@potholer54 About the illustration you used for determining the distance to the Sun: It looked to me like a method of determining the Sun's radius with distances to the Sun and Venus already known factors.
I'm curious because I found an explanation involving Venus' greatest elongation, along with parallax measurements of Venus, satisfactory to determine the distance.
If the illustration related to distance to the Sun, is there an explanation of the method using it available?
WHEN PEOPLE ASK YOU QUESTION YOU CANT ANSWER YOU CLAIM THEY ARE UNEDUCATED OR STUPID BECAUSE REALLY YOU YOURSELF ARE TO STUPID TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.
MY QUESTION IS IF THERE WAS A BIG BANG THEN SURELY "SOMETHING" HAD TO EXPLODE TO CREATE IT, IN THAT CASE WHERE DID THE "SOMETHING" COME FROM, IF YOU MANAGE TO ANSWER THAT WHERE DID THE "SOMETHING" BEFORE THAT CAME, WHAT ABOUT THE ONE BEFORE THAT, THEN THE ONE BEFORE THAT. DO YOU SEE WHERE THIS IS GOING?
@once2ice Avoiding the miss representation you made about the big bang the answer would be ""We dont know"". And honest people accept that until evidence is presented, whereas some people still choose to do what potholer stated in the beginning of the video. We make up magical explanations because we cant seem to handle not knowing something.
Not to be rude - but if we don't know what's before the big bang - what have we really learned? All we've really done is found a box in a box. Until our next scientific development can open the box of what was before the big bang, what do we really know? Sure we've disproved certain nutty theory's.
But I can see smart religions simply adapting around the newly found facts. Much like my own viewpoints. If we don't know what was before the big bang - what else can we do but guess?
The only thing is that these calculations aren't exact, so when you something is 50 light years away but it's actually 49.5126 is that not a huge difference?
The thing that I don't get is where this original star that was the source of the big bang came from and the retard in the chair says gravity in gas clouds created this star, where the hell did these gas clouds come from. im beggining to not give a shit how the universe was created because how the universe was created does not effect the future of anybody here.
@26adrian26 You're confusing the birth of our solar system, which was the death of a first generation star, with the origin of the universe, which was all dimensions, matter and energy expanding, cooling and condensing locally into the structures we see around us. If you don't experience the satisfaction intrinsic to learning about the unknown, then that's a shame, but it's through scientific endeavour that we advance our understanding and derive technological benefits, such as the internet.
@Misterb0z but where did the first generation star come from, the big bang aparently. so technically our solar system came from the big bang, did it not?
@26adrian26 Well yes, technically it did. Technically everything we know of did. The only difference is that second generation solar systems contain heavier elements, those above iron or so. This is because of the fusion of lighter elements in the massively energetic death of large stars.
Enoch explains the evolution, big bang, the 4th demension, Demons, UFOS, Ancient tech, Dinosaurs, and THOMAS tells us the TRUE words of Jesus, crazy stuff like "the kingdom of heaven is in you, and all around you, and you can't see it" and "how much will you have to bear when you meet your image that does not die" Jesus and 110 more! some on physics, some on science, Yale teaches about Jesus from the Nag Hammadi discovery of 1945, on youtube, if you search for God like you do science...
46 7.8 volcanic eruptions this year, NOT one 5.0 or more from 1974-1993...26 years...All the animals are dying, the food is poison, the money is the goal, the air is crap, Flouride in your toothpaste?Cannabis is illegeal? MSG in your food, , The Time is drawing closer to the time of Peace, Why do christians call it "the end" if it's "The Beginning of Peace" and 1000 years of it too? or why is PAUL even in the BIble? Why leave out the best two books? ENOCH and THOMAS!?
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 (((Now the earth was formless and empty))) THE BIG BANG))), darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, (((“Let there be light,” and there was light.)))The sun) 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
God isn't in the realm of science, neither physical nor psychological. It takes a specific instrument to measure the wide spectrum of light invisible to the eye. For the fact that they are unseen doesn't mean that they do not exist. The mind cannot substantiate God, and neither can the eye - a physical organ. There are substantial empirical evidence to prove that God exists, but you will need to use the right organ. God is spirit, you need to use your human spirit.
@sabertooth1980 A worthy reply, unlike some vulgarities commonly associated with responses to posts like mine. When I mentioned 'scientific' I wasn't referring to the role of science (disproving nor confirming), I was referring to the method. At present, if you have scoured through the many academic publications, there isn't sufficient evidence to prove that there is no need for a God, and I don't believe that in time this will ever be proven for the fact that we will not be here in the future.
No one can prove that there is no God, it's not scientific to say that there is no God. We are limited by space and time, a 100 years ago you're not there, and you won't be there a 100 years later. Maybe God is not in your city right now, but in another city, you are not in every place and every age at the same time. Maybe God isn't here in time now but came 2000 years ago, maybe when you have become dust that He will come again. Since you are limited, you cannot say that there is not God.
@exc390 It isn't sciences' job to prove the lack of something, let alone a god. See, it isn't science saying that "there is no god", it is saying that god is unnecessary. However that isn't the point.
The point is that You are the one claiming that there Is a god.
Alright. Give your evidence for the existence of a god.
Testable, Empirical, and independently verifiable evidence.
I can’t believe that there’s 279 people dislikes this clip. Why? I know it’s basic but it is called “History of Our Universe Part 1 (for schools)” or is there 279 out there who seen this clip and spent 10 mins thinking of what is in the box instead of being educated to a 14 year old’s understanding of the cosmos..... scary....
It's stated (1:24) that Eratosthenes' deduced the diameter of the Earth "while the dogma of the fixed earth still held sway, backed by a powerful church." However, Eratosthenes lived at the end of the 3rd century B.C.E. The church didn't come into existence until sometime after 30 C.E. In his attempt to belittle people's belief in God, the author of the script seems to have "bent" the facts. The dogma of an Earth-centered universe was adopted by the Christian church from Aristotle.
@gegland: No. After he speaks of Eratosthenes, he starts a new paragraph. "But while the Earth might be spherical, the dogma of a fixed Earth still held sway, backed by a powerful church." And so it was, from 300 to 1300 CE, more or less. "The dogma of an Earth-centered universe was adopted by the Christian church from Aristotle." He may have had an influence, but the main reason is and was the Bible.
I do not mean to provoke or offend, but to be entirely honest, there isn't alot of evidence for quite a few historical figures that historians hold existed. Several philosophers come to mind.
From a mainstream secualr standpoint Yeshua of Nazaret existed as a man, a rabbi who went around preaching in Judaea some thousand to two thousand years past. There is a great difference between that which is fictional and that which is fictionalised.
SHORT AND COMPREHENSIVE DOCUMENTRY. ARISTACUS WAS GREAT AND HYPATIA WAS TOO, IN ALEXANDRIA. LIBRARY SHE (HYPATIA) WAS A GREAT SCHOLAR AND GREAT TEACHER. I WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT HER. THIS DOCU IS VERY BENIFICIAL FOR KNOWLDGE. ITS REMIND ME 'GREAT LEGEND OF OUR CENTURY 'CARL SAGAN' . THANKS
@HigherPlanes "Science is bankrupt" What a nonsensical conclusion to draw! Scientists don't claim to have the ultimate answers to our questions. The models that we devise are designed to give us insight into nature, and where they provide useful and accurate predictions then we adopt them and use them.
Science has borne many fruits. To call it bankrupt is to declare your profound ignorance. To claim Feynman as your ally is a travesty.
@HigherPlanes If by "not accomplishing anything" you mean "feeding billions, providing clean water, medicine, electrical power, information exchange and storage, insights into our environment both locally and macroscopically, eradicating disease, increasing lifespans, treating infertility, helping the crippled, allowing international travel in the space of hours" then I agree. But you don't.
I suggest you refrain from posting any more such nonsense to avoid sounding like an idiot.
@Misterb0z Perhaps what I'm speaking about is beyond your level of awareness. Feeding billions, providing clean water, medicine, electrical power, information exchange and storage, insights into our environment both locally and macroscopically, eradicating disease, increasing lifespans, treating infertility, helping the crippled, allowing international travel in the space of hours at what cost? Open your eyes and tiny mind, my friend.
@Misterb0z The author claims that, "This video doesn't represent what scientists guess about the universe, but what we know." The history of science itself tells us by example that what is held as "truth" by one generation of scientists is often overturned by the next. In my life I have seen known "truths" about plate tectonics, subatomic particles, and the predicted fate of the universe all changed in substantive ways. The philosophy of science is not well understood by many scientists.
@gegland "In my life I have seen known "truths" about plate tectonics (etc) changed in substantive ways." That's very nice for you. But our understanding is built upon what we do know. True, from time to time fundamental assumptions that we hold to be reasonable turn out to be less so, but the knowledge we gain tends to supplement our understanding rather than 'overturn' it as you assert.
It certainly doesn't give anyone the grounds to put fantasy on the same footing as scientific understanding.
@Misterb0z Answering with an acerbic comment like, "That's very nice for you", doesn't add to the discussion. Additionally, referring to a belief in God as a fantasy doesn't further your argument. Please make your argument from science, logic, philosophy or the specific philosophy of science. Then I can have a discussion with you.
@gegland Right, okay. Let's start with a scientific discussion of gods and wizards, shall we?
There, that's the science out of the way. Because science says sod-all about any hocus-pocus magic stuff. There is no evidence of any such being, only your inference based on ignorance.
As far as that ignorance is concerned we are in the same boat, but that doesn't give either of us the right to assert any fantastical conjectures as having any basis in reality.
@gegland: You have to make a distinction between facts (observations, experimental outcomes, data) and theories. The data, which is mainly what is being discussed here, is not going to change. It may get augmented; it's specifications and limitations may be more distinctly drawn over time, but data is data. Theories concerning how the data can be connected into a coherent body of knowledge will more likely change over time. What the author is saying is that it isn't a guess....
... I'd say that that is fairly well understood by almost all scientists; where it is not understood is within the general public, and most particularly among religionists who are uncomfortable without unchanging rules to guide them. It would help if such people didn't try to obfuscate that for those who don't understand it. Such as you.
@HigherPlanes Is that so? Then what the hell do you call the Bible? Science is not an organization that collects money from people like your church. So it can never be bankrupt. Unlike your church which cons people into giving money so the Pope or some other religious leader can have a nice lavish meal. Next they will keep having their donaters by scary the foolish that they suffer eternal damnation if they do not believe in their goat herder stories.
@1234yersiman Sorry, but I'm not a religious person. As cliche as it sounds, I like to consider myself spiritual. And I still hold firm that science is bankrupt. Yes I use a computer, I own a vehicle, call me a hypocrite if you must, but if it were all gone tomorrow, I would not shed a tear. I think I'm entitled to an opinion, you don't have to agree with it, but all the technology that science has brought us has not made us a better people, we're pretty much raping the Earth and it's futile.
@HigherPlanes While what you say may be true that we are harming the earth with science, would you rather live as a hunter and gatherer, worrying day to day if you are going to die prematurely? Furthermore science is coming up with the answer to stop harming the earth. It is just idiots who do not want to follow this (such as christians bent on destroying the earth for a second Jesus).
@1234yersiman We don't have to be hunter gatherers to live in balance with the planet, and that's what it should be all about, living in balance with nature. But as it is right now, we take more than we give back. The problem is the city. The definition of city is, a human eco-system that grossly exceeds the carrying capacity of its local environment and requires importation of resources to survive. Local sustainable communities don't have to be hunter gatherer.
@HigherPlanes That is what science is trying to achieve. It is just that huge companies, like the oil companies, prevent such measures from happening since they want to make more profits. For example, electric cars were put out of business by the oil companies. Blame them, not science.
@HigherPlanes And furthermore I am shocked to see someone has no respect for science, for someone who knows how to use a computer, has an education, is well fed and watches youtube! Will the church ever give you that unless you were the leader? You selfish twat!!!
@wotdoesitmatter Electrons are sensitive to electromagnetic radiation, of which light is one form. When an electron is exposed to electromagnetic radiation, it jumps in quantum level to a higher energy orbital state than before, called an excited state. This state, however, is unstable, so the electron releases that energy in the form of a photon, which our eyes and brain register as light. The wavelength absorbed depends upon the location of the electron when it is exposed to the radiation.
@lhvinny: All good except for "The wavelength absorbed depends upon the location of the electron when it is exposed to the radiation." The wavelength is dependent only on the kind of atom or molecule, which electron shell is absorbing the photon and it's current orbital. The electron's position is only known by a probability function anyway.
The narration's attitude towards the ancient societies guessing is degrading towards humankind and ignorant. Religion was the pop culture just like todays societies and the historians were influenced just like they are today just like the narrator. fuck up the kids more in school
@rsouthern: What attitude? He made one glancing remark about religions requiring a non-moving Earth (don't look now, but they're still with us); the entire rest of the video was straightforward history and elementary astronomy. I think you are being just a might sensitive.
@JacobTheIndoAmerican: Another theory of what? I am not a historian; I don't know what the intellectual structure of history is all about, but I do know that it is dependent upon viewpoints. If you think the basic astronomy is going to be overthrown by some other theory of the universe, then I'll have to differ, but I have to maintain pedagogically that the possibility is always there.
its a little disappointing that the universe is 14 billion years old. i mean looking at it that way it didnt take long for dinosaurs to pop up. the universe is probably richer in life then people realize. im not sure how much i trust the estimation of distances by the angle which we see light. but its probably pretty close. any light that far away and filtered through at least our atmosphere is bound to be a little off.
@xerophiLIEs: Using angles was only the first approach. Since then solar system distances were set through study of planetary occultations of the sun, and stellar distances by study of variable stars. Galactic distances are inferred from use of the class 1a supernova standard candle.
Why is there 272 dislikes? Peoples ignorance amazes me. I am a 16 year old in the U.K. about to be tested on triple science Physics which is frequently mirrored in this video. This has been a great help and sum of knowledge, in future you may want to mention the Shapley-Curis 1920 debate which is taught to us. Thanks for the revision session.
How about you get off your behind and start looking for the truth in the scriptures instead of looking at bronze-age darwinistical-style "science" text books?
@TruthfulChristian We look back in time everyday with thousands of ever more powerful eyes to answer questions about the past. Maybe if your lucky your scriptures will be confirmed with those eyes! I doubt it but maybe! :-)
@TruthfulChristian I'd recommend you took some time from your current circle of friends and family. Come on, try it, see the world, travel, meet new people. Heck, you can come for dinner. As I said in a previous comment. I was very lucky, I managed to get out aged 12. The feeling of finally thinking for yourself is, so, so fucking amazing.
You can download youtube videos through a number of websites, like Zamzar (which allows you to plug in a URL, and then emails you a link for the finished video to download; they even given you a choice of format)
In just FIVE YEARS between 2004-2009 thick perennial arctic sea ice DROPPED 42%. This was discovered by NASA satellite measurements. Reported 7/7/09
Search:
New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning
Global Warming is changing our world NOW. CO2 is 35% above levels for 650,000 years. In just 30 years CO2 will be over 450ppm, enough to acidify oceans to the point of stopping the growth of many planktons and corals. They are at the base of the oceans' food chain.
it can. either nothing is in the box, everything is in the box or 1 or more things exist with the box. Since we can't directly observe the contents, one must accept all three possibilities equal and valid all at the same time. Because one can't know what's in the box until they observe it, there is no proof for or against any number of possibilities until that time.
Im so sorry for you americans, still struggeling with a power christian faith. We got the same from some muslim groups.
Anyways. These videos are awesome, they show how we can deduct and learn by using hindsight. When the hadron collider gets up and running, we can actually prove these things (or created new/change theories).
abiogensis did not have life come from dirt, it comes from abundant chemical comming together to form nucletoids which has been recreated in labs, the nucletoids come together to form polynucletids im a clay called montmorillonite, which can replicate themselves, thes come together to form RNA which combines to become DNA, which also takes place in montmorillonite (an abudant clay on early earth)
@raggedy80 lipids have a natural tendancy to clump together forming sphere, these also form in montmorillonite, these formed around DNA creating the first primitve cell, and they evolved from there.
Yes, there is Scientific evidence for this theroy, it explains it, it can be reproduced, it is possible, if it is proven false then I will wait for a better theroy
Scientist are getting close, and it will either be proven or disproven, if it is disproven it is simply back to the drawing board, but answer me this, does the statement "A talking snake tricked humans into eating magical fruit that made them evil" sound logical to assume?
Yes, the test of the experiment is approching, patience is a virture right? It is predicted to be reproducable, if it's not then it will be changed, but I notice you also failed to answer my question
all the way up to the DNA stage has already be reproduced, RNA was spontantously created under early earth circumtances, so we've reproduced the majority of it
Not yet, but soon we will see and your question will be answered by science, most has been reproduced, one last step to reproduce, but you did not answer my question.
I believe it because the Bible says it. There are a lot of things that are a mystery to those who believe in Yahweh, if there wasn't He wouldn't be a God to serve.
Believing Genesis is more believable to me then thinking unguided acids and proteins in a bed of clay created life, intelligence and everything we see today.
No what you believe is not supported by facts, we have already established that. Here are your words to prove it "Not yet, but soon we will see and your question will be answered by science"
There are many the Bible has proven true in my life, and let's not forget about the overwhelming evidence for Christ.
We have backed most of the theroy by facts, one last part is all that remains, not to mention evidence for other theroies such as evidence, overwhelming evidence for christ, such as?
No, you have nothing to back up from your theories. I'm not going to go in circles with you. Be skeptical of what you are being indoctrinated with.
Such as? Evidence for Jesus Christ are you serious? Do your homework for the historical evidence of a man who claimed to be the Christ and call me in the morning. It is sad how indoctrinated you are.
Check this guys videos out stevebee92653 and watch your evo fantasy crumble...bye.
No historical evidence, if there is some please show me, evolution is a valid theroy, I've seen you creatonist best tried at it, all fail before logic and reason, indocrination is quite the ironic word to use since that's also how I percieve you
There is no overwhelming evidence for christ. All evidence for Chris is as best "speculative." The bible is contradictory, ambiguous, fictional, nonsense. Science is proven and religion is proven wrong time and time again as societies progress. Surprised people still believe in mythology as truth when is has no evidential basis.
There is no overwhelming evidence for Christ?!!! You guys amaze me. I really believe you don't actually accept that. You may not think He was the Son of God but there was clearly a man who claimed He was the Christ , was crucified, had disciples and from that birthed the biggest religion in history. Why would so many people believe in Christ in the first century if He didn't even exist? You argument fails on so many levels.
Why do so many people believe? Ignorance. For one, it helped governments control the masses through religion and when you are brainwashed by birth, that helps. There is NO overwhelming evidence. The scriptures in the bible are not even first person. They are hearsay told decades or longer after the supposed "Jesus" existed. Also the whole story of the birth of Jesus doesn't make sense. You are really stretching for it dude.
So first century believers put there lives on the line because they were "ignorant", not because they actually saw and experience Jesus? Sorry, but your theory sucks. It is hopeless having this discussion with guys like you, you arguments are old and played out and you just want to be heard as if you are the first to spew this garbage. I'll give you the last word, because I won't waste anymore time with you comedians.
brainwashed is kindof a strong word dontcha think. though maybe christ as a person was real but evens were exaggerated ortheygot the idea from horus's life story, though that sounds a tad bit far fetched, depending on how much people of the time knew about egyptian mythology
I know from personal experience, growing up i was a christian, followed and was taught the ways of Christianity. So yes i was brainwashed to believe in the ideology of the church which is not based on any reality or evidence. I think its really sick to influence the naivety of children and teach them a belief system such as Christianity before they can form their own state of mind.
@chrisinsocalif Like a buttload of other people me as well. You know what really started me thinking was actually cloning. That opened up my mind to the falseness of the Jehovah Witness religion. I had a hard time really rejecting religion, but I feel incredibly lucky to have seen through it.
@chrisinsocalif Any fool can understand that all of this that has happen and is continuing to happen as the universe to expand that there is a God. you might not want to except this but it is true anyhow. Oh foolish man the only big band that you cn understand is in your head
@Rudy32185 There is a God? Is that what you are trying to say? I cannot understand your post. DO you have any evidence of GOD or is this based upon a blind assumption to fill the informational gaps in which you do not understand. A fool believes in an assumed conclusion of God with no factual basis in any kind whatsoever.
"Any fool can understand that all of this that has happen" Isn't that what they told us about Lightning? But then one side turned up with some evidence, while the other just stood there muttering about how beautiful and complex it looks.
@raggedy80 Actually the OT and the NT are completely at odds. The OT God (sometimes) admits when he's wrong! He can be argued with (if you are Mose or abraham). His anger doesn't last forever meaning he doesn't burn people forever.
In short the OT God is more likable.
The bible claims they are the same unchanging person. This can't be true and even if it could Jesus still couldn't be God. God doesn't wollow in the past like Jesus.
@raggedy80 We watch it happen in a lab all the time where I work. So I am amused when people like you still believe in silly fairy tales like God, but at the same time, I don't think bad of you either. You have a right to believe anything you want, and despite the evidence you ignore you will believe what you want, what makes you feel better about the life you have, even if you live a complete lie, you live the way that makes you happy.... I'd rather believe the truth.
Lol, keep telling yourself you see "it" happening all the time. You see nothing on the Darwinian level.
Nope, I don't believe in fairy tales or live a lie, I live according to my convictions. I promise you I'm not crazy or delusional. It would be better and for more productive if you would just be honest because we all know you do not believe there is no God. You "atheists"(scoffers) aren't fooling anyone. Bye
@raggedy80 Actually we already observed speciation or macroevolution s you people call it.
Second it depends how you define "God". To me if it can't think or care it isn't a god.
All super-natural beings most transcend time. This makes them immutable, Since nothing can effect them not even their own thoughts they can't think or care.
love the video really good
osclarkos 2 days ago
some great inforamtion here thanks
thegeffc 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@potholer54 About the illustration you used for determining the distance to the Sun: It looked to me like a method of determining the Sun's radius with distances to the Sun and Venus already known factors.
I'm curious because I found an explanation involving Venus' greatest elongation, along with parallax measurements of Venus, satisfactory to determine the distance.
If the illustration related to distance to the Sun, is there an explanation of the method using it available?
SirGoP2 2 weeks ago
Great video! Beautiful!
crazymono5 1 month ago
281 creatards are frightened by this video. :P
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
WHEN PEOPLE ASK YOU QUESTION YOU CANT ANSWER YOU CLAIM THEY ARE UNEDUCATED OR STUPID BECAUSE REALLY YOU YOURSELF ARE TO STUPID TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.
MY QUESTION IS IF THERE WAS A BIG BANG THEN SURELY "SOMETHING" HAD TO EXPLODE TO CREATE IT, IN THAT CASE WHERE DID THE "SOMETHING" COME FROM, IF YOU MANAGE TO ANSWER THAT WHERE DID THE "SOMETHING" BEFORE THAT CAME, WHAT ABOUT THE ONE BEFORE THAT, THEN THE ONE BEFORE THAT. DO YOU SEE WHERE THIS IS GOING?
once2ice 4 months ago
@once2ice The Big Bang wasn't an explosion, it was an expansion.
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
@once2ice This applies to any idea of a god also. Don't criticize others if you have views that can be criticized yourself.
twistedslayer4 3 months ago
@once2ice Avoiding the miss representation you made about the big bang the answer would be ""We dont know"". And honest people accept that until evidence is presented, whereas some people still choose to do what potholer stated in the beginning of the video. We make up magical explanations because we cant seem to handle not knowing something.
gulbirk 3 months ago
@once2ice it was a EXPANTION not a bang. and to ask "what was before big bang?"is like to ask "is there a point north of the north pole?"
fattigbonddrang 2 months ago
great video! although we never did find out what was in the box :/
Layla5915 4 months ago
@Layla5915 well...thats the point we dont know that yet :)
ravananhulk 1 month ago
@ravananhulk haha, that was sort of sarcasm :P
Layla5915 1 month ago
@LaughingAtYou67 venomfangX's foreskin is in the box
MadMAn12gauge 4 months ago
Not to be rude - but if we don't know what's before the big bang - what have we really learned? All we've really done is found a box in a box. Until our next scientific development can open the box of what was before the big bang, what do we really know? Sure we've disproved certain nutty theory's.
But I can see smart religions simply adapting around the newly found facts. Much like my own viewpoints. If we don't know what was before the big bang - what else can we do but guess?
graveeking 5 months ago
@graveeking Um...we can refrain from "guessing" until we know.
fdasherv 4 months ago
this video is the shit so is potholer
pistolpete667 5 months ago
The only thing is that these calculations aren't exact, so when you something is 50 light years away but it's actually 49.5126 is that not a huge difference?
PartyHatsProduction 6 months ago
Yeah universe blah blah...but whats in the box buddy? Is it a cat?
Neutronstar2171 8 months ago 7
Wonderful video! Thanks. Why 279 dislikes?
279 people must have been looking at the box and not watching the video!
agpjh 8 months ago
279 people were wrong about the box ... what was in the box by the way he didn't tell us :-)
poopootm 8 months ago
The thing that I don't get is where this original star that was the source of the big bang came from and the retard in the chair says gravity in gas clouds created this star, where the hell did these gas clouds come from. im beggining to not give a shit how the universe was created because how the universe was created does not effect the future of anybody here.
26adrian26 9 months ago
@26adrian26 You're confusing the birth of our solar system, which was the death of a first generation star, with the origin of the universe, which was all dimensions, matter and energy expanding, cooling and condensing locally into the structures we see around us. If you don't experience the satisfaction intrinsic to learning about the unknown, then that's a shame, but it's through scientific endeavour that we advance our understanding and derive technological benefits, such as the internet.
Misterb0z 8 months ago
@Misterb0z but where did the first generation star come from, the big bang aparently. so technically our solar system came from the big bang, did it not?
26adrian26 8 months ago
@26adrian26 Well yes, technically it did. Technically everything we know of did. The only difference is that second generation solar systems contain heavier elements, those above iron or so. This is because of the fusion of lighter elements in the massively energetic death of large stars.
Misterb0z 8 months ago
Hubble didn't believe that his observations were proof of an expanding universe. He believed in the "tired light" theory.
The big bang never happened.
shanehoustein 9 months ago
@shanehoustein The tired light theory doesn't explain how energy is conserved. It therefore fails where the standard cosmological model doesn't.
Misterb0z 8 months ago
Enoch explains the evolution, big bang, the 4th demension, Demons, UFOS, Ancient tech, Dinosaurs, and THOMAS tells us the TRUE words of Jesus, crazy stuff like "the kingdom of heaven is in you, and all around you, and you can't see it" and "how much will you have to bear when you meet your image that does not die" Jesus and 110 more! some on physics, some on science, Yale teaches about Jesus from the Nag Hammadi discovery of 1945, on youtube, if you search for God like you do science...
ineedaname7777777 11 months ago
46 7.8 volcanic eruptions this year, NOT one 5.0 or more from 1974-1993...26 years...All the animals are dying, the food is poison, the money is the goal, the air is crap, Flouride in your toothpaste?Cannabis is illegeal? MSG in your food, , The Time is drawing closer to the time of Peace, Why do christians call it "the end" if it's "The Beginning of Peace" and 1000 years of it too? or why is PAUL even in the BIble? Why leave out the best two books? ENOCH and THOMAS!?
ineedaname7777777 11 months ago
Comment removed
ineedaname7777777 11 months ago
the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters...we evolve from water. The old testament is history, read it
ineedaname7777777 11 months ago
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 (((Now the earth was formless and empty))) THE BIG BANG))), darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, (((“Let there be light,” and there was light.)))The sun) 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
ineedaname7777777 11 months ago
@ineedaname7777777 wow this ancient book of yours is awesome...who wrote it?
petrino 8 months ago
Anyone know the music on this vid?
adey5 1 year ago
@adey5 - You'll find it in the vid description of The history of Our Universe Made easy part 1.
potholer54 1 year ago 3
@potholer54 Thanks Potholer. Your vids are ace! Informative and funny. :-))
adey5 1 year ago
I love this vid, very well narrated too :-)
adey5 1 year ago
Why do 279 people not what to know the TRUTH?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@sabertooth1980 Part 2 :)
God isn't in the realm of science, neither physical nor psychological. It takes a specific instrument to measure the wide spectrum of light invisible to the eye. For the fact that they are unseen doesn't mean that they do not exist. The mind cannot substantiate God, and neither can the eye - a physical organ. There are substantial empirical evidence to prove that God exists, but you will need to use the right organ. God is spirit, you need to use your human spirit.
exc390 1 year ago
@exc390 hahaha! thats sooo funny! human spirit... do dogs have doggy spirrit? bugs? buggy spirit? haha. good one.
petrino 8 months ago
@petrino lol, you've missed the point dude. Read again!
exc390 6 months ago
@sabertooth1980 A worthy reply, unlike some vulgarities commonly associated with responses to posts like mine. When I mentioned 'scientific' I wasn't referring to the role of science (disproving nor confirming), I was referring to the method. At present, if you have scoured through the many academic publications, there isn't sufficient evidence to prove that there is no need for a God, and I don't believe that in time this will ever be proven for the fact that we will not be here in the future.
exc390 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@exc390 So what do you need God for? Why don't you think the universe is old?
gregrutz 1 year ago
No one can prove that there is no God, it's not scientific to say that there is no God. We are limited by space and time, a 100 years ago you're not there, and you won't be there a 100 years later. Maybe God is not in your city right now, but in another city, you are not in every place and every age at the same time. Maybe God isn't here in time now but came 2000 years ago, maybe when you have become dust that He will come again. Since you are limited, you cannot say that there is not God.
exc390 1 year ago
@exc390 It isn't sciences' job to prove the lack of something, let alone a god. See, it isn't science saying that "there is no god", it is saying that god is unnecessary. However that isn't the point.
The point is that You are the one claiming that there Is a god.
Alright. Give your evidence for the existence of a god.
Testable, Empirical, and independently verifiable evidence.
sabertooth1980 1 year ago
I can’t believe that there’s 279 people dislikes this clip. Why? I know it’s basic but it is called “History of Our Universe Part 1 (for schools)” or is there 279 out there who seen this clip and spent 10 mins thinking of what is in the box instead of being educated to a 14 year old’s understanding of the cosmos..... scary....
ParkSouthSW11 1 year ago
By the way, thank you potholer54 for your excellent material.
gegland 1 year ago
It's stated (1:24) that Eratosthenes' deduced the diameter of the Earth "while the dogma of the fixed earth still held sway, backed by a powerful church." However, Eratosthenes lived at the end of the 3rd century B.C.E. The church didn't come into existence until sometime after 30 C.E. In his attempt to belittle people's belief in God, the author of the script seems to have "bent" the facts. The dogma of an Earth-centered universe was adopted by the Christian church from Aristotle.
gegland 1 year ago
@gegland: No. After he speaks of Eratosthenes, he starts a new paragraph. "But while the Earth might be spherical, the dogma of a fixed Earth still held sway, backed by a powerful church." And so it was, from 300 to 1300 CE, more or less. "The dogma of an Earth-centered universe was adopted by the Christian church from Aristotle." He may have had an influence, but the main reason is and was the Bible.
puncheex 1 year ago
i dont get it. whats in the box?
ScrewAttackChina 1 year ago
I do not mean to provoke or offend, but to be entirely honest, there isn't alot of evidence for quite a few historical figures that historians hold existed. Several philosophers come to mind.
From a mainstream secualr standpoint Yeshua of Nazaret existed as a man, a rabbi who went around preaching in Judaea some thousand to two thousand years past. There is a great difference between that which is fictional and that which is fictionalised.
Please don't flame, I'm just commenting.
JustOneMoreChild 1 year ago
That was a great end quote.
ericleb01 1 year ago
SHORT AND COMPREHENSIVE DOCUMENTRY. ARISTACUS WAS GREAT AND HYPATIA WAS TOO, IN ALEXANDRIA. LIBRARY SHE (HYPATIA) WAS A GREAT SCHOLAR AND GREAT TEACHER. I WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT HER. THIS DOCU IS VERY BENIFICIAL FOR KNOWLDGE. ITS REMIND ME 'GREAT LEGEND OF OUR CENTURY 'CARL SAGAN' . THANKS
armazromin 1 year ago
Many scientific laws are based on empty models- Richard Feynman. Science is bankrupt
HigherPlanes 1 year ago
@HigherPlanes "Science is bankrupt" What a nonsensical conclusion to draw! Scientists don't claim to have the ultimate answers to our questions. The models that we devise are designed to give us insight into nature, and where they provide useful and accurate predictions then we adopt them and use them.
Science has borne many fruits. To call it bankrupt is to declare your profound ignorance. To claim Feynman as your ally is a travesty.
Misterb0z 1 year ago
@Misterb0z it's not accomplishing anything. It's creating a huge liability and fat big numbers of suffering for silly, superficial and trivial gains.
HigherPlanes 1 year ago
@HigherPlanes If by "not accomplishing anything" you mean "feeding billions, providing clean water, medicine, electrical power, information exchange and storage, insights into our environment both locally and macroscopically, eradicating disease, increasing lifespans, treating infertility, helping the crippled, allowing international travel in the space of hours" then I agree. But you don't.
I suggest you refrain from posting any more such nonsense to avoid sounding like an idiot.
Misterb0z 1 year ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
@Misterb0z Perhaps what I'm speaking about is beyond your level of awareness. Feeding billions, providing clean water, medicine, electrical power, information exchange and storage, insights into our environment both locally and macroscopically, eradicating disease, increasing lifespans, treating infertility, helping the crippled, allowing international travel in the space of hours at what cost? Open your eyes and tiny mind, my friend.
HigherPlanes 1 year ago
Comment removed
puncheex 1 year ago
@Misterb0z The author claims that, "This video doesn't represent what scientists guess about the universe, but what we know." The history of science itself tells us by example that what is held as "truth" by one generation of scientists is often overturned by the next. In my life I have seen known "truths" about plate tectonics, subatomic particles, and the predicted fate of the universe all changed in substantive ways. The philosophy of science is not well understood by many scientists.
gegland 1 year ago
@gegland "In my life I have seen known "truths" about plate tectonics (etc) changed in substantive ways." That's very nice for you. But our understanding is built upon what we do know. True, from time to time fundamental assumptions that we hold to be reasonable turn out to be less so, but the knowledge we gain tends to supplement our understanding rather than 'overturn' it as you assert.
It certainly doesn't give anyone the grounds to put fantasy on the same footing as scientific understanding.
Misterb0z 1 year ago
Comment removed
gegland 1 year ago
@Misterb0z Answering with an acerbic comment like, "That's very nice for you", doesn't add to the discussion. Additionally, referring to a belief in God as a fantasy doesn't further your argument. Please make your argument from science, logic, philosophy or the specific philosophy of science. Then I can have a discussion with you.
gegland 1 year ago
@gegland Right, okay. Let's start with a scientific discussion of gods and wizards, shall we?
There, that's the science out of the way. Because science says sod-all about any hocus-pocus magic stuff. There is no evidence of any such being, only your inference based on ignorance.
As far as that ignorance is concerned we are in the same boat, but that doesn't give either of us the right to assert any fantastical conjectures as having any basis in reality.
Misterb0z 1 year ago
@gegland: You have to make a distinction between facts (observations, experimental outcomes, data) and theories. The data, which is mainly what is being discussed here, is not going to change. It may get augmented; it's specifications and limitations may be more distinctly drawn over time, but data is data. Theories concerning how the data can be connected into a coherent body of knowledge will more likely change over time. What the author is saying is that it isn't a guess....
puncheex 1 year ago
... I'd say that that is fairly well understood by almost all scientists; where it is not understood is within the general public, and most particularly among religionists who are uncomfortable without unchanging rules to guide them. It would help if such people didn't try to obfuscate that for those who don't understand it. Such as you.
puncheex 1 year ago
@HigherPlanes Is that so? Then what the hell do you call the Bible? Science is not an organization that collects money from people like your church. So it can never be bankrupt. Unlike your church which cons people into giving money so the Pope or some other religious leader can have a nice lavish meal. Next they will keep having their donaters by scary the foolish that they suffer eternal damnation if they do not believe in their goat herder stories.
1234yersiman 1 year ago
@1234yersiman Sorry, but I'm not a religious person. As cliche as it sounds, I like to consider myself spiritual. And I still hold firm that science is bankrupt. Yes I use a computer, I own a vehicle, call me a hypocrite if you must, but if it were all gone tomorrow, I would not shed a tear. I think I'm entitled to an opinion, you don't have to agree with it, but all the technology that science has brought us has not made us a better people, we're pretty much raping the Earth and it's futile.
HigherPlanes 1 year ago
@HigherPlanes While what you say may be true that we are harming the earth with science, would you rather live as a hunter and gatherer, worrying day to day if you are going to die prematurely? Furthermore science is coming up with the answer to stop harming the earth. It is just idiots who do not want to follow this (such as christians bent on destroying the earth for a second Jesus).
1234yersiman 1 year ago
@1234yersiman We don't have to be hunter gatherers to live in balance with the planet, and that's what it should be all about, living in balance with nature. But as it is right now, we take more than we give back. The problem is the city. The definition of city is, a human eco-system that grossly exceeds the carrying capacity of its local environment and requires importation of resources to survive. Local sustainable communities don't have to be hunter gatherer.
HigherPlanes 1 year ago
@HigherPlanes That is what science is trying to achieve. It is just that huge companies, like the oil companies, prevent such measures from happening since they want to make more profits. For example, electric cars were put out of business by the oil companies. Blame them, not science.
1234yersiman 1 year ago
@HigherPlanes And furthermore I am shocked to see someone has no respect for science, for someone who knows how to use a computer, has an education, is well fed and watches youtube! Will the church ever give you that unless you were the leader? You selfish twat!!!
1234yersiman 1 year ago
So what was in the box???
4everCrimsonKing 1 year ago
@4everCrimsonKing your mom
jaroncreed 1 year ago
@jaroncreed lol
OyonTheAdept 1 year ago
Fantastic! Thank YOU!
racingracing 1 year ago
This was "made easy". This is education.
Question, how do atoms emit light? 5:07 and how do they absorb the different wavelengths?
wotdoesitmatter 1 year ago
@wotdoesitmatter Electrons are sensitive to electromagnetic radiation, of which light is one form. When an electron is exposed to electromagnetic radiation, it jumps in quantum level to a higher energy orbital state than before, called an excited state. This state, however, is unstable, so the electron releases that energy in the form of a photon, which our eyes and brain register as light. The wavelength absorbed depends upon the location of the electron when it is exposed to the radiation.
lhvinny 1 year ago 5
@lhvinny Thanks and damn you. :-) Now you got me thinking about photons!
wotdoesitmatter 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lhvinny: All good except for "The wavelength absorbed depends upon the location of the electron when it is exposed to the radiation." The wavelength is dependent only on the kind of atom or molecule, which electron shell is absorbing the photon and it's current orbital. The electron's position is only known by a probability function anyway.
puncheex 1 year ago
The narration's attitude towards the ancient societies guessing is degrading towards humankind and ignorant. Religion was the pop culture just like todays societies and the historians were influenced just like they are today just like the narrator. fuck up the kids more in school
rsouthern 1 year ago
@rsouthern: What attitude? He made one glancing remark about religions requiring a non-moving Earth (don't look now, but they're still with us); the entire rest of the video was straightforward history and elementary astronomy. I think you are being just a might sensitive.
puncheex 1 year ago
absolutely brilliant explaination
FearlessSeeker 1 year ago
You should put the "theory of the history of our universe"
JacobTheIndoAmerican 1 year ago
@JacobTheIndoAmerican: But this is not theory; this is straighforward history and some elementary astronomy.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex I believe it, but who knows in a 100-200 years, another theory can complete shatter this one.
JacobTheIndoAmerican 1 year ago
@JacobTheIndoAmerican: Another theory of what? I am not a historian; I don't know what the intellectual structure of history is all about, but I do know that it is dependent upon viewpoints. If you think the basic astronomy is going to be overthrown by some other theory of the universe, then I'll have to differ, but I have to maintain pedagogically that the possibility is always there.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex Why not, maybe in the next 100-200 something new can come up..
JacobTheIndoAmerican 1 year ago
@JacobTheIndoAmerican: All I can say is, "Well, perhaps."
puncheex 1 year ago
its a little disappointing that the universe is 14 billion years old. i mean looking at it that way it didnt take long for dinosaurs to pop up. the universe is probably richer in life then people realize. im not sure how much i trust the estimation of distances by the angle which we see light. but its probably pretty close. any light that far away and filtered through at least our atmosphere is bound to be a little off.
xerophiLIEs 1 year ago
@xerophiLIEs: Using angles was only the first approach. Since then solar system distances were set through study of planetary occultations of the sun, and stellar distances by study of variable stars. Galactic distances are inferred from use of the class 1a supernova standard candle.
puncheex 1 year ago
Why is there 272 dislikes? Peoples ignorance amazes me. I am a 16 year old in the U.K. about to be tested on triple science Physics which is frequently mirrored in this video. This has been a great help and sum of knowledge, in future you may want to mention the Shapley-Curis 1920 debate which is taught to us. Thanks for the revision session.
GameByNumbers 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
0:35 is from the D'Aulaires book of Greek Myths. One of the most beautifully illustrated books ever and I got a real kick out of seeing it here.
CristinaFernandez 1 year ago
0:38 is from the D'Aulaires book of Greek Myths. One of the most beautifully illustrated books ever and I got a real kick out of seeing it here.
CristinaFernandez 1 year ago 2
Two-hundred seventy-one people didn't like this video. i wonder if they suffer from brain damage associated with religiosity?
heathdwatts 1 year ago 11
@heathdwatts
Or maybe just an common opportunity for the all too common occasions of too serious ignorance.
kongenjens 1 year ago
joking ):
In the box is a Cat, but I cannot the if it is alive or dead, therefore it is in two states at the same time :)
That is 'Schrodinger's cat' joking ):
Films4You 1 year ago
Great video, while containing a lot of information it's still "easy to digest" and contains a good history lesson.
I really liked how you did the "our KNOWLEDGE of the universe is growing" part with each discovery.
DanielKay06 1 year ago
Hey please come check out our videos! comment and subscribe =)
-Dustin Titus
KoalaBearStudios 1 year ago
How about you get off your behind and start looking for the truth in the scriptures instead of looking at bronze-age darwinistical-style "science" text books?
TruthfulChristian 1 year ago
@TruthfulChristian We look back in time everyday with thousands of ever more powerful eyes to answer questions about the past. Maybe if your lucky your scriptures will be confirmed with those eyes! I doubt it but maybe! :-)
KnighttVision 1 year ago
@TruthfulChristian Poe poe poe poe pooooeeeeeeee
XXIstCenturyBoy 1 year ago
@TruthfulChristian I'd recommend you took some time from your current circle of friends and family. Come on, try it, see the world, travel, meet new people. Heck, you can come for dinner. As I said in a previous comment. I was very lucky, I managed to get out aged 12. The feeling of finally thinking for yourself is, so, so fucking amazing.
durnessanomaly 1 year ago
@TruthfulChristian
"the truth in the scriptures"
That's an oxymoron.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@TruthfulChristian
New testament God's anger last forever. Old testament exact opposite.
SuperMerlin100 1 year ago
I wish I could go to middle america travelling from school to school showing your videos.
Most people ignore the stupid questions Creationists ask yet you address them, shutting them up for good.
rgj798 1 year ago
Can someone reply on how to save this video to my local computer or link me to somewhere I can obtain it and the other excellent "made easy" videos?
kramnosdivad 1 year ago
@kramnosdivad
You can download youtube videos through a number of websites, like Zamzar (which allows you to plug in a URL, and then emails you a link for the finished video to download; they even given you a choice of format)
Catamount1412 1 year ago
@Catamount1412 Thankyou; apreciate that. :)
kramnosdivad 1 year ago
What's in the box? I wanna know what's in the box!
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
I think it was rum. =)
temporaldisplacement 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In just FIVE YEARS between 2004-2009 thick perennial arctic sea ice DROPPED 42%. This was discovered by NASA satellite measurements. Reported 7/7/09
Search:
New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning
Global Warming is changing our world NOW. CO2 is 35% above levels for 650,000 years. In just 30 years CO2 will be over 450ppm, enough to acidify oceans to the point of stopping the growth of many planktons and corals. They are at the base of the oceans' food chain.
goog2k 1 year ago
That's all well and good. But can science answer whats in that box? My guess is it can't be no bigger then a goose.
TrebenWhahaha 1 year ago
it can. either nothing is in the box, everything is in the box or 1 or more things exist with the box. Since we can't directly observe the contents, one must accept all three possibilities equal and valid all at the same time. Because one can't know what's in the box until they observe it, there is no proof for or against any number of possibilities until that time.
Quantum Mechanics FTW!
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
Im so sorry for you americans, still struggeling with a power christian faith. We got the same from some muslim groups.
Anyways. These videos are awesome, they show how we can deduct and learn by using hindsight. When the hadron collider gets up and running, we can actually prove these things (or created new/change theories).
Im really excited :D
efreet88 1 year ago
You don't even need to have commonsense to understand rocks and energy can not create intellect.
Atheism is a religion for the those in denial.
raggedy80 1 year ago
@raggedy80
It's called evolution
Takua38000 1 year ago
@Takua38000
You're right!!! Pretty funny isn't it?
raggedy80 1 year ago
@raggedy80
That's not at all how it happened, Humans didn't evolve from rocks, (amuzing what the chrisitan bible claims we're made of clay)
Takua38000 1 year ago
@Takua38000
Clay? Or Dust of the ground?
You're probably right, God the creator of the universe, certainly couldn't make man from the dust of the ground.
raggedy80 1 year ago
@raggedy80
abiogensis did not have life come from dirt, it comes from abundant chemical comming together to form nucletoids which has been recreated in labs, the nucletoids come together to form polynucletids im a clay called montmorillonite, which can replicate themselves, thes come together to form RNA which combines to become DNA, which also takes place in montmorillonite (an abudant clay on early earth)
Takua38000 1 year ago
@raggedy80 lipids have a natural tendancy to clump together forming sphere, these also form in montmorillonite, these formed around DNA creating the first primitve cell, and they evolved from there.
Takua38000 1 year ago
@Takua38000
Interesting. You believe all that?
raggedy80 1 year ago
@raggedy80
Yes, there is Scientific evidence for this theroy, it explains it, it can be reproduced, it is possible, if it is proven false then I will wait for a better theroy
Takua38000 1 year ago
@Takua38000
Really? It can be reproduced?!!! Show me.
raggedy80 1 year ago
@raggedy80
Scientist are getting close, and it will either be proven or disproven, if it is disproven it is simply back to the drawing board, but answer me this, does the statement "A talking snake tricked humans into eating magical fruit that made them evil" sound logical to assume?
Takua38000 1 year ago
@Takua38000
Wait, so it can't be reproduced? You just said it could, now you are saying they are getting close. Which is it?
raggedy80 1 year ago
@raggedy80
Yes, the test of the experiment is approching, patience is a virture right? It is predicted to be reproducable, if it's not then it will be changed, but I notice you also failed to answer my question
Takua38000 1 year ago
@Takua38000
I'll answer your question. But you said it could be reproduced. Can it be or not?
raggedy80 1 year ago
@raggedy80
all the way up to the DNA stage has already be reproduced, RNA was spontantously created under early earth circumtances, so we've reproduced the majority of it
Takua38000 1 year ago
@Takua38000
So what exactly has been reproduced?
raggedy80 1 year ago
@raggedy80
From the chemicals up to RNA, also the lipids is an already known fact all that is left is to test weither the RNA can make DNA
Takua38000 1 year ago
@Takua38000
You haven't and you won't be able to answer my question, we both know this. Sorry to burst your evo bubble, but nothing has been reproduced.
raggedy80 1 year ago
@raggedy80
Not yet, but soon we will see and your question will be answered by science, most has been reproduced, one last step to reproduce, but you did not answer my question.
Takua38000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Takua38000
Not yet is the right answer. I believe that will be the same answer for many many many years but anyway I'll answer your question.
does the statement "A talking snake tricked humans into eating magical fruit that made them evil" sound logical to assume? .
I can see how it may not sound logical to a "non-believer", it is hard to accept, but because there is a God, I don't find it hard to believe.
raggedy80 1 year ago
@raggedy80
So even though it absurd and there is no evidence, I beleive it for no reason is your reason?
Takua38000 1 year ago
@Takua38000
I believe it because the Bible says it. There are a lot of things that are a mystery to those who believe in Yahweh, if there wasn't He wouldn't be a God to serve.
Believing Genesis is more believable to me then thinking unguided acids and proteins in a bed of clay created life, intelligence and everything we see today.
raggedy80 1 year ago
@raggedy80
So you preffer willingful ignorance rather than science, wanting to believe something does not make it so
Takua38000 1 year ago
@Takua38000
Willing ignorance? How exactly am I anymore ignorant in what I believe than you are?
raggedy80 1 year ago
@raggedy80
because what I believe is supported by facts, what you believe is oppsed to it and to believe it you must reject fact
Takua38000 1 year ago
@Takua38000
No what you believe is not supported by facts, we have already established that. Here are your words to prove it "Not yet, but soon we will see and your question will be answered by science"
There are many the Bible has proven true in my life, and let's not forget about the overwhelming evidence for Christ.
raggedy80 1 year ago
@raggedy80
We have backed most of the theroy by facts, one last part is all that remains, not to mention evidence for other theroies such as evidence, overwhelming evidence for christ, such as?
Takua38000 1 year ago
No, you have nothing to back up from your theories. I'm not going to go in circles with you. Be skeptical of what you are being indoctrinated with.
Such as? Evidence for Jesus Christ are you serious? Do your homework for the historical evidence of a man who claimed to be the Christ and call me in the morning. It is sad how indoctrinated you are.
Check this guys videos out stevebee92653 and watch your evo fantasy crumble...bye.
raggedy80 1 year ago
@raggedy80
No historical evidence, if there is some please show me, evolution is a valid theroy, I've seen you creatonist best tried at it, all fail before logic and reason, indocrination is quite the ironic word to use since that's also how I percieve you
Takua38000 1 year ago
There is no overwhelming evidence for christ. All evidence for Chris is as best "speculative." The bible is contradictory, ambiguous, fictional, nonsense. Science is proven and religion is proven wrong time and time again as societies progress. Surprised people still believe in mythology as truth when is has no evidential basis.
chrisinsocalif 1 year ago 44
There is no overwhelming evidence for Christ?!!! You guys amaze me. I really believe you don't actually accept that. You may not think He was the Son of God but there was clearly a man who claimed He was the Christ , was crucified, had disciples and from that birthed the biggest religion in history. Why would so many people believe in Christ in the first century if He didn't even exist? You argument fails on so many levels.
raggedy80 1 year ago
Why do so many people believe? Ignorance. For one, it helped governments control the masses through religion and when you are brainwashed by birth, that helps. There is NO overwhelming evidence. The scriptures in the bible are not even first person. They are hearsay told decades or longer after the supposed "Jesus" existed. Also the whole story of the birth of Jesus doesn't make sense. You are really stretching for it dude.
chrisinsocalif 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif
So first century believers put there lives on the line because they were "ignorant", not because they actually saw and experience Jesus? Sorry, but your theory sucks. It is hopeless having this discussion with guys like you, you arguments are old and played out and you just want to be heard as if you are the first to spew this garbage. I'll give you the last word, because I won't waste anymore time with you comedians.
raggedy80 1 year ago
As i thought, can't handle the truth. Belief your nonsense if you wish, its based on nothing.
chrisinsocalif 1 year ago
Oh yeah I forgot to ask, where is your "overwhelming evidence?" Don't say the "bible" cause that is not a viable resource for truth.
chrisinsocalif 1 year ago
brainwashed is kindof a strong word dontcha think. though maybe christ as a person was real but evens were exaggerated ortheygot the idea from horus's life story, though that sounds a tad bit far fetched, depending on how much people of the time knew about egyptian mythology
elgostine 1 year ago
I know from personal experience, growing up i was a christian, followed and was taught the ways of Christianity. So yes i was brainwashed to believe in the ideology of the church which is not based on any reality or evidence. I think its really sick to influence the naivety of children and teach them a belief system such as Christianity before they can form their own state of mind.
chrisinsocalif 1 year ago 35
@chrisinsocalif It happened to me. I was lucky, in that I was able to get out at age 12.
durnessanomaly 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif Like a buttload of other people me as well. You know what really started me thinking was actually cloning. That opened up my mind to the falseness of the Jehovah Witness religion. I had a hard time really rejecting religion, but I feel incredibly lucky to have seen through it.
crispycrab 1 year ago
@raggedy80 The same reason so many people belief in a lot of things that never existed.
SuperMerlin100 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif dude wake up! they are both man made and both bullshit when it comes to your jog they fudge the records
rsouthern 1 year ago
@rsouthern Did you not read what i posted?
chrisinsocalif 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif I mismanaged that comment.
rsouthern 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif But there is sunsets! God is in a baby's laughter!
Whne a puppy chases it's tail that is proof of God!
P.S. I am totally kidding.
crispycrab 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif But there is sunsets! God is in a baby's laughter!
When a puppy chases it's tail that is proof of God!
P.S. I am totally kidding.
crispycrab 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif Any fool can understand that all of this that has happen and is continuing to happen as the universe to expand that there is a God. you might not want to except this but it is true anyhow. Oh foolish man the only big band that you cn understand is in your head
Rudy32185 1 year ago
@Rudy32185 There is a God? Is that what you are trying to say? I cannot understand your post. DO you have any evidence of GOD or is this based upon a blind assumption to fill the informational gaps in which you do not understand. A fool believes in an assumed conclusion of God with no factual basis in any kind whatsoever.
chrisinsocalif 1 year ago
@Rudy32185
"Any fool can understand that all of this that has happen" Isn't that what they told us about Lightning? But then one side turned up with some evidence, while the other just stood there muttering about how beautiful and complex it looks.
wimscheers 1 year ago
@Rudy32185
What the hell did your post mean?
Are you mentally ill?
TVOham 1 year ago
@TVOham He is apparently mentally religious:)
phillozoph50 1 year ago
@raggedy80 Actually the OT and the NT are completely at odds. The OT God (sometimes) admits when he's wrong! He can be argued with (if you are Mose or abraham). His anger doesn't last forever meaning he doesn't burn people forever.
In short the OT God is more likable.
The bible claims they are the same unchanging person. This can't be true and even if it could Jesus still couldn't be God. God doesn't wollow in the past like Jesus.
SuperMerlin100 1 year ago
@raggedy80
Also using the bible to justify itself is rediculous, thatt'd be as if i stated zues was god because greek text stated so
Takua38000 1 year ago
@raggedy80 We watch it happen in a lab all the time where I work. So I am amused when people like you still believe in silly fairy tales like God, but at the same time, I don't think bad of you either. You have a right to believe anything you want, and despite the evidence you ignore you will believe what you want, what makes you feel better about the life you have, even if you live a complete lie, you live the way that makes you happy.... I'd rather believe the truth.
artblack01 1 year ago
@artblack01
Lol, keep telling yourself you see "it" happening all the time. You see nothing on the Darwinian level.
Nope, I don't believe in fairy tales or live a lie, I live according to my convictions. I promise you I'm not crazy or delusional. It would be better and for more productive if you would just be honest because we all know you do not believe there is no God. You "atheists"(scoffers) aren't fooling anyone. Bye
raggedy80 1 year ago
@raggedy80 Actually we already observed speciation or macroevolution s you people call it.
Second it depends how you define "God". To me if it can't think or care it isn't a god.
All super-natural beings most transcend time. This makes them immutable, Since nothing can effect them not even their own thoughts they can't think or care.
And natural gods have not been observed.
SuperMerlin100 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Takua38000
I find it interesting you earlier mocked that Christians believe God mad us from clay but you seem to believe the same thing.
"which also takes place in montmorillonite (an abudant clay on early earth)"
raggedy80 1 year ago
made
raggedy80 1 year ago