ITS HERE! Cosmos with Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson: A Space Time Odyssey Series

[Poetical Poltergeist]

Claim science has no proof but believe everything written in the bible brehs.

 

[Pawn]

No I chose to believe in what I believe in independently. But its no different than the atheist who grew up in a household where he was told when he dies he just rots in the ground and was indoctrined on atheist beliefs.

The thing is, you darwinian evolutionists are always so high and mighty but you have less evidence / proof of your beliefs than creationists do. You claim to be so intellectual yet you cant explain the logic in what you believe. You blindly follow "expert" hypotheses with zero proof yet act like its the only viable solution and anyone that dares think otherwise is a complete and utter moron. Again let me reiterate, there is zero proof of darwinian evolution and there never ever will be. Darwin himself described an event that would nullify his conclusions if ever proved to have existed, cambrian explosion, yet the "intellectuals" will support this asinine theory until the death. If you really believe fish colonized the land and became us eventually, then god help you and your feeble brains. A fish on land wouldnt have been able to survive to let natural selection take its course. And why arent fish jumpin out the water now? Why has darwinian evolution ceased all of a sudden? is the incognizant mother nature done creating & transforming animals into new animals? Oh wait, mother nature has determined my survival rate would increase if I grew wings so check it out yall im starting to slowly evolve into a birdbut its gonna take billions of years

Chemical Entropy of an "open" system can be a subtle beast, friend.

A New Thermodynamics Theory of the Origin of Life | Simons Foundation

Spoiler

n/gi

(no godless infidel) btw

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

They are still BEARS !

Show me proof of change of KIND

Adaptation does not explain that

This is actually kinda perfect.

There was PRECISELY a clip explaining the evolution of bears in like the second episode

 

[Hulk Hogan]

Show me proof of change of KIND

PLEASE SHOW US YOUR SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION OF THE TERM "KIND" BROTHER!

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Everytime. For the most part I feel like I'm not learning anything new, but the way the show presents it gives me such a deeper understanding.

Not a complaint, but I feel like when I watch this show it's like .


You gotta follow it through, but it always leads to an end that makes you want more.

I THINK he was referring to Cherekov radiation, but that part about the neutrinos still has me

I wish I understood the math behind why its faster than light but...

Cherenkov radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[DOUBLEPOST=1397534042][/DOUBLEPOST]

funny, another cop out. Theres "plenty" of evidence. And like you have any idea what happens in 4 billion years. In order for your theory or belief to be accurate, it requires that first courageous fish that went out to live on land no? so how did that fish survive? It didnt. It didnt have time to evolve like you would assume because every time it stepped out of the water it would instantly die. It didnt have lungs then and it doesnt have lungs now. The fukking thought of thousands or millions of fish leaving the water and colonizing land is so fukking ridiculous its amazing all you gullible tools blindly believe in that shyt.

...and you do?

 

[bigesco]

Your whole preposterous theory hinges on the fact that a fish gradually transformed into another animal and that other animal gradually transformed into another animal. Different types of animals. Not different features on the same kind of animal. Wheres your proof? Since you dont have any and use time as a cop out, then you are blindly following a belief just like religious people. Not to mention that your theory is utterly ridiculous and contains more fables than the bible. Stay "enlightened" my "intellectual" brethern.

You know I love watching this show and the whole time Im watching it, Im amazed how the obvious link between all of the scientific wonders of the universe and a creator are totally ignored. I mean just like you guys believe in a theory with no proof, why is the theory of a creator so outlandish? Why is it so ridiculous? How can such perfect complexity in everything, even on an atomic level, be the result of randomness created by an incognizant force? Why must it be one or the other, why is it either science or a creator? Why cant science explain the creator and the creator explain science? The chance / randomness explanation to life and everything around us has astronomical odds of being accurate it is virtually impossible. And again, how can incognizant forces adapt, develop, create, enhance,produce,rationalize,capitalize, etc. without being aware and having no consciousness? The signs of a creator are much more prevalent than randomness or "Mother Nature". And what is exactly "Mother Nature"? Is it alive? is it aware? Is it analytical? Is it a being? A force? This supposed creator of everything, what is it exactly supposed to be? An incognizant creator

 

[Hawaiian Punch]

I THINK he was referring to Cherekov radiation, but that part about the neutrinos still has me

I wish I understood the math behind why its faster than light but...

Cherenkov radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[DOUBLEPOST=1397534042][/DOUBLEPOST]

I don't think the neutrino is traveling faster than light, but rather it does not interact with matter the way a photon does. That's why during a supernova neutrinos are detected first. When the core of a star collapses the neutrinos will escape first, because they pass through all the matter of a star. The photons are still bouncing around the core of the star, but get ejected once the star explodes, which may be hours or days after the neutrinos left.


But yea I too wish I had a deeper understanding of the math involved behind these interactions. It's funny that in school I was more concerned with passing the test, but now I want to fully understand the process.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

Creationist Cosmos from Funny Or Die, Timothy Simons, Charles Ingram, NickCorirossi, Jack Allison, Emily Strachan, Jason Carden, Sean Dacanay, Brian Lane, Jessica Leigh Schwartz, Candy Lopez, and Becca Scheuer[DOUBLEPOST=1397591358][/DOUBLEPOST]

Your whole preposterous theory hinges on the fact that a fish gradually transformed into another animal and that other animal gradually transformed into another animal. Different types of animals. Not different features on the same kind of animal. Wheres your proof? Since you dont have any and use time as a cop out, then you are blindly following a belief just like religious people. Not to mention that your theory is utterly ridiculous and contains more fables than the bible. Stay "enlightened" my "intellectual" brethern.

You know I love watching this show and the whole time Im watching it, Im amazed how the obvious link between all of the scientific wonders of the universe and a creator are totally ignored. I mean just like you guys believe in a theory with no proof, why is the theory of a creator so outlandish? Why is it so ridiculous? How can such perfect complexity in everything, even on an atomic level, be the result of randomness created by an incognizant force? Why must it be one or the other, why is it either science or a creator? Why cant science explain the creator and the creator explain science? The chance / randomness explanation to life and everything around us has astronomical odds of being accurate it is virtually impossible. And again, how can incognizant forces adapt, develop, create, enhance,produce,rationalize,capitalize, etc. without being aware and having no consciousness? The signs of a creator are much more prevalent than randomness or "Mother Nature". And what is exactly "Mother Nature"? Is it alive? is it aware? Is it analytical? Is it a being? A force? This supposed creator of everything, what is it exactly supposed to be? An incognizant creator

 

[Hulk Hogan]

Show me proof of change of KIND

PLEASE SHOW US YOUR SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION OF THE TERM "KIND" BROTHER!

 

[Entropy Fan]

Theists are taking MASSIVE L's

You've said this a dozen times, we get it.

He crapped on christians actually not theist[DOUBLEPOST=1397662962][/DOUBLEPOST]

agreed.
Question though (and no there's not "theist ulterior motive") Is that a theory on how the eye formed or do we have fossil evidence to prove that? Shyt made sense to me just wasn't sure if it was what we "think" happened or what we KNOW and can proved happened?

was wondering same thing. Seems like they were predicting how sight came to be. Any concrete proof?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

You've said this a dozen times, we get it.

He crapped on christians actually not theist

Same thing. Anything you assert based on faith is inherently lacking evidence.

was wondering same thing. Seems like they were predicting how sight came to be. Any concrete proof?

Yes. There is proof. Its not a prediction

Light sensitive cells can be studied across species and how they acutely grow. Read through the thread. This has been discussed.

Its of the most concrete facts we have about how evolution has worked

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Your whole preposterous theory hinges on the fact that a fish gradually transformed into another animal and that other animal gradually transformed into another animal.

Yes. Happens all the time.

You know all dogs are the same, right? Do you know what allows sperm and egg cells to fuse across species but not across animals that seem similar?

Different types of animals. Not different features on the same kind of animal. Wheres your proof?

Since you dont have any and use time as a cop out, then you are blindly following a belief just like religious people. Not to mention that your theory is utterly ridiculous and contains more fables than the bible. Stay "enlightened" my "intellectual" brethern.

We study other things like ribosomal RNA. Do you know what that is?

You know I love watching this show and the whole time Im watching it, Im amazed how the obvious link between all of the scientific wonders of the universe and a creator are totally ignored.

Except "god" doesnt answer anything, so even if you included it such a notion, it does nothing to explain anything.

I mean just like you guys believe in a theory with no proof, why is the theory of a creator so outlandish?

There IS proof.

Why is it so ridiculous? How can such perfect complexity in everything, even on an atomic level, be the result of randomness created by an incognizant force?

Then why doesn't the rest of the universe look the same then? Thats kidna the flaw in your argument. Not everything is "fine tuned"

Why must it be one or the other, why is it either science or a creator? Why cant science explain the creator and the creator explain science?

because you can't pressuppose the conclusion to something that has no evidence to support it. Thats not how discovery and proof works.

The chance / randomness explanation to life and everything around us has astronomical odds of being accurate it is virtually impossible.

Would you rather the odds work against you? I don't udnerstand this argument.

And again, how can incognizant forces adapt, develop, create, enhance,produce,rationalize,capitalize, etc. without being aware and having no consciousness?

Do you know how basic chemistry builds upon itself to create more complex systems? At the core, its all: gravity and electricity

The signs of a creator are much more prevalent than randomness or "Mother Nature". And what is exactly "Mother Nature"? Is it alive? is it aware? Is it analytical? Is it a being? A force? This supposed creator of everything, what is it exactly supposed to be? An incognizant creator

You're asking all these questions, yet not accepting any explanations of anything we've presented.

Frankly, the fact you have a problem with this assumes you have a problem with middle and high school education...because The Cosmos is taught at that level and its expected most high school graduates already know this.

If I explain how something works and god doesn't need to be in the answer, why do you keep insisting we're missing something?

 

[The region 219]

Fish who don't live in water?? Yeah, we found some..

Wonderful Things: Leaping Fish Spends Entire Life on Land | The Artful Amoeba, Scientific American Blog Network

Science bombs!!

 

[Entropy Fan]

Same thing. Anything you assert based on faith is inherently lacking evidence.


Yes. There is proof. Its not a prediction

Light sensitive cells can be studied across species and how they acutely grow. Read through the thread. This has been discussed.

Its of the most concrete facts we have about how evolution has worked

Studying cells across species and knowing for a fact thats how humans got sight arent the same thing. Is there proof that thats how humans got sight? I wanna see it. Where are all the species between say humans and single celled ameobas?? Studying the sight of insects and coming up with theories and proving that humans evolved sight from a random error arent the same thing.

And faith lacking evidence and faith being disproved are not remotely the same thing. Neil shytted on christianity only.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Studying cells across species and knowing for a fact thats how humans got sight arent the same thing. Is there proof that thats how humans got sight? I wanna see it. Where are all the species between say humans and single celled ameobas?? Studying the sight of insects and coming up with theories and proving that humans evolved sight from a random error arent the same thing.

And faith lacking evidence and faith being disproved are not remotely the same thing. Neil shytted on christianity only.

Dude. This show is made for people who fell asleep in high school.

Do you want a college level breakdown of biochemistry and evolutionary biology? If so, let me know and I'll dust off my text books.

Otherwise, stop asking complex questions to have two sentence answers.

Let me know how deep you want to go here...otherwise, stop wasting our time because your education failed you.