Neil deGrasse Tyson vs. Young Earth Creationism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 окт 2024
- A fan reports that the Creation Museum cites an old, pre-Hubble discrepancy about the age of the oldest stars (18 billion years old) and the age of the universe (15 billion years old) as evidence against science and for the Young Earth Creationism belief that the universe is just thousands of years old. Watch astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson and Eugene Mirman debunk their claim, discussing why creationism shouldn't be considered real science, and also how we can sometimes end up with mistakes in scientific data that lead to blunders like "fast tachyons."
Don't miss out on any StarTalk news. Sign up for our free newsletter: www.startalkrad...
Catch up with StarTalk Radio around the web:
iTunes - bit.ly/SOHDg6
SoundCloud - / startalk
Stitcher - www.stitcher.co...
Twitter - #!...
Facebook - / startalkradio
Google+ - goo.gl/ZP59S
Pinterest - / startalk
Tumblr - / startalkradio
Instagram - / startalkradio
![Eminem - Temporary (feat. Skylar Grey) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZaK9Wi5ho0o/mqdefault.jpg)
How do you skip "oh cool the universe is older than we thought" to "scientists are wrong about everything!!"
*****
A beautiful summary. I applaud you.
***** I want to know who the bald guys are?
There are a lot of things that they are doing right. How do the rockets make it to so far and back again? They don't always fail, so you are wrong.? Who worked out how to make a computer (so you could make such a mindless creationists supposition)? Your computer works, but your brain doesn't cos it's full creationists senseless clap-trap.
Science is a method for investigating and expanding knowledge so information always changes but it doesn't necessarily mean a fact is wrong, just incomplete. We seek the best explanation based on the best verifiable data available. But learning that something is completely different than we thought is exciting. Why would anyone want to continue to believe something that new evidence shows is false? Being wrong is fine. Refusing to accept that it's wrong is not fine. That's why science progresses so rapidly. We discard mistakes. That is something religion can't do and why you can't really learn anything factual from it.
Religious dogmatists twisting everything to justify what they should accept on faith.
“If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.”
― Richard P. Feynman
@justspazzin 64 no, because using science to verify science would just be circular. there is only levels of certainty, which can be subjective
@@keithforbes4544 so we are using books to verify things from now on? Well in that case I'm Harry Potter
Right
Feynman is the real deal not this clown and Feynman is smart enough to know he doesn’t understand God and his ways.
@@bluwng "not this clown?" Tyson is an excellent science communicator, also a very good astrophysicist, too, and a great author, as well. I don't recall Feynman being able to do all of those things. 🤔🤨😏
“Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance.” - Confucius
ruclips.net/video/Hll1mY0OK8E/видео.html
The person that created evolution lied about it. Its even in his own journal he wrote about.
@@jesuscaresaboutyou100 Evolutionists don't know how much they don't know about this.
And they think appealing to their lack of knowledge somehow entails they're smarter. Lol
I was suprised when I found out 38% of adult Americans believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Then I remembered the Evangelical population is about 35% of the population. 🤦♂️🤣🤣
No say earth Is 4.6 billion years old
Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be SAVED! Jesus loves you! ruclips.net/video/shyI-aQaXD0/видео.html
Ashamed that 62% think otherwise.
@@GodzillaFreak you DO realize the people that created the technology that allowed you to share your comment are among that 62% right?
🤦♂️🤣🤣
@@davidsotomayor8713 And you realize that the foundations of science were laid down by the now 38%, former ~90% of past generations right?
Best qoute by Neil deGrasse Tyson: " Dont accept. Dont deny. Figure it out for yourself"
Freethinking is pretty delusional in my book. Dont think so hard your brain falls out.
Some people cant “figure it out themselves” and are incapable.
Creationist: "Ok, i'll just believe every single thing in this one book."
Excatly my way of thinking.
Uh huh. Now name a single issue where Neil goes against the mainstream narrative. Now consider how often the mainstream narrative is wrong. Uh...he's the opposite of a free thinker. At least he's paid quite handsomely for it.
I'm a Christian who agnowledges that evolution happened and I hate the 6000 year old earth hypothesis
@John J oh shut up. Science isn't a master it's a fact. It's you young earth creationists and atheists who try to divide Christianity and say that evolution contradicts it.
@John J it's like saying that you can't be a globe earther and Christian like how retarted is that?
@John J lol u don't need to pray for me in that area. Ironically you are the ignorant one.
@John J There is no contradiction. People who believe that tends to be the ones not informed enough.
Hey don't believe in these scentis and government they lie . Earth is 6000 years
We are using science as evidence against science?
Like Senpai no he is stating the contradictions within science to disprove it
They are using bad science and misinformation to discredit what science they need to to justify their beliefs to those who may be unconvinced.
ruclips.net/video/d-ZtBc0RUHk/видео.html
In science newly discovered evidence is not ignored even if contradicts previous theories. Science doesnt have a script to stick to like religion does, it's always changing as we discover new things.
There is a old say iron cuts iron.
those mics are such poor quality
I was thinking the same. Maybe they forgot to hit record, and used the audio from the video camera's built in mics.
And here's our second most popular video of the year: Neil deGrasse Tyson vs. Young Earth Creationism Neil deGrasse Tyson vs. Young Earth Creationism
I sometimes get tired of this debate. "Creationism" verses "Evolution" I mean... We all want "truth". In a way, the search for the truth defines us as a species... Science is a self correcting method to discover the truth; the best system yet devised by mankind. The creation myth is just that, a "myth". It is a beautiful story, but it is still just a story, written long ago by people who did not have science. I'm sure that if we were living in any other culture, we would be debating a different religious tenant. Why do we sometimes choose to "believe" a contradictory story, when we have certain facts at hand? If this whole argument was presented in a rational court of law, creation would be thrown out. Science would rightfully prevail.
Jeffrey Powell
Creation actually did lose in a court of law already.
Jeffrey Powell David was referring to the Dover School trial in 2005, where the Creationists lost. At the Scopes trial, in 1925, they won. We do have some progress.
Eric14492
Sounds like the right direction to me. :)
hecanet
Much like how a murderer in the 1940's would get away clean, while the same murderer in the 2000's would be found guilty. Advancing technology, and the recession of ignorance. So no, I never wonder about that. Christianity is slowly, but surely, dieing.
my biggest question is: how come you guys are still having this "science vs creationism" discussion? Anywhere else in the world creationism is being laughed at and not even considered topic matter for a serious debate.
Because we live in America, the land where you're free to be as ignorant as you like, and many people proudly exercise that freedom >_< .
Actually there are many places in the world where this is still an issue.
Travis Frazier I know. But America still ranks #1 in belief of religious ideas that contradict science. So while it's a problem everywhere, it's at its worst here.
Travis Frazier yes, but then we are talking mostly in 3rd world countries. Not in the western Hemisphere.
MrLleuwelyn You clearly said "Anywhere else in the world" not "the western Hemisphere."
Not to mention that belief in creationism is about as high in many other western countries
Great Rao I'm nerd... when he said "you can't be older then your mother" I thought "well actually if you had a really fast rocket..."
+Aibohphobe No its a simple application of the twin paradox. Send your mother on a round trip at relativistic but sublight speeds and less time will pass for her then for you. Lets say you're 25 and she is 50. She takes a quick tour of neighboring star systems that takes 3 years of time for her but 30 years pass here on earth. She'll be 53 when she gets back and you'll be 55.
To get to that 10 to 1 time dilation it looks like you just need to get to 99% light speed.
+Aibohphobe Correct, but that was never what I was suggesting, Time is moving forward for both you and your mother its just that thanks to time dilation less time passes for your mother.
Right dude 😂
No interstellar that hurt my brain enough
New Video: It’s science vs. creationism! Watch astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson and comic co-host Eugene Mirman debunk the Creation Museum claims that science is wrong about the age of the universe: Neil deGrasse Tyson vs. Young Earth Creationism
What definition of "science" are you using, and why do you associate it with a particular theory? I thought science was supposed to be a way of testing theories.
How is this no a pinned comment?
There's nothing mentioned about the young earth theories, just how there were conflicting estimates of the age of the universe versus stars as measured in billions of years.
Normal people get tired of playing “creationist whack-a-mole.” Do you have a specific question? If you are a YEC and have questions, just take a class at your local community college.
The neat thing about that is that we know when they're flawed and when they cause problems and we know how to avoid those flaws and problems. Doesn't invalidate the dating methods at all, just means that you need to use the right tool for the job and take care you don't screw it up.
Heres a video- ruclips.net/video/Hll1mY0OK8E/видео.html
@@jesuscaresaboutyou100 You know that there's a commandment that says not to lie right?
But to sidestep the claims in that video... None of that matters. Lyell and Darwin could be drunk lying morons who made it up, but that doesn't change the fact that an unbelievably overwhelming body of evidence confirms the world is over 4 billion years old, the universe is 13 billion years old and we evolved from ancient apes.
Evolution is true. Young earth creationism is a lie.
Heres the video.
ruclips.net/video/hRoQL7W5jg8/видео.html
Carbon dating (which is what they used to estimate the age of rocks to be 4.5 billion) can only be used on organic matter. It is not how you date rocks.
It's impossible to find absolute factual evidence, science's job is to find the closest thing to what we can currently find with technology.
I've never understood how people can take that to mean "therefore religion is right". The premise doesn't follow the conclusion.
Because the only way they can push their belief is to make a claim and not back it up by evidence but by their scriptures since they don't understand what empirical evidence is
It boggles my mind that people believe in young earth and creationism
+It's Jake it's a symptom called "crank magnetism"
equally boggling is they demand everybody else believe the same crap. Worse they expect to knock science out of school so they can peddle the idiocy to children.
CJ99 I recently came out of young earth creationism. It isnt even consistent with the Bible is you study the original words and their meaning but even more, it doesnt even match any scientific facts. You guys probably disagree with my belief in Jesus, but I need some help. Soon at my school (its Christian) we will go over evolution for 2 week and I KNOW there will be anti evolution thrown in my face. Im the only one in my class or at the school who accepts Evolution. Could you guys help give me the best evidence for evolution?
DarkX your best bets are Neil deGrasse Tyson, and a youtube cannel called Aron Ra who does a whole series of videos. I haven't seen all of them but he's gotta lot of material that leaves n rocks for the people pushing BS to hide under. I too came out of similar stuff to what you endured. It's not consistant with anything factual at all. As you've probably heard its all based on a geneology in the buybull that lists a whole string of ancestors dating back to adam along with their ages, all of which were 900+ years which clearly impossible for human life on this planet at any time. As for you being the only 1 in your class who accepts the facts, that sounds like you need a new school pronto. Any school teaching such bs isn't gonna give you a diploma worth more than its weight in toilet paper.
As for belief in Jesus go ahead n keep believing, not being sarcastic about that either as it sounds like your not forcing the idiotic bullshit on others as too many christians do. What I do know is that he's not as described in the bible for the most part. What is attributed to him is so far beyond MPD its unlikely to be describing the same person n certainly not all real. I can't prove he even existed (nor do I have to) either way. 1 thing I've realized n I think you have too is theres too much in religion (not just christianity) thats completely false, blatant lies n much of that can only be described as psychotic (though some parts do make sense those are rare indeed).
1 last thing: kinda funny you replied today when theres another yec video today when several of the more fascist minded religious lunatics have gone on the attack. 1 in perticular resorting to hate speech. I miss the days when blocking the iroc's on youtube meant their bullshit was rendered invisible site wide.
CJ99 Ok thanks! Ive heard of Aron Ra. And yes I dont like forcing my beliefs of others. its just plain wrong. And Ya maybe there are lies in my Belief but the Christian religion is not accurate though. They go against the Bible on many thing. 1 is there is no such thing as Hell. its mistranslation and misinterpreted. So Ya, I will keep studying and maybe I'll find errors that disprove my belief. I dont consider me a Christian bcuz that name has been used for other people like young earth creationists and stuff. But I appreciate your kind comment. Ive been receiving many rude comment from people especually Christians. So I now tend to move away from them a lot more. So ya, as a believer in Jesus, I do not intend to force my belief on you. I respect your opinion. So again thanks for your help. Another reason why I do not follow the Christian/Catholic Church is bcuz many early church members right after Constantine "converted" to christianity is that many pagan ideas and practices were assimilated into the religion. Such as Sunday worship. It was originally worship of the Sun. Hence the name "Sun" day. And many others.
Sorry for the long post. Just thought I'd share this. Again, thanks for the help.
I dream of a world where all people know the difference between a hypothesis and a scientific theory. Some day it would be nice to be able to not run into the asinine argument, "It is just a theory and so is no stronger than my belief that has no evidence that supports it over any other idea."
I've met people in Africa who didn't believe in microorganisms. I was about 10 then and I showed them saliva under a toy microscope, they believed that there where microorganisms . I would rather have those people in America, than people who are creationists, and believe in microorganisms. They have an excuse, not the people in America who still abide by creationism.
Because you see light in the sky this proves that God doesn't exist, just like looking under a microscope proves microorganisms? Ugh, what? That's completely illogical. How do lights in the sky disprove creationism?
@@mikemolaro4198the evidence of creationism is poor and disputed.
@@hilmanh2832 that's not an argument. It's just words. If you've read any literature in the last decade, with all the breakthroughs in understanding genetics and DNA, evolution is looking far less likely. In fact if you take our current understanding about the average rate of mutation, we would need trillions of years of life on earth, not billions, to even approach getting the amount of diversity of life from a single celled life.
What problem? The fact that a creation museum even exists in the first place? AWESOME. He's just saying what we're all thinking.
The fact that this "creation museum" dishonor the gods. This "museum" made no mention of lord prometheus, who loved humans, unlike the false abrahamic God who placed a dangerous tree within reach of humans
Your thinking that alternative views should be repressed? Remember repression is a very totalitarian idea.
@@JasonConradHuntley certain batshit crazy ideas should be repressed like the flat earth and young earth model
@what
and how do you know it never happened dear friend?? where you a personal eye witness at the dawn of creation??
please share with us your personal first hand testimony since you are so sure
There is a difference between what we measure and what we believe. Prior to my last operation I was told to count backwards from ten to zero. When I woke up from the fog I finished the countdown but no one was in the room. My belief system concluded the operation was interrupted and that I was put back in the waiting room. Perhaps a major accident occurred and things had to be postponed. Then my friend walked in and said, "Hey man. What took you so long to wake? It has been four hours!"
Creatards won't listen to evidence if it goes against their _revealed truth_.
If you shove a watermelon up their ass they will.
Richard Dawkins said in a interview that a group of astrophysicists are trying to come up with the answer of how the universe came into existence! So, what does that tell you Mr. Huso?
Big Mike2014
It tells me absolutely nothing I didn't already know. What does it tell you?
It tells me Mr. Huso that this world didn't come into existence through the big bang theory!
Big Mike2014
The big bang theory is the explanatory model for the expansion of space-time. It doesn't address the earliest part of the expansion of the singularity before less than a fraction of a second. Therefore Richard Dawkins is correct to say we're still looking for the answers. The big bang theory predicted things like the microwave background radiation, which we've seen. We're using the polarization of this background radiation now to learn even more about the earliest part of the expansion.
However, it's a false dichotomy to say that if science doesn't yet have an answer to something then your personal sky-daddy must be the responsible party. That's answering a real problem with nothing. Saying goddidit is not finding out anything about the universe itself. It's akin to closing your eyes to an Ansel Adams photograph or closing your ears to a Mozart symphony. You may choose to live your life with blinders on, but we won't.
So you have him debate the idea but not anyone who's actually respected in the field. I'll say this is just an echo chamber instead of the less polite term of a circle....
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." Robert Jastrow Astronomer and physicist
Listening for evidence or measurement formulas...nothing but pride.
🤦 Did you skip High School?
In physics we always give a measure as an interval. For instance, I may time an object falling and say it took 12.16±2.35 seconds to fall. The first number (12.16) is the average of multiple measures, and the second number (2.35) is the error. The problem is that "normal" people don't use/understand this, so when it is translated to the general public, usually they drop the second part and say it's 12.16 seconds.
That is SO interesting!
Sooo just say it fall at X seconds on average. Not rocket science.
Believing in something that is consistent with everything else we know about the universe through science is different than believing in something completely off the wall.
creationism is like jumping off a cliff hoping there is a net it may be there but science is looking first and knowing if its there
also what if science is true and there is still a god the scence we are finding out is just how he did it #godstartedevolution
+daniel rodney finally a person who believes in science and religion they can peacefully coexist
Marcus Machado At what pointing time did God then decide that Humans were his favourite toy?
We walk by faith, not by sight.
@@ericmago4110 the only beings who say were gods favorite toy is humans quite the example of pride/hubris(which is a sin if I remember correctly
You know, if in primary school, kids were taught the importants of the scientific method along with the importance to reason, logic and evidence, we'd have a lot less nutters in the world going on about gods, and conspiracies etc. I'm sure the only nutters left would be the severely intellectually challenged.
Why cant religon and science coexist peacefully
@@markm.9188 Because religion refuses to accept the findings of science. The worlds religions insist their gods of the east and the gods of the west are the only source of knowledge, and thus we have factional wars each claiming their view of the sun is correct, and in the middle, is logic, reason and science shaking it's head in disbelief! Science has no beef with either side.
Don’t forget about the lessoned groups of group think sheepols who follow/believe whatever they are told. I have a feeling that if kids where taught to look with logic and an un objective attude. We would have a much different future. As of now our future is bleak from all the bleat bleat bleaters and their group ignorance.
Wake up! There is a reason evolutionists don't want to teach the scientific method or critical thinking because they are wrong and have ZERO observations and ZERO testimony. Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be SAVED! Jesus loves you! ruclips.net/video/shyI-aQaXD0/видео.html
These debates just astonish me. Its like having a flat earth vs round earth "debate".
Ya I know! There are actually people out there who think life created itself naturally and the earth is flat. It's insanity.
"Stars older than the universe" shows the strength of science because instead of disproving all cosmology the scientists said "well, that can't be so" and looked for an explanation. As Richard Feynman said "It doesn't matter how elegant your theory is, if it doesn't match the facts it's wrong".
Jesus loves you! ruclips.net/video/shyI-aQaXD0/видео.html
Comment didn't age well huh?
i always come to listen to Dr. Tyson, then i always inevitably look at comments and im sucked into a theist tard vacuum. geez
I love how every time a creationist post a video about proving that their ideas are right they never leave the comment section open.
I love how that isnt true and only exposes you've probably only watched a few videos and think you have a handle on the subject.
@@JuanMendoza-qd5lm Can’t argue with that
Watch Kent Hovind for a few weeks. He leaves them open. Matt Powell. Don Patton doesn't have one but his lectures are great too.
Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be SAVED! Jesus loves you! ruclips.net/video/shyI-aQaXD0/видео.html
When certain special pairs of molecules combined to form a larger compound, they sometimes came out with protections that neither had alone. Amino acids did not magically become life, their was a chemical reaction involved. They have already created self replicating RNA in a lab and computer simulations show how RNA can evole into DNA.
Okay what's ur point? They obviously reached a limit of some sort. Ur comment supports Intelligent Design rather than debunks it.
This comment is to Daniel Irving and his comment on the coelacanth. That particular fish had been 'thought' to be extinct, because no one had actually seen one in a few hundred years. That is different then 'based on facts and scientific evidence'. Given the fact that humans could not explore the oceans the way we can now, you can see why people 'thought' the coelacanth was 'thought' to be extinct. So, when one was found in the late 1960's, scientists were surprised.
The cosmic microwave background, the expansion of the universe and the life cycles of stars says different..
Type Ia supernovae can be used as 'standard candles'.. By comparing the distances to these exploding stars with the redshift of their host galaxies, we noticed that the redshift is greater for more distant objects.. Putting the times and distances together, you can calculate how fast the universe was expanding at different times and even estimate the age (14.8bill).. Hope that helps.
First, biblical scholars actually have narrowed it down (according to them).
Second, i was being sarcastic. The entire story is riddled with logical holes:
1) If god is omniscient, why did he create us with faults which will lead to eve eating the apple?
2) If he made us faulty by default , why screw with us? Kinda cruel.
3) if he didnt expect us to eat the apple, isnt he omniscient?
4) if it wasnt us but the devil, then he isnt very ominpotent is he?
Reached youtube comment limit. got more.
Noam Mendelssohn you just don't understand the bible. (this is sarcasm)
W Gaston is right.
Gods omnipotents or allknowingness is not in question. He made everything perfect. Even the angels an humans.
But He didn't want beings that would love and obey automatically, so God built in the ability to choose.
Man chose to wanting to be like God, but instead he died; meaning, his spirit died. His spirit was no longer in contact with Gods spirit. And thats how he came to be corrupt. Jesus came to pay for all of our sins. And whoever believes in Jesus, will be saved. Gods Spirit makes their spirit alive again, to live forever.
Those who don't believe stay dead forever. This death is not a state of unconsciousness, but it means eternal pain and suffering in a lake burning with fire.
Jesus came to save us from that inevitable fait. The devil and his deamons will not be saved from this same fait. That punishment was meant for them, not for humans. The humans that do end up there, are there by choice.
@W Gaston But the thing is if they weren't born with a fault or any mistakes then they would be perfectly moral like Jesus. So if they are perfectly moral like Jesus then the moral thing to do would be to honour your parent, which in this case being God by obeying God. Therefore why did Adam and Eve eat the apple?
And even if Adam and Eve weren't morally perfect why make the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Because if the knowledge of good and evil is obtained through eating a fruit from a tree wouldn't this have implied that Adam/Eve didn't know what good or evil was before they ate the fruit? Wouldn't that mean God punished people who were ignorant that it was wrong to disobey him? After all why would they think it's wrong when they didn't know what good or evil was? Why is it that later on in exdous God killed every first born CHILD in Egypt? And even if you use the "old testament doesn't count excuse" God is omniscient meaning he knows everything, therefore he can't change his mind on morals due to knowing them already, because that would imply he changed his mind from a mistake. That's impossible, because his perfect. None of this make sense. Unless the sad truth is this is a fictional book not a holy book. And that a lot of people were lied to like many other religions. After all either one religion is right or none are right.
I'm a young earth creationist. I came here to maybe talk about my beliefs and how I understand the world. My faith helps me in my life and I love God. So that being said, we need to have a dialogue about this stuff because there's a lot of misunderstanding on both sides. So feel free to AMA... UPDATE: I have to stop because people got upset and wrote out these long posts which I did read out of respect but you all need to know I was doing this to see what kinds of responses I could get. I'm not trolling. I just wanted to see what would happen. In reality I'm not religious.
+Vic Vinegar What's AMA?
Frabbledabble ask me anything
To me it boils down to one question: Is man allowed real freedom from whatever god there may or may not be?
You either consider humanity inescapably bound by some devine contract, or you dont...
Either we are someone elses play things, or we are our own masters...
There are only those 2 camps.
+Vic Vinegar You seem nice but I have no questions because the issue has been settled. The Earth is not 6,000 years old. It is much older. We have evidence that it is and none that can really support the idea that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Hell, we now know that Humanity is older than that.
Your faith means nothing in science.
If only people still lived to be 900 years old like they did in the bible, we could ask their opinion.
But they never did.
+Theron Guard exactly.
There is hardly any character in the Bible which existed for real including the central character of Christian Mythology.
Impossible to believe that people in the bible actually lived up to 900 years, and that is like saying cancer did not exist back then, and other major illnesses. I would say any where between their 30s to 50s if they were lucky.
@@favinjae6255 There is no evidence that those two existed, just fictional characters from the Bible.
Title isn’t an accurate description…
There wasn’t much of a breakdown of the argument.. he just said “we have measurements of stars”..
why should we be allowed to listen or believe in either argument?
You never get scientists telling us evolution didn't happen. So many well-funded creationists, and still they can't find a flaw in evolution that can be solved by creationism.
That's just a lie. Jesus loves you! ruclips.net/video/shyI-aQaXD0/видео.html
@@MichaelAChristian1 OMG! Another Hovind minion. ruclips.net/p/PLXJ4dsU0oGMLoyAV1oa_wjPWFHGpzF618
"a few billion here and there"
Our version of light is expanded so we see it taking time when it actually takes almost no time to arrive.
Expanded time and expanded space is the appearance of billions of years.
If the universe is only 6000 years old, wouldn't there be a lot fewer stars visible in the night sky?
Ken Welch none actually
The universe was created mature. Adam and Eve would appear to be middle aged the instant after creation. When "super scientist" NDT provides that as evidence against the creation model he is proving that he is not very bright or extremely dishonest.
There is no reason to believe that universe is 6000 years old other than that you were indoctrinated to believe that. If there is any other valid reason tell me.
Atheist frog jibbers
Logic does not apply in the land of fantasy, shit can be however you imagine it to be.
I know this from 7 years ago. Interesting to note that they have now nearly (or completely?) stopped light and have also sped it up. The speed of light is not a constant.
The speed of light _photons_ is not a constant. The "speed of light" is a misnomer which simply refers to the maximum speed limit in the universe, not necessarily to the speed that photons of light travel.
Science: 1 Religion: 0
More like science: 142442478326790 religion: 0
Science: 1 Cults: 0
More like Science and Religion: 1 cause i believe in both
can you imagine all the stars in the universe with about 10000000000000000000000000 suns in the visible universe alone and all being less than 6000 light years from earth.
If that was the case , we would all fry to death, the universe could not sustain life. Go to a time 100,000 years after the Big Bang when the cosmic temperature was similar to that of the Sun's surface, about 10832 °F. Now imagine a sky with not just one noon-day sun, but fully covered in suns - almost a million of them - everywhere radiating with the Sun's brilliance. No shade in which to hide. It's like walking into a blast furnace set to the same temperature - the light alone would kill you instantly.These religious people are ignorant to reality.
Young earth creationists don't believe everything is less than 6000 years away. They believe current distances are attributable to the expansion of spacetime or variable light speed.
I think creationists know that science is probably correct in explaining the universe. But they have invested too much time and energy to ever admit they were naive. Its easier to live in fantasy
Sunk costs, confirmation bias, sampling bias, emotional appeal....the list of cognitive biases that support one's belief in creationism goes on and on. Same is true of ANY belief that hasn't been scientifically supported.
Jesus Christ is the Resurrection and the Life! Neither is there salvation in any other! Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be SAVED! Get a king james bible and believe. Read Matthew. Read 1 John 4.
or we just believe in god but are not tied to just what the hundreds of year old book says
@@rinkerchris2474 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life."- John chapter 5 verse 24.
“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” - John chapter 14 verse 6.
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."- 1 Peter chapter 1 verses 23 to 25.
Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be SAVED! Jesus loves you!
@@MichaelAChristian1 stop spewing religious garbage
Yes, animals have small adaptations. Therefor, they have adapted their way from water, to all the animals we have today. Talk about fairy tale... "Billions of years ago, in a land far far away..."
As an avid agnostic I have questions.
1. Why do you believe man and the universe were created at the same time?
2. Why even man and earth?
Look up "fine tuning" of physics. With the incredible positioning of the physical laws that alow for life in the universe, is more than enough proof required in a court of law. Like saying a gun with someone's fingerprints weren't because he shot the gun but because oil in the air just happened to condense on it own in that pattern.
Or how about the big bang theory that implies a creator and how since then many atheist physicists have been trying to come up with theories where the universe wouldn't have a beginning but to no avail.
The fact is atheist scientists have had their backs against the wall trying to defend their position in the recent state of science. Which is the reason they still use Haeckel's Embryos in science books which have long been shown to be false and deceptive, along with many other evolution icons..
Consider all the conditions required for those fingerprints to be on that gun. Iron working starting 4000 years ago in Mesopotamia, followed by an understanding of steel production that spread around the Mediterranean 2800 years ago, the advent of gunpowder in 9th century AD China, artillery used by the Turks starting in the 14th century, the proto-capitalism that formed in Renaissance that produced early corporations and guilds that could furnish guns better and faster. Industrialization, mass production, refinement, research, and development, an incredible amount of variables, the odds of which happening at all and in the right order are basically impossible.
That entire chain of events, including those in this guy's life, must have been intelligently designed to lead him to acquire a gun and fire it at that exact moment, at that exact time, to leave those exact fingerprints.
Can you prove to me that the universe was "fine tuned" specifically for us? Life as we know it exists BECAUSE of how the universe is, we are a natural byproduct of the natural Laws of the universe.... to disregard known facts for a belief that a "god" specifically made this universe for us & us alone is either staggeringly ignorant & or dishonest.
you have a very loose grip on facts..... the universe and it's physical laws are not fine tuned for humans, humans are fine tuned BY them. When an organism loses it's ability to tune into the conditions in the environment, the environment eliminates, modifies or replaces that organism.
Organise the first manned mission to Mars. When you arrive, take off your space suit. In your final moments, consider whether Mars was "fine tuned" for you to live there.
I agree with you 100%. Great comment! :D
"which problem?the problem that the creation museum exists at all" rofl.
TYSON/NYE for 2020
*Hi, is 2020 now.*
@@AzNightmare yes but it's not election time, nitwit.
@@StaticBlaster *That's what you'd like to think.*
Tyson is the definition of "Science falsely so called"
These chumps sold out for the money. Unsubscribed from them a couple years ago
Scientist: "The rings of this 40 foot oak tree tell me that it's 300 years old. Ooops. The ring theory is not valid and the tree may actually be younger than that."
Creationist: "See? I told you! This means the tree might only be six months old! YOU CAN'T PROVE IT'S NOT!"
No, the way to frame the argument in a scientific way is "we can tell how old this tree (the control) is by its rings. Creationists: "but the tree doesn't grow exactly at 1 ring per year, in fact weather modification and vast changes in temperature would be one reason trees may grow faster or slower". So actually, a scientific experiment must contain a control and a variable. The tree isn't a control. It's just another variable
The assumptions necessary to believe an old earth are faith based. You must trust uniformitarianism as a fact, yet you really can’t be sure of that.
Wrong again. Old earth is backed by so much research and testing denial is equivalent to insanity... but we know that most religious fundies are insane, so no biggy.
@@zachtastic625 NO it isn't. Jesus loves you! ruclips.net/video/shyI-aQaXD0/видео.html
Science is a name on us learning FACTS...we are always correcting our selfish.. amazing.shout out to my fellow humans who have done things for us now..
183k subscribers and most watched video has 200k viewers. There is something wrong here. I've never seen this on youtube. Top video always has far more viewers than number of subs. And the average video has far less viewers, than number of subs.
+Mozdk1 Not that it's a good thing, but our average video gets less viewers than we have subscribers. We're open to your thoughts on how to get more viewers!
+StarTalk Radio do more stuff with you playing games. That seems to be a thing.
Or even better. Sing about how your heart was broken, but now you are stronger than before. That gets a lot of hype too :)
Stay strong!
+StarTalk Radio Perhaps advertise better because I only found startalk through watching cinemasins.
+StarTalk Radio you could add animation and make videos on more popular topics like this to gain more views
I subscribe to the channel but mostly listen to the podcast.
Dr. Neil ROCKS!
Paul Dickens nope. his actual name is " Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson".
A head full of rocks.
You know I was on the fence but now I’m 100% certain the earth is at least 16 years old
Your argument defeats itself. You say that I can't know what happened millions of years ago based upon observing huge swaths of the universe, and making extremely precise measurements of it using tested laws of nature. At the same time, you claim to have knowledge of the universe millions of years ago, and give no plausible mechanism as to how you obtained this information.
Its called circular reasoning. Thats all that atheists use. It supports itself
How did you measure age of stars and what makes him think it’s accurate? No man really knows.
Before saying nobody knows you should put in the research and see how measuring the age of stars is done.
@@katkit4281 😂
"So now everything makes perfect sense, alright!" lol Eugene cracks me up..
I feel as if I've made a fairly decent point in saying this.
Don't bother to try to contest it by replying, I won't even read it.
Here it is:
Atheism vs. religion is becoming very redundant, and more asinine with each passing day.
Let me make this simple.
You should not make generalizations about religious people.
Just because one bad apple comes in here and says "you will all burn for not believing!" does not mean that Christians as a whole think that way. It certainly does not represent religion in general.
The part does not represent the whole.
The only reason I mention atheism is because most of the comments below are stabs at religion, clearly made by atheist people.
Not to mention, if you believe in evolution, obviously you cannot technically claim you are Christian.
So that's why I use the term atheist.
With that being said...
The moment that atheists stop trying to insinuate that religion is a state of ignorance, is the moment when we stop and actually get something done in this world. There are other, much more pressing matters than arguing about who's more uneducated and stupid for believing, or not believing in something. The time that people spend bickering in the comments stroking their epeens and superiority complexes hints to how incredibly immature and arrogant they are... You could be using that time to further your own education, at the very least.
Just to be blunt, whether or not you believe in evolution does not determine if you're intelligent or unintelligent.
I've read the comments below. There are some supporters of evolution that clearly have not made it past college, or even high school. It shows in your attitude and disposition towards others that have a different point of view.
A note to those that this applies to:
You are not anywhere NEAR as smart, or well versed in academia as you think you are. Trust me. There's a reason that Dr. Tyson is up there educating and lecturing tenured professors of astrophysics. You have a long way to go before you can consider yourself "smart".
Personally, I don't give a fuck what you believe.
Don't attempt to call me stupid for believing or not believing something.
Do not think that because I might believe in something, it means that it makes me ignorant to some "higher understanding or knowledge" because believe me...
I know. Heard all about it.
Have you ever wondered if someone is gay, lesbian, atheist, or a crossfitter?
Oh, don't you worry.
They'll tell you all about it, no questions asked.
Like I said, I don't give a rat's ass about what you believe.
Don't try to shove it in someone else's ear.
There's a term for that, it's called indoctrination and it's happening in many schools.
Sadly, it's mostly self-absorbed professors and high school teachers trying to force politically correct ideas into kid's heads. Especially matters of race and other things that pop up on liberal news sources.
That is all.
+Effectious
In the Sherlock Holmes novels, Sherlock Holmes - the main character and mighty fine detective did not know or care whether the earth went around the sun or vice-versa. The details of planetary motion had no effect on his detective work so he consciously chose to ignore it. Despite lacking that 'basic' knowledge he was a great detective.
Scientific acumen is not the only marker of intelligence - and even among scientists, there are many whose works don't bring them anywhere close to evolution, so it's only a minority of the scientific community that would/should have excessively strong views on evolution. However, in a topic that one isn't specialising on, the only meaningful public stance to take is that of the established experts. That view however, may change with new discoveries and one's public stance would also have to be rethought.
What I am trying to say is that it's fair enough to hold a private belief that evolution is BS or regard it as a black box that one isn't concerned about, but when taking a public stand on the debate, the only people who can discredit the idea of evolution are specialists in that field.
+Effectious fuck you
yodaisgod2
I suppose you're not accustomed to getting blasted.
yodaisgod2
If you think a fifty-one year old woman would have anything to do with a prepubescent child such as yourself, go right ahead... It's a free society. You can dream of my mother all you want. Though it's rather creepy, and quite childish if that's the best retort you can offer.
Effectious How do you like that view from that high horse you sit upon?
Imagine thinking that the earth is 6k years😂
LOL THERE IS LIVING ORGANISMS OLDER THEN THAT.
Yeah there are certain species that can literally live eternally😂
Some people are still genuinely upset over the fact that Pluto is no longer designated as a planet, I've seen it numerous places that people refuse to watch anything that has Dr Tyson in because of it.
And no, I didn't post it to feel smarter, or because the comment made me angry. I just find it really sad that people blame him over it, when it doesn't really matter.
Yes, I shouldn't have called him an idiot. However, whether it is a joke or not, is hard to tell when it's just text.
the elephant in the room is that they agree with creationists that the universe had a beginning and according to Stephen Hawkings, it will have a end. Stephen hawkings also said that not only the universe but space and time had a beginning and will have a end. Think about that
Exactly, we look around and see entropy and things that should have easily reaches equilibrium that have not. A clear contradiction that is always either overlooked or ignored.
@@YoungEarthCreation Hi Raw Matt, there is a lot of things that are ignored. Some interesting ones are-1. the oceans are like a time clock as salt from minerals in the land is washed down rivers into the ocean where the salt stays. The ocean should be like the dead sea with no life, if it is as old as geologists say it is. 2. the moon is also a time clock because it has no wind or seasons or rain so the rate of silt deposition from space is constant and never changes. When the astronauts went to the moon the landing module was fitted with large plates to stop it from sinking into the 6 feet of silt that was thought to exist on the moon from all the millions of years of silt accumulation. Interestingly when the astronauts exited they found there was barely enough dust for them to scuff with their boots. This means the moon is young. There are many other examples as well like the jagged peaks of the rocky mountains etc
Dave Warkentin love it! Keep up spreading the truth man!
Hawkin actually didn’t say it would have an end. Not in the real sense.
So what.
I imagined Eugene Mirman a bit sexier. This is why I don't listen on RUclips. On podcasts everyone is a 10 in my imagination. :) That's why imaginations are so fucking awesome.
Jake Day Williams what are you saying man. He is super sexy.
Everyone's a 10 with the lights off ;)
The Creation Museum should be renamed to something more truthful, like "Mecca of Ignorance".
JosephM1750 and you should rename your name to "JosephM Dumbass" because you believe everything came from a firecracker
Why dont they use the mics in front of them? Sounds like it was recorded with a phone just laying somewhere in the room.
If there is a God, he doesn't speak to us directly. If he is omnipotent, he is in control of nature and the things produced by it. If nature and chance are the only way for us to know what God's will is, doesn't it follow that God is merely nature?
No, we're most likely wrong. You get the best science when you assume you're wrong, but use the best model you can find. It gives you reasons to build better models.
He said the Universe is 14 billion years old give or take 3 billion. In the context of 14 BILLION years, yes 3 billion is a small margin of error when the given number is over 4x the error margin.
Never taken a basic statistics course I gather?
Search wikipedia (Age_of_the_universe) and you will find "the best measurement of the age of the universe is 13.798±0.037 billion years".
They use the scientific format for measurements, but when they talk about it they say "about 13.8 billion years". But, since the current error is bellow 0.1 billion year, you can safely use 13.8.
I wish Gene would stop interrupting.
We are talking about a supernatural event for believers and nonbelievers. The only way to get something from nothing is still faith.
i would just like to make a comment about the audio. they appear to have good mics in front of them, however the audio sounds like it was recorded on a laptop in an echoy room. Bad Audio! especially for a "Radio" channel! Come on, guys!!!
And that's where our religious views will indefinitely split our views. In my mind, the Bible doesn't serve as evidence enough because it is one item that was most likely created by man that suggests a possibility but provides nothing more than a written testimony that we can't verify. But if you see it differently, as I'm sure you do, there's nothing I can do to change that other than offer my side of the coin.
Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be SAVED! Jesus loves you! ruclips.net/video/shyI-aQaXD0/видео.html
I think in some way we all like science but they keep confusing science as evolutionism, which is just another theory of the last 200 years and creationism has a manual that goes back 6000 years.
Can you expain further?
The fact that you call it evolutionism proves you know next to nothing about the theory,let alone any scientific discipline.
yeah the definition doesn't say erased then wrote over. it says erased then rewritten. and to save anyone else the time:
Palimpsest: a manuscript or piece of writing material on which the original writing has been effaced to make room for later writing but of which traces remain.
its you literal expression that was incorrect
Creationism is really bad about using out of date scientific literature. I remember right before I canned my belief in Creationism and accepted evolution, I was watching Kent Hovind and I noticed that in a 2003 seminar he was quoting science journals from the 60s. Quite ridiculous.
The truth hasn't changed! Jesus Christ is the truth! Jesus loves you! ruclips.net/video/shyI-aQaXD0/видео.html
I don't really get what you're asking. The study of evolution does attempt to explain the origin of the first life form. It just tells us that there is a common ancestor. That alone invalidates the creation story where a god creates all species individually. We know that this is not the case simply because it is inconsistent with the evolutionary model and fails to explain a plethora of things that evolution explains with ease, like contingent morphology, speciation, quantitative genetics, etc.
Great video, but I have a technical question. Are those mics hot for another feed and why are they not feeding the video? They are both miced up, but it sounds as if the camera (or another room mic) is recording the audio for the video here. Why?
Well that's the whole "I don't understand - therefore it's God" logic. Many people have fallen prey to it including some of the smartest scientists - Newton and Einstein for example. Both of them when faced with problems they couldn't solve in their time cited God's influence as the solution, and of course later those problems were solved without the need for the "god hypothesis".
Well obviously old Earth creationism is far more logical than young Earth creationism. You can tell because while YECs believe that daylight is 4 days older than the sun (Gen 1: 3-5 & 14-16) *OECs have "logically" concluded that daylight is millions of years older than the sun!* Totally logical... PSYCH!
Okay this is wrong. You just buy the title are saying that science proves something. You are saying that young Earth is not science in any form. And you're saying that science is 100%. These are all lies.
_You are saying that young Earth is not science in any form._
Correct. A young earth is anti-scientific. There is zero evidence for it, and a whole ton of evidence against it.
_And you're saying that science is 100%_
Nope, just saying that we're as sure the Earth is billions of years old as much as we are sure the sun will rise in the eat tomorrow morning.
The young earth is disproven. Science may not prove, but it does a lot of work in disproving.
This is basic.
They all say the same thing because they know their theory is trash and can be easily falsified. This is why they have so many pathetic rescue devices for every single one of their theories. Evolution and cosmology and abiogenesis have become a joke. But its on them.
@@YoungEarthCreation
If you only read creationist claims then of course you'd believe that nonsense.
The only one of those three sciences you named that can be said to be shaky is Abiogenesis.
The other two are solid and the drivel levelled against them by creationism amount to a few giggles and snorts.
ozowen I believe The same as you before i realized I was indoctrinated and couldn’t convince of an alternative
I never said that evolution theory is a religion BECAUSE people defend it with religious fervor. Please tell me what made you comment if not emotion. Oh and sorry for the generalizing (even though you did it when you said, "people always get emotional"), I will start listing every person by name that I am referring to when I say evolutionists. The reason I call evolution a religion is because it requires faith that these things have happened over billions of years.
I made that assumption. My question more directly is why are they not patching the audio from the board into the video so it sounds the way it should? There should be one stereo out available. These vids would be more enjoyable and much easier to listen to with quality audio.
Creationists.....There are people that actually deserved not to be talked to....
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God , neither were thankful, but THEY BECAME VAIN IN THEIR IMAGINATIONS, and their foolish heart was darkened, PROFFESSING THEMSELVES TO BE WISE, THEY BECAMSE FOOLS." Romans 1. 20-22
I can understand those that are just ignorant and never gave it proper thought believing in creation. I did up to middle school, so I supposed there are those who never grew past that.
I don't understand people that try to prove they are correct using very selective and biased data
Are you serious? Jesus Christ is the TRUTH! Jesus loves you! Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be SAVED! Get a king james bible and believe. Read Matthew. Read 1 John 4. ruclips.net/video/shyI-aQaXD0/видео.html
I don't see much to ridicule in what was presented. Inconsistencies were pointed out as evidence that the model at the time didn't hold together, and from what Neil is saying at the end of the video, the current estimate of the age of the universe that he now holds to (14 billion years) is not within the margin of error that he talked about for the age of the oldest stars (18 billion years plus or minus 2 billion years). So the objection to the model from the 90s has been sustained by subsequent observations. Neil believes that the theory for the age of the universe that he ascribes to now is more accurate than it was in the past, and he laughs at theories that posit a young earth, but I don't hear him responding to any of the evidence cited by young earth creationists. If he's not going to even respond to evidence they cite, then I don't find his dismissal of any association between those beliefs and science to hold any water. I watched this video hoping he would providing a compelling argument against young earth claims and evidence, but all I heard was "trust me, they don't know what they're talking about, and even though our old numbers were bad, we've got better numbers now, so you should totally trust us and laugh them out of the room."
Can you send me some links
I wonder if Neil deGrasse Tyson is a young earth creationist in a parallel universe lol. Now that would be weird! And Kent Hovind is a renowned Nobel prize winner. Nope, not in any of them would that be true.
Kent Hovind as a Nobel Prize winner and a philanthropist. And pronounces water correctly,ha ha.
@@johngavin1175 "Wottor" hahaha. That Hovind bloke's got more than a few screws loose eh. All those Evangelists are batshit crazy.
Evolution....should be taught with Creationism...period. With all the anecdotal information on a "young earth now".....we need to learn both...then, let us gain information on each with time, college, reading, whatever.
Learning just Evolution...which has never been proven...is a sin against humanity.
But that did not make scientists wrong. And what does the coelacanth have to do with evolution? The shark has been around for millions of years with little or no change depending on the species. So, that point fails.
Why do I feel like this video was uploaded to feed the trolls?
And you should be happy to hear the apparent age "theory". When these folk start arguing that idea, they are essentially acknowledging that science does not support them. It seems to me that this is the first step in taking their arguments where they belong - out of our science classrooms.
Which version? The ancient Hebrew, The king james, or the dead sea scrolls?
and it what language? Greek, Arabic, Aramaic, English? Which release? The original, the catholic, the Lutheran, the .....can you see the pattern? Each one can be read and come away with completely different translations. So before I know how to respond, I'd like to know which of these versions your referring to.
Why do the people who believe we evolved from animals really think that we are intelligent enough to understand this? If we really are nothing more than advanced animals, how ridiculous is the assumption that we can even begin to understand these things...
If we're nothing more than animals, what right do you have to say your beliefs are the only correct ones, since you yourself are probably far off?
"we're guilty" but each individual to a different extent, i suppose.
"We can't pay the price" Why?
"truly innocent - Person can pay the price" Why?
Yes, i don't know what I don't know. But what I know is that killing one innocent instead of meany guilty is morally wrong. The concept of eternal torture is morally wrong as well. The punishment must be adequate.
That's the point. amino acids are building blocks. A simple long chain molecule. They aren't life. The guy I was posting to was making the claim that because amino acids couldn't become life on their own, a magic entity caused it to happen and we couldn't prove otherwise. I brought out the fact that an amino acid is not life. I understand your anger towards me because I wasn't clear.