half by people who actually know the facts.
as JayFraser0987 said they understand at the limits of their knowledge it meets an overwhelming sense. people sometimes call it god.. until someone makes a new mathematics or w/e.
God of the Gaps - Neil deGrasse Tyson
^ look it up on YT.
TheRaellz 2 months ago 11
@TheRaellz
I have an intellectual comment to make about Ann Druyan...she was a piece of ass in her day. Nine out of ten scholars agree...they'd "hit that". Forthwith. And such. Perse.
jackiedegracia 1 month ago
@TheRaellz i think i'd have to wear a giant rubber on my "primary" head, ha ha, before i ever ventured onto the young turks website. i wouldn't want to get syphilis of the brain?! for my secondary head i need only a little one!!
hammerdick777 3 weeks ago
@TheRaellz you can't have it "all ways" man! you or someone else showed us that Einstein used the term impenetrable, meaning of course that there'll be no "new mathematics." it's impenetrable!! see how it works. you can claim that people of faith don't grasp fact, that they just meander around in an emotional rubble of shit, but it's when you claim to have the facts on Albert Einsteins's spiritual workings that just plain make me laugh at how elitist most Wikipedia-scientists actually are!!
hammerdick777 3 weeks ago
@hammerdick777 the knowledge was around far before wikipedia was thought up. i was referring to what he said and responding to it. i highly recommend you check some of Einstein's quotes before you call me wrong.
jumping into something in the middle and assuming you know all the facts.. tsk. how egocentric.
TheRaellz 3 weeks ago
@hammerdick777 as for the new mathematics yes that is a FACT... look into it, youtube warrior.
TheRaellz 3 weeks ago
@ITILII Thoroughly pooped upon.
BostonSportsGuy567 2 months ago
Evodelusionism is a religion.
It is based on magical ideas projected on the physical world and now that we have all the physical evidence against it we can disregard it.
As long as we did not have the physical evidence of the world being close to a spherical shape, the belief in a flat world was the common belief. Even after the evidence was presented and it was obvious to those who understood it and allowed themselves to understand it; it was fought against, even until the late 1890's.
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
2 of X It wasn't until the last 12 years of the Human Genome Project that the evidence became crystal clear against evolution.
Once again: They have discovered over 4600 gentic defects in humans, causing genetic diseases. There are ONLY 4 positive mutations that are believed to have happened. None of the "positive" are verifiable,by the way.
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
3 of X These, so called "positive" mutations have never been looked for in the entire species of humanity to see if they existed before. It is possible that they are remnants barely hanging on by a very tiny thread in a very tiny number of people.
In time if mutations don't completely take them out, they will try to continue in offspring.
Remember; "Evolution" is a stupid religion of people with blinders on their eyes.
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
4 of X People simply are in "love" with the idea that we are getting better, when the reality is exactly the opposite. We are genetically degrading faster than ever.
Since 1948, the first year that cancer deaths were studied in the USA, the statistics for death have risen per day by 20% more people dying (2011) in percentage of those that remain alive on any particular day.
In 1948 there was no treatment for cancer except to cut out tumors and watch people die.
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
5 of X Today with a huge success rate with early detection and several successful treatments, we are still losing the battle to cancer, with 20% higher death rate daily per population in the USA.
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
6 of X I find it irony that Carl Sagan died of a genetic disease. All of his faith and belief in science could not stop the genetic degradation in his genome from killing him.
Christopher HItchens also died recently of a eugenically caused disease. The human immune system's inability to detect and destroy cancer cells is the main genetic cause of cancer. Mutagens are always present but we were originally designed to destroy any screwed up cancer cell.
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou Christopher Hitchens died from esophageal cancer due to smoking, where you're getting that it was 'eugenically caused' I would definitely like to see.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation 1 of 2 Left that in to see if you read anything I write. Cancer is normal in humans. All humans have cancer cells being made right now. The differences are in the immune system.
There are many people who smoke their whole life and never get cancer. They get other problems directly associated with smoking, like ruined lung tissue from continual scaring and blocking the ability to breath, contracting capillaries and reduced blood flow to tissues.
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou No, the major difference that the most prominent types of cancer in which rates have risen in the past 60 years are age related.
'There are many people who smoke their whole life and never get cancer'
See; confirmation bias.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation 2 of 2 The immune system kills cancer cells immediately, if it does not have genetic defects. There are cancers that start in the immune glands and spread to the breasts.
Smoking has decreased in percentages in the US and Cancer is still increasing.
That is my point.
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou 'The immune system kills cancer cells immediately'
Source?
I realize the point you think you're trying to make, it's just the matter of you being utterly wrong. I've already explained, seven times now, that cancer is increasing because of increased life expectancy.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Cancer is increasing because of the negative mutations of modern life, CAUSED by mutagens.
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou This will be the eighth time I've pointed out that the cancer rate increase is due largely if not mostly to increased lifespans which allow for the development of more age related cancers.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Why is it that none of you realize that my number of 4600 is incorrect. It is over 6000 and you never looked to see anything about it. That shows you are not a scientist or a researcher of anything. You are a believer in a religion and keep out anything that disturbs your belief.
I wish you well, but you are no scientist.
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou Probably because even if true, it's still irrelevant because there are thousands of beneficial mutations in humans alone and the fact that selection still isn't random.
If you had any idea what made someone a scientist you wouldn't be spouting the same ignorance for weeks (probably years) on end.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Name one beneficial mutation and the absolute evidence of where it came from?
This is exactly how mutations operate. They do not promote positive results. If a mutation doesn't kill then it propagates the species and causes sickness, weakness and general degradation. There are no magical mutations that fix screwed up genetics.
/watch?v=spuZtAa80qI
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou The milano mutation that reduced cholesterol in a population of a small Italian village.
You've made it abundantly clear you have no idea how mutations operate. They're not directional at all and some do indeed confer survival advantage.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation This mutation may or may not be new or different but may be an atavism triggered by crappy foods. Anyway it is the only mutation that seems to be new that is positive. But it is the only one out of 6000 bad mutations that cause genetic disease. The NET total is very bad for humanity. This is absolutely irrefutable evidence against evolution. Why don't you wake up and see reality? 1 in 6000 is not evidence for any form of advancement. I wish you well and to be free.
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou No, that gene is isolated in that population, it's not atavistic. No, it's one of literally thousands of beneficial mutations in the private human lineage. You're still remaining ignorant of the fact that most mutations are neutral and selection still isn't random. Your ignorance of genetics still isn't an argument against evolution.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation "there are thousands of beneficial mutations in humans alone" Where are they? Go look and study the real evidence.
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou I've already posted them; pubmed.gov search; Beneficial human mutations.
I cannot stress enough that ignoring the data as you have done does not make it go away.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation "If you had any idea what made someone a scientist you wouldn't be spouting the same ignorance for weeks (probably years) on end."
Definitely YEARS on end. I have been battling this idiot since early 2009 - 3 years now. He has not gotten any smarter or learned anything in that time. That is no surprise since he simply makes things up.
AlanCFA 1 month ago
@GoodScienceForYou I've already explained the increase in cancer statistics to you personally at least half a dozen times so at this point it's just deception on your part. The reason cancer rates have gone up so drastically is that people are living longer therefore are more likely to develop cancer related to age.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou They're known to be novel traits because they're found in very small subsets of the overall human population.
Remember, You being scientifically illiterate doesn't constitute evolution being stupid
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou Once again: Genetic entropy is pseudo-science, only 1.9% of mutations in humans are harmful and they can still be acted upon by selection. The biggest reason so many changes go unchecked in humans is genetic drift.
The bit about there only being 4 positive mutations is still outright fabrication on your part, by the way. A search on pubmed for 'beneficial human mutations' returns over 1500 articles.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou Nope, ignorance of biology still doesn't constitute a valid argument against evolution.
Your analogy is erroneous because it was ignorance that allowed flat earth/creationist beliefs to flourish, it was the actual data that led to spherical earth/evolution.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
Carl Sagan was smart, but he was wrong as hell about God.
jogeryjogo 2 months ago
@jogeryjogo How so?
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
why did the woman at first talk like a sexline-chick? just saying...
tabernumse 2 months ago
what is the first womens name? What did she say it was?
PSNDonutDude 2 months ago
@PSNDonutDude Ann Druyan
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
im so baked right now
bieep 2 months ago in playlist Carl Sagan's Cosmos
22 people do not understand the concept of the atom.
atheism102 2 months ago
Please lower the sound a little, so loud!
SEBLALA 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution: "that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character." Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.
This has never happened in biology, not one time.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
1/ Most people are ruled by other people. Theyre tribal by nature and want to belong, to groups. So they get into other forms of indoctrination easily, and don't realize that too is an ideology disguised as something other than the ideology you just got free from. As soon as you profess your allegiance to any man made ideology, you make a mistake and get your ego and relationships with others based on that ideology, thinking it was the right thing to do at the time.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
2/ It is like the drunk who has to get away from all his drunk buddies in order to stay sober; No difference. If you write a book or profess it in public, then you really mess up your life and now what do you do? Well all too often people realize they screwed up way late, and have money, livelihood and reputation on the line with this ideology so they die supporting delusions or the confess on their death bed. It is far better to stay away from all HEMG imposed on you and seek only truth.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
2.5/ People who teach crap ideologies to children are the most screwed up, because they now have to admit what they have done to these children in order to get free. That is not likely. They normally die with the delusions fully in control. This is the power of indoctrination and submitting your mind over to others for education money prestige and all that crap that humans thing is "good". Most of the bad is from what humans call "good".
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
3/. So, often the people with the ideology are in positions of authority made by man made icons. religion, phylosophy, science, etc as my videos explain. These authorities are often delusional people who are just repeating what was brainwashed into thier minds and they do it exactly the same way to you that they were brainwashed. They totally believe they are on the correct side of ethics and are the "good" people in any controversy. That is how screwed up humans can get.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
4/ In science this idea of peer review, is really just social pressure to conform to the accepted ideological beleifs of the time. Especially in science that is based on inference, implications, beliefs where the ideology comes first and it is superimposed on anything they see or any evidence. Belief destroys credibility for a scientist: scientific suicide. Unless you have absolutely irrefutable physical evidence that is recognized by all people, you can't make any conclusions.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
5/ The word conclusion means that your statements are final on the subject and cannot be refuted by anyone. Conclusion means final. Suppositions are not conclusions. inferences are not. In real science we seek only to find the truth in the matter. The truth in the matter requires absolute evidence that cannot be denied by a rational person who is not controlled by ideology. Once you have THAT evidence then every premise, every peice of eivdence only points to that conclusion.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
6/ So you test the conclusion by testing against all the evidence we have on the subject. After you test it with at least 1000 peices of data and they all concur you are on the right path. After you test every known idea of this science agaist this conclusion then it is over, that is the law that governs this part of science. It becomes the law and is how real science is done.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
7/ When politically driven ideologies rule, like evolution from simple to complex, there is no real truth in them. They are there because the politicians of the time want that for the control they need to stay in power. It is just how humans operate. Sad but true. The institutions are all about politics and the lowest common denomenator, money and power. They don't really give a hoot about the truth or anything. Just money, power, prestige, and feed the ego.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
8/ When you as an individual realize this, you are part way on your path to emotional, mental freedom. It is hard to let go of ideas that you may base part of your life on, but that is what is required to grow into the truth. Don't ever conform to other humans for emotional reasons, no matter what.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
1.5 The trick is to realize that most every form of human belief system is full of ideology or fantasy projected on the universe. This includes science classes in which they force belief on evidence.
It takes a really strong and intelligent person to stay free from HEMG, human emotional mental garbage, and avoid joining some cult by "accident" by "cultural indoctrination" or by just wanting to learn something.
The real intelligent people avoid all associations of allegiance to some ideology.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
this is wonderful!! and i figured out who he sounds like. . . the agent from the matrix! haha ~ Mr An-der-son
imaginedbygod 3 months ago
@imaginedbygod Would not it be appropriate to say that Mr. Anderson sounds like Carl Sagan instead? I guess so :)
DescentIntoChaos1 1 month ago
The wheeeels keep on trollin
Satantransvertdeath 3 months ago
22:25 its titan =0 not triton...
profjaykay 3 months ago
Comment removed
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou
Man, you're embarrassing yourself :)
Soundaholic 3 months ago
@Soundaholic He's embarrassing planet earth.
PutItAway101 3 months ago
@Soundaholic If you are concerned with others' opinions, you will never find the truth, nor peace. When someone projects their fears on me, I just point it out. Your fear of not being accepted is your mental poison. It is that fear that controls you and makes you a slave to society and these ideologies of insanity.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
Comment removed
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou What's really sad is you probably think that's a reasonable analogy as to how evolution works.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
Comment removed
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou No, it's not. It's your ignorance of genetics. There is no magic required, we know of and directly observe processes that add functional genes, I've already explained this to you directly.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation What is really sad is your faith and belief in magic.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
Evolution is a religion. We now have the evidence in DNA to stop this nonsense. DNA is absolute. There is only genetic degradation shown in all complex creatures. Carl Sagan did not have DNA. He had the normal faith in his religion. /watch?v=spuZtAa80qI
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou Wrong, genetics alone has put evolution beyond any reasonable doubt. The notion of genetic entropy is debunked not only by processes that can and do add novel function in the form of novel information but the fact that there are species which breed hundreds of times faster than we do with no sign of genomic degradation.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation DNA is absolute. ALL complex creatures have degenerated. Using bacteria as your species is HEMG. Bacteria is designed to continue no matter what. Without bacteria all life on earth dies as we know it. DNA is absolute, not debatable. DONE.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou DNA has absolutely and spectacularly confirmed common descent. I wasn't even referring to bacteria, but that's a good point. The assertion that they were designed doesn't actually mean they were designed so that's just special pleading on your part to say 'Everything is degrading and anything that doesn't was just designed that way' without actually giving anything that substantiates design in the first place.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
The facts are very clear. Yet,faith believers are still perpetuating myths. The fact that you have genetic disease isn't enough for you? The fact that many of your friends are dead of genetic diseases is not enough for you?
We were set free on this planet and we screwed up, not only the planet but our own species and many other species are extinct because of us. There is even genetic degradation in bacteria. The ancient strains can withstand boiling hot water. Why don't you know any of this?
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou No, your ignorance of genetic drift doesn't affect my understanding of biology at all.
'There is even genetic degradation in bacteria'
Really? Because 14 hours ago they were 'designed to continue no matter what'
You can't even keep your own non-sense in line in and of itself.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
We have common descent from superior to genetic degradation as is shown in all studies of DNA in which we have evidence or even clues of genetic ties to the ancestor. We have the living ancestors of many creatures, all more complex than the speciated, separated species.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou 'from superior to genetic degradation'
Based on what?
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation All the evidence we have. The fictional ideology put aside. From the earliest ages, people are indoctrinated in one faith or another. Faith puts blinders on the mind. The modern faith of evolution has been destroyed by the modern evidence. It will take at least a hundred years before this myth is out of science, and only taught in small cults as all myths. There is no common descent from simple to complex. It is a nice myth that humans want to think we are improving.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou Funny because it's based on absolutely nothing you've presented so far and absolutely nothing seen in genetics.
I keep pointing out that ignorance of biology does not constitute a legitimate argument against evolution, you seem to keep missing that though.
I've already given you a paper on the evolution of multi-cellular from single celled, it hardly gets more cut and dried 'from simple to complex' than that.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation You can't see the obvious because you are emotionally driven. Chimps are genetically degraded humans. When you realize this, it is clear where we are heading. There is no evolution. Mutations are bad. You are ignorant in your faith. I am sorry that you have attached yourself to this. Once you declare your allegiance to some cause you are screwed as far as any objective reasoning. So, far all of your statements are about faith and belief and opinions, not about science.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou Projection much?
Again, funny how species that reproduce at a much higher rate than us show no more sign of entropy than we.
Actually all of my statements have been based on empiricism and a working knowledge of genetics, so that makes one of us.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Bacteria is unique. It only has ONE CELL. It has never evolved. It has never gained in cells, with new functions. It either survives or dies. Complex creatures lose cells, lose genetic information and like you, believe in myths, because of emotionally driving nonsense. There's over 4600 (very conservative) genetic defects in humans. You've a genetic disease. This is guaranteed by the fact that we are degenerated. Once you attach your ego to anything you're screwed.
GoodScienceForYou 3 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou I've already directed you to an article showing the move from a single celled organism to a colonial/multi-cellular organism.
Which is it by the way? Are they 'designed to last' or are they suffering degradation as well?
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago