Really? Gravity huh? Well how does gravity explain a singularity - at what point does the gravity become so great that all the atoms decide to smash together to form a singularity? If there's a singularity at the centre of each galaxy, then why do all the stars tend towards a single plain rather than rotate orbitally in a 360 degree sphere with an ever reducing radius? Why do some planets rotate backwards? Why do some moons spin and yet ours doesnt? Gravity is a force not a process.
@delawarecop I will answer each question in a different post.
" .. at what point does the gravity become so great that all the atoms decide to smash together to form a singularity?"
When the mass of a collapsing star exceeds the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit. I.e. It is too massive to form a neutron star. See the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff equation.
@IAmARationalApe Yes - thats just one of many evolving theories - but none of it could be regarded as evidential as proof in a Court of Law, could it?. It could just as likely be the way that they were created also, couldnt they? Its a matter of opinion and belief.
@delawarecop - "thats just one of many evolving theories"
No it's a calculation and also an observation.
"It could just as likely be the way that they were created also, couldnt they?"
That is not something that can be observed or calculated so I would say no, not "just as easily" unless you want to also allow for other possibilities that cannot been observed and cannot be circulated.
@delawarecop I would say that the court would hardly be qualified to judge the evidence. Courts deal with law not physics. But if you are asking whether the theories stand up to our observations, the answer is yes.
The theories have made predictions, and those predictions are being shown to be correct. But a theory is not "unchangeable", they change all the time - that is how science works. As more information becomes available, the theory is refined.
"If there's a singularity at the centre of each galaxy, then why do all the stars tend towards a single plain rather than rotate orbitally in a 360 degree sphere with an ever reducing radius?"
The rotation about an axis means that material does not collapse towards the centre but gravitational attraction towards the pane of rotation is not affected by rotation and so galaxies generally flattens into a discs.
@IAmARationalApe I love this part - 'so galxies generally flattens into a discs'. Sounds like a sound theory to me - Im sold! So are you suggesting that this is strictly a product of gravity, or that galaxies somehow have some kind of mysterious force which counteracts the pure gravitational and rotational effect? Its this mysterious force which tends to generally flatten billions of exploding stars, which are expanding away from the 'BIG-BANG', into discs?
"Sounds like a sound theory to me - Im sold!" Look up "scientific theory" - it doesn't' just mean a guess.
"So are you suggesting that this is strictly a product of gravity" -Yes. Gravitational attraction causes objects to rotate about each other. Perpendicular to the axis of rotation objects are not rotating and gravitational attraction draws them into a plane. This is all calculable and there are models you can play with on the web that demonstrate it.
@IAmARationalApe Yes, but gravity alone will not explain why Galaxies become disc shaped after an explosion of nothingness expands outwards (following the Law of thermodynamics and Entropy), into the known boundaries of the universe.
So how exactly does this mysterious force called gravity actually work? What is the mechanism which causes the effect on bodies? And how exactly does this force maintain its effect for eternity? Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, right?
@delawarecop The fact that you even ask that question shows that you lack understanding on the theory of gravity. No, energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Gravity does not require that it be created or destroyed. Gravity does not "supply" free energy.
And seeing that you seem to believe that you understand "the Law of thermodynamics and Entropy" why don't you explain to us what you think the laws say. And there are no "known boundaries" to the universe as it is expanding.
@delawarecop Gravity exists due to the fact that mass causes curvature in space and larger mass curves space more than lower mass. A smaller mass approaching a larger mass will "fall" into it because space becomes curved towards the larger mass.
@SeanACampbell Why exactly does Mass curve space? Im aware of the gravity well theory, but can you explain for example how the moon orbiting the earth because of gravity, can continue to apply work to the oceans of the world for 1000's of years by way of tidal flows, (inducing massive amounts of kinetic energy through tidal flows gloablly), without any input of energy? Where does the energy come from exactly to perform this miraculous feat? Try to think about it before you answer.
It also pulls on the atmosphere and influences wind and weather patterns globally. all this energy is being created somehow! If it is just gravity, (exchange of sub-atomic particles), how can it produce all that energy without input? 1st law of Thermodynamics becomes a problem here, doesn't it?
How can a Mass continue to exert an inversely proportional force on other masses, perpetually, without input or loss of energy?
It also pulls on the atmosphere and influences wind and weather patterns globally. all this energy is being created somehow! If it is just gravity, (exchange of sub-atomic particles), how can it produce all that energy without input? 1st law of Thermodynamics becomes a problem here, doesn't it?
How can a Mass continue to exert an inversely proportional force on other masses, perpetually, without input or loss of energy?
@delawarecop a mass moving thru' the space/time fabric of the universe distorts that fabric, causing the " gravity wells ", coupled together with quantum field theory and general particle theory. gravity exists but the full reason of it's existence is not known for certain. hence the search for the higgs bosun and gravity waves. no one is going to be able to explain gravity to you on YT. i would suggest you read some books on physics. if you disgree, publish a paper.
@raverdeath100 I dont need to publish a paper on it because nobody has any proof of those particles or space/time fabric actually exists. Nor can they explain why gravity can produce so much perpetual energy without any loss of mass/matter. I can see why all Evolutionists are pinning their hopes on the discovery of some myserious particle to finally explain away God. No matter what they find, they will invent another theory to eliminate a Creator & who sustains.
@delawarecop you know that the " mysterious particle " may be found this year? also don't confuse gravity as an energy source. it isn't. the energy derives from the mass' movement thru gravity.
@raverdeath100 Yes, when gravity causes two masses to be attracted to each other and move any distance towards each other or in an orbit, then those bodies cannot move without work being done! w = Fs & of course F=ma
So what exactly is the energy and where does it come from?
We have a smiliar problem with magnets and electromagnets dont we?
The work done by gravity & magnetism must have a source of energy!
@delawarecop The theory of evolution does not deal with the physics involved in the formation of galaxies or planetary systems. The theory of evolution does not even deal with the origin of life. The theory of evolution deals only with the diversity of life.
Evolutionists are not pinning their hopes on a mysterious particle. Evolutionists don't care one way or the other about "god" in general. The god proposed by religion is not testable and therefore judgement is suspended.
@delawarecop Gravity does not produce energy, you fundamentally misunderstand what gravity is.
Theories are based on evidence and observation, and something only becomes a theory when it can make useful predictions, is not contradicted by evidence and observation, and is generally accepted by the qualified persons in a particular field. In other words a theory is the best current explanation.
@SeanACampbell When gravity is the cause of a mass to move a distance, then work is done! w=Fs Work can be expressed in joues. joules are a source of energy, right?
So whatever the play on words, Gravity causes work to be done so where does the energy come from to do the work?
Gravity causes the moon to orbit the earth, and the interaction causes tides and atmospheric changes (winds) which is also work. Those tidal flows and air movements can also be tapped to produce energy.
@delawarecop oh, by the way, the energy for " tidal flows " is coming from the kinetic energy from the earth's spin and the moon's orbital velocity. hence as time progresses, both are slowing down. again, a little too complicated to be able to express in YT comments sections.
@raverdeath100 So there is proof that the Earth and moon are slowing down because their interaction causes tidal flows, Weather systems, and techtonic plate movements? There is nothing else in the entire universe which might be causing it? Like for example the fact that the Sun is losing its mass as it burns its fuel, so therefore the other planets offer a greater perturbance?
I love the way Evolutionists exclude data to support their own theories. Just perfect!
@delawarecop oh right, i an " evolutionist " am i. talk about nailing your colours to the mast. there are, as i said, experiments being conducted to verify ( or not ) the current theories. the sun loses mass, but not by burning it's fuel (another example of your ignorance ) but by mass ejections. the amounts are so small in comparison to the sun's mass, that over the entire period of mammalian existence, this mass is less than that of a average moon. the effect is negligable.
@raverdeath100 Liar - the Sun loses 10M tonnes per second by burning Hydrogen!! Also you should spend more time actually observing the sun on SOHO rather than just blindly accepting the facts from scientists. You think all scientists are honest? None of them twist their findings to maintain financial support? Are you deluded? The Sun ejects masses regularly, and quite often they are the size of the moon. But hey, dont take my word for it - how about you go LOOK FOR YOURSELF?
@delawarecop 10m tonnes of hydrogen converted to helium, not lost. the ejecta is tenuous. it may look massive, it isn't. i do look, i'm an amateur astronomer. i really think you do need to read some books.
@raverdeath100 You need to read better books, particularly more accurate books. Its losing mass, and has been for 6000yrs at an approximate rate of 10,000,000 metric tonnes per second. Its diameter is also constantly shrinking if you bothered to check the facts. Sure some Helium is produced, but its still losing mass.
@delawarecop dear mr religious literalist, the sun has been losing mass since it's formation, over 4.5 billion years ago. in fact it's lost nearly 10% of it's initial mass. the earth has been migrating outwards since. you are a tool of the highest order. facts! you don't know the meaning of the word. keep your head in the dogmatic sand as obviously magic runs the universe. you are the worst kind of person, an intentional fool.
@raverdeath100 Dear Mr imbecile, is the earth migrating outwards due to the reduced gravitational effect of the Sun, or is the Sun just losing its diameter due to gravitational collapse, or is the earth being pushed away by the constant bombardment of photons, neutrinos, and solar winds? I love the 4.5 Billions years bit.....BTW what was the suns diamter then & where was earth then? Did we have the same temperatures 4.5 Billion years ago? Where is your proof of 4.5 Billion years?
@delawarecop radiometric dating, uranium 235 and 238 cheifly. the earth was hotter, molten on the surface for the first few million years. as the sun settled into main sequence the earth's surface temp' dropped. but i reckon you're not interested. afterall, this stuff is all freely available. the 6000 year old earth is absolute crud. the sikhs have a way better grasp of the earth's age than the abrahamic myths.
@raverdeath100 You are either deluded, a liar, or simply cannot think for yourself. There simply is not any 4.5Billion years evidence anywhere. Its a theory and radiometric dating is based on assumptions - its a fraud. If the earth was molten on the surface for a few million years, then the temp dropped - so how exactly did it get an atmosphere and water? Was it donated from the sun, moon, a passing comet, or it just appeared from nowhere like the Universe? Seriously?
@delawarecop haha... not my fault you're intentionally stupid. as i can see that your brain cannot cope with science or the universe in it's splendour, i suggest some reading material. " The Hungry Caterpillar " should be about your level. happy reading.
@raverdeath100 You have absolutely no evidence for your fictional record of the history of the earth & solar system. Everything is an educated guess, which its essentially flawed because its based on faith & assumption. Evolution is a religion perpetrated to discredit the Biblical record of Creation by an Intelligent Designer.
Stop and think! If we require such advanced technology just to understand & manipulate a few genes, then what greater intelligence required to designed it?
@delawarecop the evidence is thru' a telescope. we see solar systems in formation in the Orion dust cloud and the Eagle Nebula, just to name a few. in 2 years we'll be able to see individual extra-solar planets, and may be able to determine their atmospheric contents. faith and assumption descibes the bible not science. if you feel that scientific discoveries demean human existence then so be it. life to me is more precious because of them.
@raverdeath100 Scientific discoveries are excellent and dont demean anything. Science studies and observes and measures and produces results. Its the interpretation of those results which can, and often does demean human existence.
If you bothered to read the bible it actually contains many scientific facts which we have only become aware of in the last 200 years.
Science proves an Intelligent Designer, because it requires Intelligence to comprehend and appreciate what you see.
@delawarecop we live in an envelope of gas that surrounds a ball of rock about 12,700 km in width. we orbit a stable, main sequence yellow dwarf star at a distance that allows water to exist in all it's states. the recycling of minerals in the earth's crust by plate tectonics, the nitrogen cycle and carbon cycle aided by liquid water enable the mixing and combining of organic molecules. the magnetosphere and ozone layer shield us from powerful radiation that permeates space.
@delawarecop all this has allowed life to develop. all the molecules that enable your body to operate exist in the dust and gas clouds that sweep thru the Milky Way. all of this is made in massive fusion furnaces we call stars. all around us we see these stars, as far as it is possible to see, almost to the infinite. i fail to see how this diminishes us.
@delawarecop Hello! You could get answers for all of these questions by doing a simple google search or opening a science book. Also you should read up on radiometric dating since you doubt its validity as a way of measuring age, based on the fact that you seem to think that its based on assumptions. These questions are pretty simple, and I have to ask, you do not happen to be an American by any chance?
@LamaPaj You can only assume that radiometric dating is accurate. All methods however have been proven unreliable when used without any intelligable input. ie. If I give you a bone divided into 4 parts and ask you to date it by using 4 different scientific methods, each method will return different ages for the very same bone sample. So which is more accurate? Well that opinion then requires qualifying assumptions. Meaning its highly subjective - not factual. Therefore its deceitful.
@delawarecop =You can only assume that radiometric dating is accurate. All methods however have been proven unreliable when used without any intelligable input. ie. If I give you a bone divided into 4 parts and ask you to date it by using 4 different scientific methods, each method will return different ages for the very same bone sample.=
That is absolutely false, please cite your source.
@delawarecop Well, all sources I can find seem to declare that radiometric dating is in fact accurate. Maybe you should stop getting your information from answersingenesis lol.
@winterstellar Well if you have faith in it, then go try for yourself. Try to get somebody to radiometric date a bone. Divide it into four samples and try to test the acuracy of the various methods for yourself.
If you only believe what you see with your own eyes, and dont believe things that men write down in a book, then go right ahead & witness it for yourself. See if radiometric dating really is accurate or not. But dont take anyones word for it!
Our moon is tidally locked. Most moons in the solar system are tidally locked. Those that aren't tend to orbit at a much greater distance from the host planet.
@IAmARationalApe Collisions with other bodies? Tidally locked? Most? Tend? Yes lots more theories, but not evidence or proof which is any greater than the explanation given in the Bible of creation. Just ones beliefs.
@delawarecop The work of millions of scientists is what has given us this knowledge, and we have vast experience in using this knowledege in practice too, for instance in exploration of space, exploration which has confirmed and improved our science. This science, this knowledge, this reality is almost inconceivably much better than the idiotic bronze-age fairy-tales of bibles or qurans. You should try reading some science, and maybe stop reading the ancient nonsense about invisible gods..: )
@winterstellar Sure - so what do these millions of scientists say the purpose of life is? And what will happen to you when you die? I dont deny knowledge, I just deny the theories to explain away the existence of God. Scientific nnowledge supports Gods existence if you bother to take the time to read the Scriptures. But Evolution uses scientific knowledge & fairy tales to try eliminate the cause for morality, GOD - if you dont understand that, then you have missed the whole point!
@delawarecop Sorry, but just because you(and bronze-age primitives ages ago) think it sucks, there's really not much we can do about it yet. In medical science lots of people are working on "beating death", and we have a almost three times longer life now than they bronze-age, and maybe humanity will beat death with science later, but unfortunately not just yet, unfortunately if you don't think 80-90 years is enough. Many people do, but I don't. Look up evolution in wiki if you think it's wrong.
@winterstellar The scriptures declare that men once lived hundreds of years before God reduced their lifespan. You & your Evolution science loving chronies will never beat death because the Creator says its a product of rebelling against His natural laws (ie. sin).
Romans 1:32 Although they know God's righteous decree, (that those who do such things deserve death), they not only continue to do these very things, but also approve of those who practice them.
@delawarecop Great, cause then we know that the scriptures are bullshit. It is easy to tell how old a person was when he died, and nobody, no skeletons or remains ever found have ever shown that people lived longer before. The opposite is actually true, humans have never lived as long as they do now. You know, we have medicines, vaccines, x-ray,mri scanning, surgeries, chemo, radiation, zillions of tools the ancients didn't have.:)
@delawarecop Altruism, morality, are things we had millions of years before religions were invented, it is something that evolves naturally in all species of animals that live in groups, not just our species. And by the way, we have come very far compared to the religious primitives with their "stonings" and the "genocides" and "baby killings" and similar that was told/fantasised about by both muslims, jews and christians. : )
@winterstellar Another broad encompassing statement made on the premise of supposition. But you have no evidence of anything from "Millions of years before religions were invented". In fact some of the oldest reliable sources of pre-modern civilisaztion are the Records in Scripture which says man was "Created" about 6000yrs ago.
To date the USA alone has been responsible for the murder of more than 60 Million babies as a result of abortion. The ugly side of Evolutionary thinking!
@delawarecop We know when "the scriptures" were written. They were written between 800 and 600bce. I.e there are other written sources much older than those fairy-tales. Thanks to modern science, archaeology and so on, we also know where the jews where when they wrote the OT, we know when they developed their culture and where, and now we know funny facts like that they never ever were in Egypt, hehe. Dumb legends, fairy-tales and fantasies, that's what you find in "the scriptures" : )
@winterstellar You may have knowledge, but its evident that you dont have wisdom - either that, or you are lying to conceal your inadequacies. Moses lived 1600BC and God wrote the 10 Commandments on stone, so they had written language. So 1600BC + 2012 AD = more than 3600 years.
The Hebrews were slaves in Egypt, but modern Evolutionist scientists are doing their best to discredit scriptures through lies and deceit. But its irrelevant because God is looking for souls with Faith.
@delawarecop We don't need written sources to see how people lived before they started writing. We have tons of ruins, artefacts, tools ,remains, skeletons, fossils, cave paintings, dna samples, all sorts of things tell us the story of human evolution and human migrations and the development of cultures and societies.. Tons and tons, millions of science papers.. It's not as if we have..err..."a bronze-age holy book", haha. : )
@winterstellar Those things dont tell you anything without interpretation. Those who interpret such data dont believe in God, so they have an subjective opinion. I can see the same data and use it prove a different opinion. There is no evidence to prove anything, there is only data! Either way it takes a leap of faith to believe either Evoltion or Creation - but my belief has an answer to life after death. Evolution doesnt! Therefore I choose the one with more answers - not less.
@delawarecop =Those who interpret such data dont believe in God, so they have an subjective opinion. I can see the same data and use it prove a different opinion. There is no evidence to prove anything, there is only data!=
Wrong. Most of us were brought up religious, the reason our faith disappeared was because the evidence directly contradicts religious teaching and because there is no evidence for any of the religious dogmas.
Creation does not give you answers. Evolution does.
@SeanACampbell So what answer does Evolution give as to the reason for life, and what does Evolution say about life after death? You wont find those answers from any Evolutionist.
They say that they only believe in the facts of what they can see, but then in the very next breath they are talking about Millions or Billions of years ago. Absolute hypocrisy.
Evolutionists are also subjective because they refuse to accept anything about Intelligent Design or a Creator.
@delawarecop You seem to have a clear misunderstanding of what a theory is. It is not an idea, it is not a hypothesis, it is not what we commonly use the word "theory" for. In science, a hypothesis only becomes a theory when it is supported by significant evidence, makes accurate predictions, and is accepted by the scientific community as the best explanation currently available for a given set of facts.
The bible on the other hand does not make useful predictions.
@delawarecop Atoms don't "decide" to do anything. The questions you are asking are well explained by current theories and I think your questions would probably be better explained if you put them into Google rather than YouTube comments. There is simply not enough room in these boxes to answer.
The answers to your questions are found in large science papers - much larger than the 500 characters YouTube will allow us to respond.
@SeanACampbell I have found all the necessary answers to lifes problems thanks. I dont need to know if the theory of "A holographic Universe" is real or not. I dont need to know many modern 'Theories' to live a happy and fulfilling life because my life has a pupose.
Its the Evolutionists who spend all their lives trying to discedit and disprove a Creator because their lives arent fulfilling. Evolutionists know that when they die, Creationists know they will live forever!
@delawarecop Science is under no obligation to uphold your beliefs. Your beliefs have no special status, it is just another hypothesis. When you gather all the evidence together, whether we like it or not it points to natural processes, an old earth, and evolution by natural selection.
@SeanACampbell There is no evidence, only measureable facts. Those facts dont point to anything other than what you want to believe. Therefore Evolution is just another religion because it requires faith to believe the facts to be evidence for something other than just facts.
The earth is as old as it was created, and natural selection only works to get rid of some of the unnatural members of a species, eg. homosexuals.
@IAmARationalApe Actually thats my point entirely - thank you! But we can do science to study the effects of the Creators force throughout this universe.
eg. Two objects in space orbit each other by an unknown force which we label as gravity. We can measure its effects, we can calculate orbital paths etc, but we dont know how gravity comes into being, nor do we know what sustains the energy in a supossedly closed system. Gravity is 'work' which creates energy - not consumes it!
No. You're making one rule for understanding the science of electromagnetism in a wire and another rule for science gravity in the cosmos. You can't have it both way.
Gravity is a force. It does not create or consume energy any more than the magnetic field of an iron magnet does. You can't get free energy from a magnet and there's no free energy with gravity.
@IAmARationalApe Thank you for yours temporary sound reasoning! That is my point precisely - there is no free energy! So where does the energy come from to move two magnets towards or away form each other? And where does the energy come from for two planets to be pulled towards each other?
There is no doubt that work is being done, so where does the energy come from to do that work?
@IAmARationalApe Actually work is the energy required to move a mass a certain distance. The energy GOES into moving the magnets because they are the mass which is moving the distance.
More importantly, where does the energy come from to move those masses over the distance?
Well pull them apart with our hands, and they come together again. This can go on for a very long time indeed. So where does all this energy come from?
@delawarecop "work is the energy required to move a mass a certain distance" - that's a high school definition. So when you physically push an object you apply a force over a certain distance you're actually transferring kinetic energy here.
More generally work is the transfer of energy. When you lift a brick off the floor on to a table you transform the kinetic energy to potential energy of the brick.
@delawarecop You are asking where the energy comes from and I am asking where the energy is going to. These are two heads of the same coin. The energy is in the system. It is neither created or destroyed.
@delawarecop It comes from the magnetic field itself. Work done by the field will cause it to weaken over time. There is a lot of energy in a magnetic field, so yes, it does go on for a very long time.
@SeanACampbell I know that they cannot be answered honestly, because Evoltuionists have to revert to lies to cover for their idealogical inadequacies. People put so much Faith in science & evolution, but they cannot even solve the most fundamental questionss. Whats the purpose of life? Are we only just flesh & blood - or do we have a spirit? Is their life after death? Why do plants make seeds - do they know they will die? How do seeds know there is water in the ground?
@delawarecop Oh dear. Again, you seem to be confusing scientist with evolutionist. Science is not some giagantic conspiracy to 'hide' the existance of god. Evolution has nothing to do with god. Science seeks only to answer questions whether or not we like the answers.
On to the so called "fundamental questions"
"What is the purpose of life?" - Who said there is a purpose? There doesn't have to be one?
@delawarecop "Is there life after death" There is no evidence that there is life after death, so there is no reason to believe that there is.
"Why do plants made seeds - do they know they will die?" Plants, as far as we can tell, do not have the ability to comprehend or reason. As such, no they wouldn't "know" they would die. They create seeds because that is what their biology causes them to do - it is evolutionary successful to do so.
@SeanACampbell Actually plants produce seeds because of their DNA programming. You are right that a plant cannot comprehend or reason - therefore it couldnt possibly know that it was going to die, or that there was another plant the same living in the near vacinity, or that plant was of the opposite sex, or that there was even enough light, water, soil, nutrients for more plants of its own species to survive.
Thats why it had to be Intelligently programmed into their DNA :)
@delawarecop And the complex crystalline structure contained within a diamond also had to be "intelligently programmed" too then? Massively complex sand dunes, complex weather patterns, snowflakes. . . All of these must have had their complexity programmed too, right? After all, a cloud doesn't know it should form a hurricane, nor does a water droplet know what shape to form.
@delawarecop "How do seeds know there is water in the ground". Again, they don't 'know' anything, they are simply doing what their genome tells them to do. It is an evolutionary advantage to grow roots into the soil. If they did not grow their roots downwards they would be less likely to survive and reproduce. Back during their initial evolution plants which were more likely to grow their roots down and their flowers up had an evolutionary advantage and over time took over those which did not.
@SeanACampbell I love how you reason for a plant using your own intelligence and impose that upon the reason for why they have adapted - but you have already said that they dont have any comprehension or ability to reason. Plants dont take Millions or Billions of years to evolve either, so their existence can only have come from Intelligent programming in their DNA. Like you said - plants are not self aware, nor do they know anything about soil, nutrients, water, or Photosynthesis
@delawarecop Oh dear lord you have entirely missed the point. Life does not evolve because it "wants" to evolve. It evolves through a natural process whereby the life which is the best able to survive in a particular environment is more likely to reproduce and pass on its genes while life less able to survive does not reproduce as often. We also know DNA changes over time through mutation and the activation/deactivation of genes, meaning that the "child" can be better adapted than its parent
@delawarecop We do observe these kinds of changes all the time. Every child is an intermeditary step between what came before and what comes after. All children are slightly different from their parents, and their parents slightly different from their parents.
We also can observe mutations in the childs genome, certain pieces of information not in the parent DNA. If we take these two simple facts and then project this over a long period of time you have evolution.
@delawarecop A plant which developed the ability, through a natural process, to grow roots downwards would have been better adapted than other plants and would have reproduced more and better survived - it didn't want to change, it just did.
@SonicRainbowStar It's a response to the stonedcommander video in which he expresses his ignorance in a dismissive and somewhat confrontational manner. I would look for the original video for you, but I'm lazy.
Cute innocent faces, open minds... and somewhere lurking around, is that evil "religion".. wanting to poison these perfectly sensible, rational minds and convert them to something really stupid, silly, crazy, dangerous and of course USELESS. We need to kill it.
I believe that the reason the planets are round is because the huge land masses require a great deal of density in order to form and be created. It's like the formation of a star. The entire area must have an extreme heat and density, which allows the molecular clouds of particles and gas to come together and produce an extremely dense land mass.
Asteroids are simply parts of other dense land masses which were severed off the land mass after its formation.
@TheJamezMan Depending on where you measure from there are actually 3 tallest mountains. One is tallest measured from the earths center of gravity, another is tallest if you measure it from the ocean floor, and Everest has the highest altitude above sea level. He never said which measurement he was basing it off of.
Why is your baldy, upside down head perfectly round and shining like a polished egg? Is it because you are so fat that you have your own gravity field and thus your head and body are round, you dumb fucking arse?
What I want to know is since I learned why planets are round the very first time I asked the question of someone, and since that was before there was an internet at my fingertips....then
1. Did this twat ever actually go to school...ever?
2. Why didn't he type his question into Google before making a total pigs fucking arse of himself?
Sagan actually makes a good point. If you study the equations (Newton's formulas), you'll see that you need ALOT of mass to be able to create a strong force of gravity. That is why gravity is considered weaker than the other three (electromagetism and weak/strong-nuclear force).
Stop commenting, I just want to see Carl Sagan
Flagritriba 1 month ago
I want Carl Sagan to be my teacher (and Im 38)
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
I like this :) I love satire and stuff along those lines, its comedy people.. lighten up..
BigMisterApple 1 month ago
This guys face needs a Carl Sagan Slap in the chin fat. He's also from Brooklyn NY, a 98% retarded populous.
CupcakeAndPythagoras 1 month ago
@CupcakeAndPythagoras i've got a feeling that Sagan's from Brooklyn...
raverdeath100 1 month ago
Who is this fat ugly lump sitting here debating with the wisest and most respectable scientist ever?
halliehater 1 month ago
@halliehater theres no debate, just a scientific bitch slap.
Fackifiknow 1 month ago
Hahah excellent video.
VonTavast 1 month ago
as for " there is nothing else which might be causing it? ", do you have a reason?
raverdeath100 1 month ago
So, that obese chain smoker never even went to primary school? Wow..:)
winterstellar 1 month ago
Really? Gravity huh? Well how does gravity explain a singularity - at what point does the gravity become so great that all the atoms decide to smash together to form a singularity? If there's a singularity at the centre of each galaxy, then why do all the stars tend towards a single plain rather than rotate orbitally in a 360 degree sphere with an ever reducing radius? Why do some planets rotate backwards? Why do some moons spin and yet ours doesnt? Gravity is a force not a process.
delawarecop 1 month ago
@delawarecop I will answer each question in a different post.
" .. at what point does the gravity become so great that all the atoms decide to smash together to form a singularity?"
When the mass of a collapsing star exceeds the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit. I.e. It is too massive to form a neutron star. See the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff equation.
IAmARationalApe 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@IAmARationalApe Yes - thats just one of many evolving theories - but none of it could be regarded as evidential as proof in a Court of Law, could it?. It could just as likely be the way that they were created also, couldnt they? Its a matter of opinion and belief.
delawarecop 1 month ago
@delawarecop - "thats just one of many evolving theories"
No it's a calculation and also an observation.
"It could just as likely be the way that they were created also, couldnt they?"
That is not something that can be observed or calculated so I would say no, not "just as easily" unless you want to also allow for other possibilities that cannot been observed and cannot be circulated.
IAmARationalApe 1 month ago
@delawarecop I would say that the court would hardly be qualified to judge the evidence. Courts deal with law not physics. But if you are asking whether the theories stand up to our observations, the answer is yes.
The theories have made predictions, and those predictions are being shown to be correct. But a theory is not "unchangeable", they change all the time - that is how science works. As more information becomes available, the theory is refined.
As such, no it is not a matter of opinion.
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@delawarecop
"If there's a singularity at the centre of each galaxy, then why do all the stars tend towards a single plain rather than rotate orbitally in a 360 degree sphere with an ever reducing radius?"
The rotation about an axis means that material does not collapse towards the centre but gravitational attraction towards the pane of rotation is not affected by rotation and so galaxies generally flattens into a discs.
IAmARationalApe 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@IAmARationalApe I love this part - 'so galxies generally flattens into a discs'. Sounds like a sound theory to me - Im sold! So are you suggesting that this is strictly a product of gravity, or that galaxies somehow have some kind of mysterious force which counteracts the pure gravitational and rotational effect? Its this mysterious force which tends to generally flatten billions of exploding stars, which are expanding away from the 'BIG-BANG', into discs?
delawarecop 1 month ago
@delawarecop
"Sounds like a sound theory to me - Im sold!" Look up "scientific theory" - it doesn't' just mean a guess.
"So are you suggesting that this is strictly a product of gravity" -Yes. Gravitational attraction causes objects to rotate about each other. Perpendicular to the axis of rotation objects are not rotating and gravitational attraction draws them into a plane. This is all calculable and there are models you can play with on the web that demonstrate it.
IAmARationalApe 1 month ago
@IAmARationalApe Yes, but gravity alone will not explain why Galaxies become disc shaped after an explosion of nothingness expands outwards (following the Law of thermodynamics and Entropy), into the known boundaries of the universe.
So how exactly does this mysterious force called gravity actually work? What is the mechanism which causes the effect on bodies? And how exactly does this force maintain its effect for eternity? Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, right?
delawarecop 1 month ago
Comment removed
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@delawarecop The fact that you even ask that question shows that you lack understanding on the theory of gravity. No, energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Gravity does not require that it be created or destroyed. Gravity does not "supply" free energy.
And seeing that you seem to believe that you understand "the Law of thermodynamics and Entropy" why don't you explain to us what you think the laws say. And there are no "known boundaries" to the universe as it is expanding.
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@delawarecop Gravity exists due to the fact that mass causes curvature in space and larger mass curves space more than lower mass. A smaller mass approaching a larger mass will "fall" into it because space becomes curved towards the larger mass.
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@SeanACampbell Why exactly does Mass curve space? Im aware of the gravity well theory, but can you explain for example how the moon orbiting the earth because of gravity, can continue to apply work to the oceans of the world for 1000's of years by way of tidal flows, (inducing massive amounts of kinetic energy through tidal flows gloablly), without any input of energy? Where does the energy come from exactly to perform this miraculous feat? Try to think about it before you answer.
delawarecop 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It also pulls on the atmosphere and influences wind and weather patterns globally. all this energy is being created somehow! If it is just gravity, (exchange of sub-atomic particles), how can it produce all that energy without input? 1st law of Thermodynamics becomes a problem here, doesn't it?
How can a Mass continue to exert an inversely proportional force on other masses, perpetually, without input or loss of energy?
delawarecop 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It also pulls on the atmosphere and influences wind and weather patterns globally. all this energy is being created somehow! If it is just gravity, (exchange of sub-atomic particles), how can it produce all that energy without input? 1st law of Thermodynamics becomes a problem here, doesn't it?
How can a Mass continue to exert an inversely proportional force on other masses, perpetually, without input or loss of energy?
delawarecop 1 month ago
@delawarecop a mass moving thru' the space/time fabric of the universe distorts that fabric, causing the " gravity wells ", coupled together with quantum field theory and general particle theory. gravity exists but the full reason of it's existence is not known for certain. hence the search for the higgs bosun and gravity waves. no one is going to be able to explain gravity to you on YT. i would suggest you read some books on physics. if you disgree, publish a paper.
raverdeath100 1 month ago
@raverdeath100 I dont need to publish a paper on it because nobody has any proof of those particles or space/time fabric actually exists. Nor can they explain why gravity can produce so much perpetual energy without any loss of mass/matter. I can see why all Evolutionists are pinning their hopes on the discovery of some myserious particle to finally explain away God. No matter what they find, they will invent another theory to eliminate a Creator & who sustains.
delawarecop 1 month ago
@delawarecop you know that the " mysterious particle " may be found this year? also don't confuse gravity as an energy source. it isn't. the energy derives from the mass' movement thru gravity.
raverdeath100 1 month ago
@raverdeath100 Yes, when gravity causes two masses to be attracted to each other and move any distance towards each other or in an orbit, then those bodies cannot move without work being done! w = Fs & of course F=ma
So what exactly is the energy and where does it come from?
We have a smiliar problem with magnets and electromagnets dont we?
The work done by gravity & magnetism must have a source of energy!
delawarecop 1 month ago
Comment removed
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@delawarecop The theory of evolution does not deal with the physics involved in the formation of galaxies or planetary systems. The theory of evolution does not even deal with the origin of life. The theory of evolution deals only with the diversity of life.
Evolutionists are not pinning their hopes on a mysterious particle. Evolutionists don't care one way or the other about "god" in general. The god proposed by religion is not testable and therefore judgement is suspended.
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@delawarecop Gravity does not produce energy, you fundamentally misunderstand what gravity is.
Theories are based on evidence and observation, and something only becomes a theory when it can make useful predictions, is not contradicted by evidence and observation, and is generally accepted by the qualified persons in a particular field. In other words a theory is the best current explanation.
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@SeanACampbell When gravity is the cause of a mass to move a distance, then work is done! w=Fs Work can be expressed in joues. joules are a source of energy, right?
So whatever the play on words, Gravity causes work to be done so where does the energy come from to do the work?
Gravity causes the moon to orbit the earth, and the interaction causes tides and atmospheric changes (winds) which is also work. Those tidal flows and air movements can also be tapped to produce energy.
delawarecop 1 month ago
@delawarecop oh, by the way, the energy for " tidal flows " is coming from the kinetic energy from the earth's spin and the moon's orbital velocity. hence as time progresses, both are slowing down. again, a little too complicated to be able to express in YT comments sections.
raverdeath100 1 month ago
@raverdeath100 So there is proof that the Earth and moon are slowing down because their interaction causes tidal flows, Weather systems, and techtonic plate movements? There is nothing else in the entire universe which might be causing it? Like for example the fact that the Sun is losing its mass as it burns its fuel, so therefore the other planets offer a greater perturbance?
I love the way Evolutionists exclude data to support their own theories. Just perfect!
delawarecop 1 month ago
@delawarecop oh right, i an " evolutionist " am i. talk about nailing your colours to the mast. there are, as i said, experiments being conducted to verify ( or not ) the current theories. the sun loses mass, but not by burning it's fuel (another example of your ignorance ) but by mass ejections. the amounts are so small in comparison to the sun's mass, that over the entire period of mammalian existence, this mass is less than that of a average moon. the effect is negligable.
raverdeath100 1 month ago
@raverdeath100 Liar - the Sun loses 10M tonnes per second by burning Hydrogen!! Also you should spend more time actually observing the sun on SOHO rather than just blindly accepting the facts from scientists. You think all scientists are honest? None of them twist their findings to maintain financial support? Are you deluded? The Sun ejects masses regularly, and quite often they are the size of the moon. But hey, dont take my word for it - how about you go LOOK FOR YOURSELF?
delawarecop 1 month ago
@delawarecop 10m tonnes of hydrogen converted to helium, not lost. the ejecta is tenuous. it may look massive, it isn't. i do look, i'm an amateur astronomer. i really think you do need to read some books.
raverdeath100 1 month ago
@raverdeath100 You need to read better books, particularly more accurate books. Its losing mass, and has been for 6000yrs at an approximate rate of 10,000,000 metric tonnes per second. Its diameter is also constantly shrinking if you bothered to check the facts. Sure some Helium is produced, but its still losing mass.
delawarecop 1 month ago
@delawarecop dear mr religious literalist, the sun has been losing mass since it's formation, over 4.5 billion years ago. in fact it's lost nearly 10% of it's initial mass. the earth has been migrating outwards since. you are a tool of the highest order. facts! you don't know the meaning of the word. keep your head in the dogmatic sand as obviously magic runs the universe. you are the worst kind of person, an intentional fool.
raverdeath100 1 month ago
@raverdeath100 Dear Mr imbecile, is the earth migrating outwards due to the reduced gravitational effect of the Sun, or is the Sun just losing its diameter due to gravitational collapse, or is the earth being pushed away by the constant bombardment of photons, neutrinos, and solar winds? I love the 4.5 Billions years bit.....BTW what was the suns diamter then & where was earth then? Did we have the same temperatures 4.5 Billion years ago? Where is your proof of 4.5 Billion years?
delawarecop 1 month ago
@delawarecop radiometric dating, uranium 235 and 238 cheifly. the earth was hotter, molten on the surface for the first few million years. as the sun settled into main sequence the earth's surface temp' dropped. but i reckon you're not interested. afterall, this stuff is all freely available. the 6000 year old earth is absolute crud. the sikhs have a way better grasp of the earth's age than the abrahamic myths.
raverdeath100 1 month ago
@raverdeath100 You are either deluded, a liar, or simply cannot think for yourself. There simply is not any 4.5Billion years evidence anywhere. Its a theory and radiometric dating is based on assumptions - its a fraud. If the earth was molten on the surface for a few million years, then the temp dropped - so how exactly did it get an atmosphere and water? Was it donated from the sun, moon, a passing comet, or it just appeared from nowhere like the Universe? Seriously?
delawarecop 1 month ago
@delawarecop haha... not my fault you're intentionally stupid. as i can see that your brain cannot cope with science or the universe in it's splendour, i suggest some reading material. " The Hungry Caterpillar " should be about your level. happy reading.
raverdeath100 1 month ago
@raverdeath100 You have absolutely no evidence for your fictional record of the history of the earth & solar system. Everything is an educated guess, which its essentially flawed because its based on faith & assumption. Evolution is a religion perpetrated to discredit the Biblical record of Creation by an Intelligent Designer.
Stop and think! If we require such advanced technology just to understand & manipulate a few genes, then what greater intelligence required to designed it?
delawarecop 1 month ago
@delawarecop the evidence is thru' a telescope. we see solar systems in formation in the Orion dust cloud and the Eagle Nebula, just to name a few. in 2 years we'll be able to see individual extra-solar planets, and may be able to determine their atmospheric contents. faith and assumption descibes the bible not science. if you feel that scientific discoveries demean human existence then so be it. life to me is more precious because of them.
raverdeath100 1 month ago
@raverdeath100 Scientific discoveries are excellent and dont demean anything. Science studies and observes and measures and produces results. Its the interpretation of those results which can, and often does demean human existence.
If you bothered to read the bible it actually contains many scientific facts which we have only become aware of in the last 200 years.
Science proves an Intelligent Designer, because it requires Intelligence to comprehend and appreciate what you see.
delawarecop 1 month ago
@delawarecop we live in an envelope of gas that surrounds a ball of rock about 12,700 km in width. we orbit a stable, main sequence yellow dwarf star at a distance that allows water to exist in all it's states. the recycling of minerals in the earth's crust by plate tectonics, the nitrogen cycle and carbon cycle aided by liquid water enable the mixing and combining of organic molecules. the magnetosphere and ozone layer shield us from powerful radiation that permeates space.
raverdeath100 1 month ago
@delawarecop all this has allowed life to develop. all the molecules that enable your body to operate exist in the dust and gas clouds that sweep thru the Milky Way. all of this is made in massive fusion furnaces we call stars. all around us we see these stars, as far as it is possible to see, almost to the infinite. i fail to see how this diminishes us.
raverdeath100 1 month ago
@raverdeath100 Yes - its either an mazing coincidence or a wonderful and well thought out design by a super intelligent Creator.
It certainly sounds more likely than imagining it all spontaneously occured from a primordial soup, due to blind luck.
delawarecop 1 month ago
@delawarecop Hello! You could get answers for all of these questions by doing a simple google search or opening a science book. Also you should read up on radiometric dating since you doubt its validity as a way of measuring age, based on the fact that you seem to think that its based on assumptions. These questions are pretty simple, and I have to ask, you do not happen to be an American by any chance?
LamaPaj 1 month ago
@LamaPaj You can only assume that radiometric dating is accurate. All methods however have been proven unreliable when used without any intelligable input. ie. If I give you a bone divided into 4 parts and ask you to date it by using 4 different scientific methods, each method will return different ages for the very same bone sample. So which is more accurate? Well that opinion then requires qualifying assumptions. Meaning its highly subjective - not factual. Therefore its deceitful.
delawarecop 1 month ago
@delawarecop =You can only assume that radiometric dating is accurate. All methods however have been proven unreliable when used without any intelligable input. ie. If I give you a bone divided into 4 parts and ask you to date it by using 4 different scientific methods, each method will return different ages for the very same bone sample.=
That is absolutely false, please cite your source.
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@delawarecop Well, all sources I can find seem to declare that radiometric dating is in fact accurate. Maybe you should stop getting your information from answersingenesis lol.
LamaPaj 1 month ago
Comment removed
delawarecop 1 month ago
@delawarecop That's why we have *peer reviewing*, to make sure there are as few errors as possible:)
winterstellar 1 month ago
@winterstellar Well if you have faith in it, then go try for yourself. Try to get somebody to radiometric date a bone. Divide it into four samples and try to test the acuracy of the various methods for yourself.
If you only believe what you see with your own eyes, and dont believe things that men write down in a book, then go right ahead & witness it for yourself. See if radiometric dating really is accurate or not. But dont take anyones word for it!
delawarecop 1 month ago
@delawarecop
"Why do some planets rotate backwards?"
Collisions with other bodies.
"Why do some moons spin and yet ours doesnt?"
Our moon is tidally locked. Most moons in the solar system are tidally locked. Those that aren't tend to orbit at a much greater distance from the host planet.
IAmARationalApe 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@IAmARationalApe Collisions with other bodies? Tidally locked? Most? Tend? Yes lots more theories, but not evidence or proof which is any greater than the explanation given in the Bible of creation. Just ones beliefs.
delawarecop 1 month ago
@delawarecop
I don't think I should bother wasting any more time with you.
IAmARationalApe 1 month ago
@delawarecop The work of millions of scientists is what has given us this knowledge, and we have vast experience in using this knowledege in practice too, for instance in exploration of space, exploration which has confirmed and improved our science. This science, this knowledge, this reality is almost inconceivably much better than the idiotic bronze-age fairy-tales of bibles or qurans. You should try reading some science, and maybe stop reading the ancient nonsense about invisible gods..: )
winterstellar 1 month ago
@winterstellar Sure - so what do these millions of scientists say the purpose of life is? And what will happen to you when you die? I dont deny knowledge, I just deny the theories to explain away the existence of God. Scientific nnowledge supports Gods existence if you bother to take the time to read the Scriptures. But Evolution uses scientific knowledge & fairy tales to try eliminate the cause for morality, GOD - if you dont understand that, then you have missed the whole point!
delawarecop 1 month ago
@delawarecop Sorry, but just because you(and bronze-age primitives ages ago) think it sucks, there's really not much we can do about it yet. In medical science lots of people are working on "beating death", and we have a almost three times longer life now than they bronze-age, and maybe humanity will beat death with science later, but unfortunately not just yet, unfortunately if you don't think 80-90 years is enough. Many people do, but I don't. Look up evolution in wiki if you think it's wrong.
winterstellar 1 month ago
@winterstellar *than they did in the bronze age*, sorry about the typo. : )
winterstellar 1 month ago
@winterstellar The scriptures declare that men once lived hundreds of years before God reduced their lifespan. You & your Evolution science loving chronies will never beat death because the Creator says its a product of rebelling against His natural laws (ie. sin).
Romans 1:32 Although they know God's righteous decree, (that those who do such things deserve death), they not only continue to do these very things, but also approve of those who practice them.
delawarecop 1 month ago
@delawarecop Great, cause then we know that the scriptures are bullshit. It is easy to tell how old a person was when he died, and nobody, no skeletons or remains ever found have ever shown that people lived longer before. The opposite is actually true, humans have never lived as long as they do now. You know, we have medicines, vaccines, x-ray,mri scanning, surgeries, chemo, radiation, zillions of tools the ancients didn't have.:)
winterstellar 1 month ago
@delawarecop Altruism, morality, are things we had millions of years before religions were invented, it is something that evolves naturally in all species of animals that live in groups, not just our species. And by the way, we have come very far compared to the religious primitives with their "stonings" and the "genocides" and "baby killings" and similar that was told/fantasised about by both muslims, jews and christians. : )
winterstellar 1 month ago
@winterstellar Another broad encompassing statement made on the premise of supposition. But you have no evidence of anything from "Millions of years before religions were invented". In fact some of the oldest reliable sources of pre-modern civilisaztion are the Records in Scripture which says man was "Created" about 6000yrs ago.
To date the USA alone has been responsible for the murder of more than 60 Million babies as a result of abortion. The ugly side of Evolutionary thinking!
delawarecop 1 month ago
@delawarecop We know when "the scriptures" were written. They were written between 800 and 600bce. I.e there are other written sources much older than those fairy-tales. Thanks to modern science, archaeology and so on, we also know where the jews where when they wrote the OT, we know when they developed their culture and where, and now we know funny facts like that they never ever were in Egypt, hehe. Dumb legends, fairy-tales and fantasies, that's what you find in "the scriptures" : )
winterstellar 1 month ago
@winterstellar You may have knowledge, but its evident that you dont have wisdom - either that, or you are lying to conceal your inadequacies. Moses lived 1600BC and God wrote the 10 Commandments on stone, so they had written language. So 1600BC + 2012 AD = more than 3600 years.
The Hebrews were slaves in Egypt, but modern Evolutionist scientists are doing their best to discredit scriptures through lies and deceit. But its irrelevant because God is looking for souls with Faith.
delawarecop 1 month ago
@delawarecop We don't need written sources to see how people lived before they started writing. We have tons of ruins, artefacts, tools ,remains, skeletons, fossils, cave paintings, dna samples, all sorts of things tell us the story of human evolution and human migrations and the development of cultures and societies.. Tons and tons, millions of science papers.. It's not as if we have..err..."a bronze-age holy book", haha. : )
winterstellar 1 month ago
@winterstellar Those things dont tell you anything without interpretation. Those who interpret such data dont believe in God, so they have an subjective opinion. I can see the same data and use it prove a different opinion. There is no evidence to prove anything, there is only data! Either way it takes a leap of faith to believe either Evoltion or Creation - but my belief has an answer to life after death. Evolution doesnt! Therefore I choose the one with more answers - not less.
delawarecop 1 month ago
@delawarecop =Those who interpret such data dont believe in God, so they have an subjective opinion. I can see the same data and use it prove a different opinion. There is no evidence to prove anything, there is only data!=
Wrong. Most of us were brought up religious, the reason our faith disappeared was because the evidence directly contradicts religious teaching and because there is no evidence for any of the religious dogmas.
Creation does not give you answers. Evolution does.
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@SeanACampbell So what answer does Evolution give as to the reason for life, and what does Evolution say about life after death? You wont find those answers from any Evolutionist.
They say that they only believe in the facts of what they can see, but then in the very next breath they are talking about Millions or Billions of years ago. Absolute hypocrisy.
Evolutionists are also subjective because they refuse to accept anything about Intelligent Design or a Creator.
delawarecop 1 month ago
@delawarecop You seem to have a clear misunderstanding of what a theory is. It is not an idea, it is not a hypothesis, it is not what we commonly use the word "theory" for. In science, a hypothesis only becomes a theory when it is supported by significant evidence, makes accurate predictions, and is accepted by the scientific community as the best explanation currently available for a given set of facts.
The bible on the other hand does not make useful predictions.
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@delawarecop
"Gravity is a force not a process."
?
IAmARationalApe 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@delawarecop Atoms don't "decide" to do anything. The questions you are asking are well explained by current theories and I think your questions would probably be better explained if you put them into Google rather than YouTube comments. There is simply not enough room in these boxes to answer.
The answers to your questions are found in large science papers - much larger than the 500 characters YouTube will allow us to respond.
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@SeanACampbell I have found all the necessary answers to lifes problems thanks. I dont need to know if the theory of "A holographic Universe" is real or not. I dont need to know many modern 'Theories' to live a happy and fulfilling life because my life has a pupose.
Its the Evolutionists who spend all their lives trying to discedit and disprove a Creator because their lives arent fulfilling. Evolutionists know that when they die, Creationists know they will live forever!
delawarecop 1 month ago
@delawarecop Science is under no obligation to uphold your beliefs. Your beliefs have no special status, it is just another hypothesis. When you gather all the evidence together, whether we like it or not it points to natural processes, an old earth, and evolution by natural selection.
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@SeanACampbell There is no evidence, only measureable facts. Those facts dont point to anything other than what you want to believe. Therefore Evolution is just another religion because it requires faith to believe the facts to be evidence for something other than just facts.
The earth is as old as it was created, and natural selection only works to get rid of some of the unnatural members of a species, eg. homosexuals.
delawarecop 1 month ago
@delawarecop you can't do science if you think your results can be influenced by supernatural entities.
e.g.
Q: Why isn't electricity flowing from this component to this other component? -
A: Maybe God's shorted the wire?
You can't do science like that.
IAmARationalApe 1 month ago
@IAmARationalApe Actually thats my point entirely - thank you! But we can do science to study the effects of the Creators force throughout this universe.
eg. Two objects in space orbit each other by an unknown force which we label as gravity. We can measure its effects, we can calculate orbital paths etc, but we dont know how gravity comes into being, nor do we know what sustains the energy in a supossedly closed system. Gravity is 'work' which creates energy - not consumes it!
delawarecop 1 month ago
@delawarecop -
No. You're making one rule for understanding the science of electromagnetism in a wire and another rule for science gravity in the cosmos. You can't have it both way.
Gravity is a force. It does not create or consume energy any more than the magnetic field of an iron magnet does. You can't get free energy from a magnet and there's no free energy with gravity.
IAmARationalApe 1 month ago
@IAmARationalApe Thank you for yours temporary sound reasoning! That is my point precisely - there is no free energy! So where does the energy come from to move two magnets towards or away form each other? And where does the energy come from for two planets to be pulled towards each other?
There is no doubt that work is being done, so where does the energy come from to do that work?
delawarecop 1 month ago
@delawarecop
I'll answer your question with a question.
Work is defined as the transfer of energy. Where is the energy going when two magnets or planets attract?
IAmARationalApe 1 month ago
@IAmARationalApe Actually work is the energy required to move a mass a certain distance. The energy GOES into moving the magnets because they are the mass which is moving the distance.
More importantly, where does the energy come from to move those masses over the distance?
Well pull them apart with our hands, and they come together again. This can go on for a very long time indeed. So where does all this energy come from?
delawarecop 1 month ago
@delawarecop "work is the energy required to move a mass a certain distance" - that's a high school definition. So when you physically push an object you apply a force over a certain distance you're actually transferring kinetic energy here.
More generally work is the transfer of energy. When you lift a brick off the floor on to a table you transform the kinetic energy to potential energy of the brick.
IAmARationalApe 1 month ago
@delawarecop You are asking where the energy comes from and I am asking where the energy is going to. These are two heads of the same coin. The energy is in the system. It is neither created or destroyed.
IAmARationalApe 1 month ago
@delawarecop It comes from the magnetic field itself. Work done by the field will cause it to weaken over time. There is a lot of energy in a magnetic field, so yes, it does go on for a very long time.
WNxFish 1 month ago
@WNxFish The magnetism isn't used up through use. Magnets do weaken over time but how much the magnet is used during this time is not relevant.
IAmARationalApe 1 month ago
@delawarecop I suspect that you ask these questions not in the quest for knowledge but with an expectation that they cannot be answered.
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@SeanACampbell I know that they cannot be answered honestly, because Evoltuionists have to revert to lies to cover for their idealogical inadequacies. People put so much Faith in science & evolution, but they cannot even solve the most fundamental questionss. Whats the purpose of life? Are we only just flesh & blood - or do we have a spirit? Is their life after death? Why do plants make seeds - do they know they will die? How do seeds know there is water in the ground?
delawarecop 1 month ago
@delawarecop Oh dear. Again, you seem to be confusing scientist with evolutionist. Science is not some giagantic conspiracy to 'hide' the existance of god. Evolution has nothing to do with god. Science seeks only to answer questions whether or not we like the answers.
On to the so called "fundamental questions"
"What is the purpose of life?" - Who said there is a purpose? There doesn't have to be one?
"Do we have a spirit?" Define "spirit"
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@delawarecop "Is there life after death" There is no evidence that there is life after death, so there is no reason to believe that there is.
"Why do plants made seeds - do they know they will die?" Plants, as far as we can tell, do not have the ability to comprehend or reason. As such, no they wouldn't "know" they would die. They create seeds because that is what their biology causes them to do - it is evolutionary successful to do so.
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@SeanACampbell Actually plants produce seeds because of their DNA programming. You are right that a plant cannot comprehend or reason - therefore it couldnt possibly know that it was going to die, or that there was another plant the same living in the near vacinity, or that plant was of the opposite sex, or that there was even enough light, water, soil, nutrients for more plants of its own species to survive.
Thats why it had to be Intelligently programmed into their DNA :)
delawarecop 1 month ago
@delawarecop And the complex crystalline structure contained within a diamond also had to be "intelligently programmed" too then? Massively complex sand dunes, complex weather patterns, snowflakes. . . All of these must have had their complexity programmed too, right? After all, a cloud doesn't know it should form a hurricane, nor does a water droplet know what shape to form.
WNxFish 1 month ago
@delawarecop "How do seeds know there is water in the ground". Again, they don't 'know' anything, they are simply doing what their genome tells them to do. It is an evolutionary advantage to grow roots into the soil. If they did not grow their roots downwards they would be less likely to survive and reproduce. Back during their initial evolution plants which were more likely to grow their roots down and their flowers up had an evolutionary advantage and over time took over those which did not.
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@SeanACampbell I love how you reason for a plant using your own intelligence and impose that upon the reason for why they have adapted - but you have already said that they dont have any comprehension or ability to reason. Plants dont take Millions or Billions of years to evolve either, so their existence can only have come from Intelligent programming in their DNA. Like you said - plants are not self aware, nor do they know anything about soil, nutrients, water, or Photosynthesis
delawarecop 1 month ago
@delawarecop Oh dear lord you have entirely missed the point. Life does not evolve because it "wants" to evolve. It evolves through a natural process whereby the life which is the best able to survive in a particular environment is more likely to reproduce and pass on its genes while life less able to survive does not reproduce as often. We also know DNA changes over time through mutation and the activation/deactivation of genes, meaning that the "child" can be better adapted than its parent
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@delawarecop We do observe these kinds of changes all the time. Every child is an intermeditary step between what came before and what comes after. All children are slightly different from their parents, and their parents slightly different from their parents.
We also can observe mutations in the childs genome, certain pieces of information not in the parent DNA. If we take these two simple facts and then project this over a long period of time you have evolution.
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@delawarecop A plant which developed the ability, through a natural process, to grow roots downwards would have been better adapted than other plants and would have reproduced more and better survived - it didn't want to change, it just did.
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
i don't get it...is it...satirical or something?
SonicRainbowStar 1 month ago
@SonicRainbowStar It's a response to the stonedcommander video in which he expresses his ignorance in a dismissive and somewhat confrontational manner. I would look for the original video for you, but I'm lazy.
TheN0username 1 month ago
@TheN0username thanks, it helps even if you're lazy ;)
SonicRainbowStar 1 month ago
what a loner. potato head dipshit. suck some sagan balls
penameyeahshenyoms 1 month ago
Most frustrating video in the world.
GNoodle 1 month ago
science shit???
Moh5Itachi1 1 month ago
Cute innocent faces, open minds... and somewhere lurking around, is that evil "religion".. wanting to poison these perfectly sensible, rational minds and convert them to something really stupid, silly, crazy, dangerous and of course USELESS. We need to kill it.
tarun1982 2 months ago
@tarun1982 eletist lol
paigerocks884 2 months ago
Loner.
cobloaf1 2 months ago
"Science shit" made his glasses. the cotton clothes on his skin, the computer he used. No humbleness
kabbinet 2 months ago
It's a joke, folks
kcp77777 2 months ago
i like carl sagan .. but this retard that is interrupting all the time is so annoying -.-''
MrSupa321 2 months ago
Gravity pulls an object with enough mass into a spherical shape because the sphere is the geometric form with the least amount of surface area.
Gravity...
Gravity...
Greg042869 2 months ago
Of course you don't understand because you are an idiot. For an idiot it is really hard to explain this kind of stuff.
iannelis 2 months ago
the guy who made this video is a fucking idiot...
Dune1884 2 months ago
You should do us all a favor and go drink the blue stuff under the sink! PS, STAY AWAY FROM BK!
deeppurple28 2 months ago
Where do I find the original video with Carl Sagan
MrHelviti 2 months ago
@MrHelviti Episode 7 of Cosmos, you can find it on Spoon Hysteria's channel.
DoctorNociceptor 2 months ago
@DoctorNociceptor Tnx
MrHelviti 2 months ago
There is wind in space?
Monsolol 2 months ago
Guess what, the earth is not perfectly round
nomogorcio 2 months ago
@nomogorcio Anyone knows that.
MJLionnavy 2 months ago
Yeh, you're about the size of a small planet and your not round.
telfud2 2 months ago
If I would find a perfectly square planet then I would believe in a designer... no I wouldn't, I'd do research.
OptimalElement 2 months ago
1.30 the girl biting her lip really wants Sagan.
SirJNicolas 2 months ago
Sagan answers this creep from beyond the grave.
FrankLightheart 2 months ago
the earth isn't perfectly round... it's an oblate spheroid.
OptikBlast 2 months ago
I believe that the reason the planets are round is because the huge land masses require a great deal of density in order to form and be created. It's like the formation of a star. The entire area must have an extreme heat and density, which allows the molecular clouds of particles and gas to come together and produce an extremely dense land mass.
Asteroids are simply parts of other dense land masses which were severed off the land mass after its formation.
Dokushindansei 2 months ago
@Dokushindansei no
525KILROY 2 months ago
Who the fuck is this fat dick-head who keeps interrupting Carl?
KingOfTheKill10001 2 months ago 5
lol stoners
Dwaithy 2 months ago
@Dwaithy Has nothing to do with intellect.
KingOfTheKill10001 2 months ago
@KingOfTheKill10001 mhm... k bro
Dwaithy 2 months ago
Pwned by sagan, what an honor. This guy is lucky.
Typhzorz 3 months ago
"Some of them shits have been movin' around sense the dawn of man"
DonMezzo 3 months ago 2
Planets are not perfectly round....
samnaps1 3 months ago
@samnaps1 Did he say they were perfectly round?
nocliper101 3 months ago
@nocliper101 0:51
samnaps1 3 months ago
@samnaps1 Meant Sagan
nocliper101 3 months ago
@nocliper101 He too smart to say something like that...
samnaps1 3 months ago
Keep on hitting 2.
RedditFTW 3 months ago
Sorry Sagan but Everest is not the biggest mountain on earth.
TheJamezMan 3 months ago
@TheJamezMan Depending on where you measure from there are actually 3 tallest mountains. One is tallest measured from the earths center of gravity, another is tallest if you measure it from the ocean floor, and Everest has the highest altitude above sea level. He never said which measurement he was basing it off of.
BigBananaMan 3 months ago
@BigBananaMan Everest is the highest, not the biggest. Not the exact same thing.
TheJamezMan 3 months ago
Annoying
knowpassword 3 months ago
"they're perfectly round"
nope.jpg
Edd360 4 months ago
Carl Sagan was the fucking MAN!!!!!
mtanyc 4 months ago 2
2:07 Oh my glob, you guys! It's LUMPY! Dramabomb!
Xsuprio 4 months ago
GRAVITY
MrParombo 4 months ago
Why is your baldy, upside down head perfectly round and shining like a polished egg? Is it because you are so fat that you have your own gravity field and thus your head and body are round, you dumb fucking arse?
CalumGilhooly 4 months ago
@CalumGilhooly xD xD xD not twins I give triplets
julittok 3 months ago
What I want to know is since I learned why planets are round the very first time I asked the question of someone, and since that was before there was an internet at my fingertips....then
1. Did this twat ever actually go to school...ever?
2. Why didn't he type his question into Google before making a total pigs fucking arse of himself?
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
Where can I find the original clip of Sagan?
BeatleJohn420 4 months ago in playlist Liked 3
@BeatleJohn420
/watch?v=Jwr8CLX3NJA
roont 2 months ago
@BeatleJohn420 Clip from Carl Sagan's Cosmos, episode 7, The Backbone of Night.
roont 2 months ago
Gravity...Why does Congress spends too much on military hardware deployed in Iraq & Afghan?
Ans. Because of the GRAVITY of the situation.
pogpog28 4 months ago
Sagan actually makes a good point. If you study the equations (Newton's formulas), you'll see that you need ALOT of mass to be able to create a strong force of gravity. That is why gravity is considered weaker than the other three (electromagetism and weak/strong-nuclear force).
Wasserrauschen 4 months ago
some of them shits have been flying around for years
TWmovies 4 months ago
dopey dick
boliver71w1 4 months ago
STOP INTERRUPTING SAGAN! LET HIM FUCKING SPEAK
wroth 5 months ago 65
R.I.P. Carl Sagan... =/
kamikasedude 5 months ago
I love Sagan!
somaticcinema 6 months ago
He kept saying "why are the planets round" because he is trying to make you realize it's because of gravity.
thebigbluedino 6 months ago