Thanks to everyone who pointed out that I mixed up amplitude and wavelength in once sentence about red shift. It is wavelength that affects color and pitch. Also, I misspoke to say galaxy when I meant universe at one point. What else did I miss?
What is a "once sentence"? I found your errors amusing. I live on the other side of the planet getting towards he winter months and caught a cold and have a stuffy head so all that mental gymnastics flew straight over my head anyway! lol Believe me when I say I know that strung out feeling! (Now watch this it will rip your head off Ministry - Twilight Zone ruclips.net/video/kjEC49hTitI/видео.html ) Keep up the good work! Keep your chin up and roll with the punches! p.s. Please excuse my stuffy head but the point they were making about a Milky Way centric universe...if the universe is infinite then wouldn't the middle of infinity be everywhere?
This isn’t an error on your part, but theirs. They used the red shift of Andromeda as an example. But it’s actually blue-shifted! We’re on a collision course and will collide in a few billion years. So that’s a problem for their time stretch solution to their starlight problem.
I am not convinced of the presupposition of "Red Shift" as an indicator of speed but rather of distance. Long dissertation but I hold to a different hypothesis more consistent with the Higgs field.
"Atheist Evolution Theory" Wow, I wasn't aware we had our own theory. I feel so special.
6 лет назад+2
lol exactly, they add atheist to everything like if it somehow makes it invalid. there are scientist of all religions that believe in the the big bang and evolution
I had the same reaction at first, because creationists love to tack on "atheist" where it doesn't belong - but there is the idea of a God-guided evolution so the distinction makes sense here.
The Atheist Evolution Theory goes like this: Humans wanted to know why things happen. They created gods to explain it. The god stories started to conflict with reality. The natural selection pressures from the conflict selected those who could accept that reality didn’t care about them specially. As the understanding that they were not special in the grand scheme of things improved, the idea that their “god/ gods” might not be real developed as an emergent property. They continue to evolve their understanding of reality, while the niche for believers in woo continues to shrink.
To sum up the end about space and time "In Relativity, Matter tells Space how to curve, and Space tells Matter how to move. The Heart of Gold told space to get knotted..." - Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Hey Paul, that argument you and your wife (who is awesome btw) made on yesterday's The Non Sequitur Show blew me away! I think it's the most powerful argument I've heard in a long time when debating a Christian. It still needs to be polished, but the idea is there. You have to do a video about it! The basic idea is, what if you want to believe, and you have tried everything you can to make yourself believe, but you know deep down that what you believe is not true. Since God knows what's in your heart, he will know that you are not convinced that Jesus rose from the dead etc., even though you profess that you do. This is exactly what I went through as well. I came up with a way to break it down with an analogy: think of it as you are a magician, and you know how magic tricks are done. Someone comes along and does a cool trick, maybe an incredible trick, and fools everyone into believing the magic is real. Along with these magic tricks the magician tells people he's the son of God and so on.. You get my point by now I hope. No matter how much you would try and believe it's real, you can't fully commit to that reality because you know more than the people that have been fooled by it know. It's like science and history. The more you know about it, the less supernatural claims of religions can seem at all remotely credible. Also, the water into wine thing could have easily been done in antiquity by creating a two chambered terracotta vessel, which is what would have been used back then. It's been demonstrated before. I wonder if I can buy one, then do the trick for that christian lady, while claiming I'm Jesus. Would she would believe me? She seemed really convinced that it was supernatural. Anyways, sorry for the wall of text, but I wanted to let you know that you were the saving grace on last nights show, because the Christians were very comfortable until your wife and you brought that up and then they were squirming. It's a solid argument. Also, The Non Sequitur Show is freaking awesome and everyone needs to subscribe to it, you can thank me at another time ;)
TheLacedaemonian300 ❤❤❤ why thank you! We rifined it a bit more in the after show last night on my channel. We had a guest who actually defines the terms in a manner that was very concise. That part is towards the end of the show. I'm glad you enjoyed the chat!
I can't believe I'm not subbed to you, that's gonna change right after I finish writing this. I'm gonna check out that after show right now! Thanks for the reply!! Keep up the good work.
The problem with the argument is that it is dependent on taking a persons word that they were genuinely seeking God. Though it's in our human nature to want to believe what others tell us about their experience and we certainly wouldn't say they are lying, how can one ever prove that they really wanted to know God? Discerning our own intentions in our actions can be very difficult. From my own experience, I became a Christian when I was 19, though I called myself a Christian long before then. At that point I actually went through a change in which I loved God and wanted to know him, yet I would have told you the same was true before I was changed! I was blind to my own intentions and desires, whose to say that this couldn't be the case for others? How do we know that we aren't proud and don't desire to exalt ourselves and that influences the way we look at any evidence presented? I like Jonathan Edward's illustration that the human heart is like an onion, every time you peel off a layer of pride there is another beneath it.
@@bjn3232 i don't get it "i loved god and wanted to know him" why? how? you could only be aware of a god through here-say, and yet you say "i love god" i really, really don't see any sense in that at all. i'm not even sure if i love my girlfriend.
I just had to stop the video for a second to tell you how much I appreciate all the work you put into the videos. I especially enjoy the additional clips you add (e.g., the one from The Big Bang Theory). It must take some effort to hunt those clips down and I just wanted you to know I appreciate the extra effort.
The hypocrisy is that they're using actual scientists and actual science to rebut science. They say "Science has it all wrong, and here's some science that proves it."
I know you must get tired of explaining this over and over again, bt you explain it well, there are some of us that grew up with this crap and schools that refused to teach science as a result. We have to play catch up! you explain it well!
I think your editing has been getting better overall. I've noticed you seem to be playing with the medium a little more, where the edit to the specific clip, seems to make a small gag. I honestly can't think of any specifics, but I'm sure I've noticed a few now.
When you mentioned red shift and Doppler effect you meant the FREQUENCY would be compressed or extended changing the pitch/colour, amplitude would change the intensity or loudness of the wave.
When you mentioned "the FREQUENCY would be compressed or extended", you probably meant the wavelength, since the wavelength is indicated in metres (m) and thus this distance can be compressed or extended. The frequency is measured in cycles per second (Hertz) and might increase or decrease. Increasing -> blue shift, decreasing -> red shift. Amplitude spot on. I love the peer-review process ;-)
You are right but when you compress the wavelength you increase the frequency because C=F (Lambda) Where C is the speed of light (3x10^8 m/s) F is the frequency and lambda (which I can’t find the symbol for on here) is the wavelength, so by compressing the wavelength you increase the frequency since the speed of like is constant Of course I may have made an ass of myself because I’ve forgotten Paul’s exact wording of the sentence however using frequency instead of wavelength works exactly right, it’s just you would increase frequency to increase pitch, and it is common to say that a high pitch / violet colour is due a high frequency instead of using the wavelength which is why I jumped to using frequency instead. However of course you are correct, and I agree I love peer review, and I enjoy discussion.
Wow Paulogia! What a great video. I always learn so much from your vids and this one was heavy on the learning for me. I finish with a list of things to research abit further myself which makes me very happy. Thank you for another top notch educational video.
Thank you! I am so frustrated by these people who gave up on a geocentric solar system centuries ago only to claim a geocentric universe now. I didn't even know this was a thing until I ran into it in a Christian science textbook I had to teach from, and I wasted no time in informing my students that Earth's relative position in the cosmos was completely irrelevant to God's existence.
Great description of some of the dynamics of stellar formation, as well as how little the AIG crowd either understands any of this, or is willing to present the science honestly. Excellent, as usual.
Paulogia, Now I see why the long wait between part 2 and part 3, you had a lot more research to accomplish to properly counter the arguments presented in this section of the movie. Nicely done, keep it up.
Great video Paulogia. I have been waiting eagerly for part 3 and not disappointed. I wish just once these guys would make a prediction based on their hypothesis of a young earth the way science continues to make predictions that amazingly, despite clearly being inspired by the devil, keep coming true. I guess though this movie will not end with Eric saying "And you know it's true because in the next 10 years we will make these discoveries." because then when it falls flat on it's face we'll know him for the rotten apple that has not fallen far from the proverbial rotten tree. Thanks for all your work to fight this last gasp of the ignorant.
I so have to remember your open/closed/isolated system example. Great way to explain it, accurate and simple enough for a grade 3 kid to understand (without it sounding condescending) :).
It's so fascinating to see the CGI purty pictures of the creationist video pretending they are on top of the science (that none of them were responsible for doing) when they're so clearly not. Another fine video, Paul. Dare I quote a certain book ... "By their fruits shall ye know them"? And by that measure, creationism has offered a meal of no nourishment but plenty of prickly thorns still in place.
Woah, I just realized that this means that when my ex dies, she could become a new universe. But does that now make her a god? And conversely, does that make me the devil?
Anyone who can aptly quote, or use quotes, from Douglas Adams is a great person in my book. My book being the collected 5 volumes of the Hitchhiker's trilogy, of course :-D Re the formation of stars, there's a good video on it on SciShow. The problem of heat is overcome by the strong (I hope so. Maybe the weak...) nuclear force. Ah, Dr Liar. See Martymer 81 for his wonderful series taking him down exquisitely! I don't mean to send people away from you, Paul, these are "additional resources" ;) Your series is wonderfully detailed without being so scientific that only scientists can understand it. The perfect level of academia :) I wish you'd taught when I was at school. Let's ignore the fact that I'm older than you...
“He made the stars also”? He made 2 trillion galaxies each with a hundred billion stars each star with an average mass of a hundred thousand times the mass of the Earth on the fourth day and had barely enough strength to continue on for two more days to make fish and fowl and animals and man. No wonder life is so screwed up and barbaric on this planet: god was so drained from making all those stars he couldn’t think straight.
God invented automatic adaptation for life, what we call evolution; because he needed 3 billion years to invent humor; to give intelligent people an alternative to killing the stupid.
you did an absolutely great job at explaining the science Paul. Better than some pop science documentaries which have tried to do the same thing. The 2nd Law of TD is one of my particular bugbears with these dishonest fools...
A excellent and informative presentation as usual. Please allow me to expand on at least two points you made. Firstly, while you mentioned that the laws of thermodynamics need not apply to any kind of realm outside the universe, it is worth mentioning that this statement also applies to all laws of nature as well as the concepts of space and time itself. The universe need not exist within a realm that possesses a concept of space or time so, from an external frame of reference, because only space-time is expanding and space-time only exists in the realm inside the universe, the universe in it's current state need not take up any space in a realm external to it. Likewise any temporal framework that exists within the universe need not apply or be synchronised with any concept of a temporal framework in a realm external to the universe so from an external frame of reference the entire lifetime of the universe can pass in an instant so that all possible states that the universe can exist in, from a singularity through expansion to complete equilibrium and heat death, can exist simultaneously within the same instant while taking up no space. The second point relates to red shifts. Because space-time is a consequence of matter having mass, massless objects do not experience it and so, from our frame of reference, they travel at the speed of light which is the speed that photons travel through space-time as they have no mass. The speed of light isn't so much a maximum speed limit that can not be broken, it is the speed things appear to travel at when they do not experience space-time so in effect it is actually a measure of how much space-time is slowed due to matter having mass and consequently time slows in the presence of very massive objects. This is relevant to red shifts because, though it may have travelled half way across the universe on a journey taking billions of years, from the photon particle's frame of reference, there is no space for it to travel across so it's journey is instantaneous which means that it exists at both it's source and destination simultaneously. Though a photon exists as a massless particle it oscillates and so behaves like a wave with the energy, and therefore speed of its oscillation being expressed as it wavelength with more energetic photons oscillating faster resulting in them having a shorter wavelength. From our frame of reference the photon particle has travelled a vast distance through space as the universe has expanded but from the photon's frame of reference it has travelled no distance at all. In order to reconcile this the photon is in effect stretched across the entirety of it's path from it's source to its destination even as it appears to propagate along that path over time from our frame of reference. Because the oscillations, in effect, reflect the movement of the photon through space and a set number of them take place between the source and the destination, as space-time expands along the path of the photon as the photon propagates it stretches the photon resulting in an increased wavelength which shifts the resulting light towards the red end of the spectrum and beyond as the wavelength increases. This kind of cripples the creationist argument for a 6,000 year old universe where it is suggested that the universe was once considerably more compact than science suggests and expanded considerably faster than science accepts as in such a situation, in order for light from distant objects to be as red shifted as it currently is, in such a compact universe the source of that light would have to be several orders of magnitude more energetic than we know it to be meaning that the energy contained within and being emitted by the stars from which such distant light originated would be considerably greater than the gravity of those stars could contain in order to prevent them from exploding in a supernova or, because of mass-energy equivalence, they would need to have been several orders of magnitude more massive to produce light so energetic that it would actually be high energy microwaves, they would distort space-time considerably more than is observed, and every ancient star would collapse into a super-massive black hole due to their improbable mass!
The process of accepting the validity of papers is rather simple to creationists: 1) Was it published? 2) Does it support my creationist views? If the answer to both questions is yes, then the paper must be true, and scientists are just denying it because they don't like its implications.
11:47 There is actually some indication that the universe may not be entirely closed, and that other universes can interact with it. It's a good hypothesis to explain some anomalies we've noticed, but I believe it does have competition.
I do not take anyone seriously who thinks they can determine design intuitively but then says that everything is designed. In order for anyone to be expected to take that seriously you'd need to show something that wasn't designed for contrast. A "creationist" cannot ever present an example of something that wasn't designed or their entire argument would fail. How is this argument meant to convince anyone of anything? Have they even considered the major flaw in this illogical argument? Creationist: I found a watch on a beach and recognised it was designed. Skeptic: Don't you believe god designed the beach? Creationist: Well yes I do believe god designed the beach. Skeptic: Can you show me something you don't think was designed? Creationist: Well no I can't. Skeptic: Then what was your point?
Thanks for pointing out that many religious people, including Christians, accept evolution. My dad was a physics teacher and he was also a Christian. The Vatican has many prominent scientists who could definitely hold their own in secular science. I agree that one can explain all physical phenomena with just science, and, if we are just talking about science, atheism is perfectly reasonable. As the great Steven J Gould pointed out, science answers one kind of question, religion answers another. It is a matter of magisteria. It just pisses me off that creationists claim to speak for all Christians. They certainly don't speak for me, or many other Christians I know.
It just struck me that it is not much more weird to imagine "into what" space expands than "into what" time expands. And yet the expansion of time is not very hard to conceptualise. This, for me, makes the expansion of the universe including across space way easier to think about.
As usual..lying for jesus is where the money is....creationists will lap this up and use these disproved arguments without even bothering to check the facts for themselves...another great post Paul....keep up the good work..
Paulogia, you may have let an unfounded suggestion slide: “It’s almost as if the world was wound up...”. Even if we interpret “world” as “universe”, the clock imagery suggests the world started organized and useful and has been decreasing in order and utility since then. The current iteration (maybe the only one) of our known universe apparently had almost no entropy at the outset. That is also a useless condition. Life requires considerable entropy to develop or exist.
Thank you, Paulogia. I've been going playing checkers with a thiest pigeon for an hour. After all the shitting on the board, knocking off pieces, and yelling checkmate I needed something to grow back some brain cells.
wispa1a if you want to be a pal and check it out it would be cool for someone to see the derpy nonsense involved. It's on youtuber Godless Engineer's latest video's comment section. It's towards the top comments, and currently has 12 replies.
Excellent analysis Paul. I learned a lot at the same time as you took down those cherry picking believers. Good choice of accompanying video footage, it was difficult to appreciate it all while learning some finer points of Albert's theories; a second and third viewing is in store.
Great video Paul. One small issue I caught: at around 16:50 you say that there hasn't been enough time for photons from one end of the galaxy to reach the other end of the galaxy. I'm pretty sure you meant "universe" instead of "galaxy".
Gravity waves and gravitational waves are different. Gravitational waves are the recent discover of the stretching and squishing of space-time. Gravity waves are caused by the interaction of two fluids with different densities reaching equilibrium after being disturbed. So the creationist is correct in the assessment of fluid dynamical gravity waves from blackholes (usually pulsars) disrupting the molecular gas clouds and causing the gas to clump up which in turn throws off the equilibrium between gravity and pressure. Your argument still stands, just thought I could give you some insight to the opposite side's argument.
I appreciate the insight. The article Charles wasn't referencing gravity at all, though... I'm hoping to point out that he plays fast-and-loose with his claims.
The article was discussing gravity waves, though. I might be giving this dolt too much credit to assume that he extrapolated super nova gravity waves to blackhole gravity waves. I have heard the explanation of molecular cloud collapse proposed from gamma ray bursts, obviously way out of context of a creationist worldview. I totally get your point, and I hope I don't come across as defending these guys :)
Ok I have a question, something that occured to me a while back and trying to understand (and before someone jumps on me I'm just asking not trying to prove or disprove something). The universe is expanding from the Big Bang I get that but as I understand it that expansion is speeding up. I realize dark energy plays a role here but isn't the universe a closed system and shouldn't that expansion be slowing down not speeding up?
We can not fully comprehend what the "firmament" or "expanse" or "division" was or how far it extended, nor how high the upper "waters" were or how "thick" or "dense" it was, or what form it took. I prefer Kent's crystalline ice theory, as the Jewish historian Josephus mentions a tradition of the firmament being crystalline. Just as there are ice clouds high up now, there maybe could have been a thick layer of suspended ice all around the glove that helped to greatly shield the planet from cosmic radiation, contributing to long life in flesh and vegetation. Perhaps a denser, higher oxygen atmosphere did exist to help as well, as Kent's seminar points out from scientific evidence in amber (O2 levels), the giant sizes of (flying) insects and birds (would not be able to breathe or fly today, respectively), etc. Peter says that the age, the world that existed *then*... vs the age or world that exists *now". What existed then our minds can not fully grasp as it was destroyed, altered, changed. I disagree with 1:29 as that is not what is being said. Be careful, and don't just rely as a layperson on the KJV. The moon is *not* said to give off its own light. Since you are nit picking, the account doesn't even use the Hebrew word for moon, which isn't used until Genesis 37:9. It is understood that light comes from the objects. It does *not* say that either of them are the source.
19:50 Wave amplitude does not affect color. It should have been frequency or wave length. Probably just a slip of tongue, but maybe worth correcting. Cheers
Paul, your video background clip that you played while referring to "hot and dense" matter was absolutely brilliant! I literally laughed out loud at that. I even re-wound that part to watch it again, in order to marvel at both (a) how hot that girl is and (b) how dense I recall her being when she spoke (which certainly takes the shine off her hotness once that aspect is in play). This is of course why ballgags were invented, so that physically attractive but dimwitted women can continue to be perceived as hot without having the chance to ruin it. Now that I have disgraced your channel with my scandalous attempt at humor, and established myself as a person of low morality whose praise would be a mark of shame, I will close with a simple "Well played, sir!"
It's a minor point to pick up on, but when the guy is talking about how many pages his book on the Anthropic Principle is - that demonstrates nothing. Possibly it's packed full of information, possibly it's packed full of padding and unnecessary verbiage written in a large font. "Ooh I have a fat book to support my claims" is little more than a runtish descendant of argument from authority.
Paulogia I must have missed heat part, the perils of doing two things at once. Even wierder then, perhaps the intent was to say "look how much rubbish these evolutionists talk"?
Since Douglas Adams was mentioned and we're talking about big books: The hardest part of time travel is not accidentally becoming your own father. That's nothing an open-minded family can't cope with. The hardest part is the language, especially the tenses! There is a tense for talking about an event you have already experienced while travelling to the future, one for something that lies in the past but is future for you since you haven't gone back in time yet to do it, and so on. The topic is so confusing that later editions of English for Time Travellers left the later chapters blank to save printing costs, since no one ever got there, anyway.
A fairly popular idea among cosmologists is that the universe has zero total energy. The positive energy of matter is balanced out by the negative energy of gravity, for a net zero balance.
Thanks Paul, I’ve learned a lot. One major takeaway I’ve learned is that everyone involved in this project is using their interpretation of religion as a way to make money. They know what they’re spouting is incorrect.
My understanding is that the Big Bang doesn't require an "infinitely small point" -- only density and expansion. It could just as well have been dense and infinite.
It's render intensive... but the main problem is that sometimes I need the viewer to see what's happening on that part of the screen. And it gives me less space to put up the science papers, etc. Oh well... keeping it. I like it.
"Above and below the firmament"... Is obviously (obviously) a human consideration. Our concept of above and below comes from our individual organic senses being tuned in to the gravitational pull of the earth so that we have 'up' and 'down' that is opposite to someone's experience of up and down on the other side of the planet. No one could have viewed the firmament from afar as it was created ... Although it could be imagined of course.
Conservation of energy is a result of time symmetry, and therefore would not be applicable where time symmetry is not present. It is possible that time symmetry did not hold at the moment of the Big Bang, so it is still actually possible that the energy of our universe was created in the Big Bang (or maybe the creation of the energy caused the Big Bang and time symmetry).
1:15 Are those...giant water tornados being sucked into the atmosphere? What the everloving hell is going on? You know what I think this whole movie would be a lot less painful if I just watched it as a science fiction parody documentary.
Have you listened to Douglas Adam's hitchhikers guide to the galaxy? If not then the first 2 series are very ironically, witty humoured in that British tolerant way.
Paulogia Admittedly I haven't read all but I own the complete 6 radio, 1 TV series. New one released this year to. With the late Prof Hawkins opening up. I think his humour and outlook was awesome.
I checked a few of the English translations I have to see how "firmament" is rendered in non-KJV versions. The NRSV is the worse, since it actually says "dome". NIV says "sky" and the Amplified says "Heavens". Of course we colloquially say "The Sun is in the sky" but don't mean that we think it is in the atmosphere. In that instance "the sky" is the frame or reference location of where to look for or expect to see the Sun.
one complaint well not a complaint but a correction and that would be the diagram you used for the sun reflecting the light from the moon... light from the sun to the moon would still be 100%
"He made the stars also" may be brief because with the naked eye we can't really see more than a few thousand stars. The galaxies (even Andromeda is fuzzy) are also unseen so there's not much point mentioning them. Same for other things not mentioned. I don't think we should expect an astronomical catalogue in a chapter which is designed to make the basic point of "God made it all" before moving on. Having said that, the lack of mention of the Milky Way is a worry. People must have wondered what that was.
i have to add to the image of the cosmic wave background is a bit misleading the colors might give you the idea that the temperature between red and blue is quite a bit but the difference between the red zones and dark blue is literally just a few ten thousand of a degree. it is just so accurately measured that those tiny differences can be shown with such detail. also that are is about 13.5 billion lightyears away the point so far that it comes from very recent after the big bang (several tens of thousands of years after) and all it shows is that bath of radiation. ironicly if there is a race of being looking at the same thing and are at the very edge of our cmb they will see a Very similar cmb and where our platet would be they will only see that bath of energy from way back then as they are looking at the location of earth but 13.5 billion years ago loong before even the sun was there.
![YoungBoy Never Broke Again - Catch Me [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KxwEXXFQMTY/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks to everyone who pointed out that I mixed up amplitude and wavelength in once sentence about red shift. It is wavelength that affects color and pitch.
Also, I misspoke to say galaxy when I meant universe at one point.
What else did I miss?
I just noticed that the one narrator in the Genesis film, seems to be doing a Neil Degrass Tyson impression. Maybe to give the flick more credibility?
What is a "once sentence"?
I found your errors amusing. I live on the other side of the planet getting towards he winter months and caught a cold and have a stuffy head so all that mental gymnastics flew straight over my head anyway! lol
Believe me when I say I know that strung out feeling! (Now watch this it will rip your head off Ministry - Twilight Zone ruclips.net/video/kjEC49hTitI/видео.html )
Keep up the good work! Keep your chin up and roll with the punches!
p.s. Please excuse my stuffy head but the point they were making about a Milky Way centric universe...if the universe is infinite then wouldn't the middle of infinity be everywhere?
This isn’t an error on your part, but theirs. They used the red shift of Andromeda as an example. But it’s actually blue-shifted! We’re on a collision course and will collide in a few billion years.
So that’s a problem for their time stretch solution to their starlight problem.
Ah, I'd have to say, not much. Very well produced Paul. Neil would be proud.
I am not convinced of the presupposition of "Red Shift" as an indicator of speed but rather of distance. Long dissertation but I hold to a different hypothesis more consistent with the Higgs field.
I know first hand just how much time effort and dedication you put into this. I'm proud of you!
Proud of you... thanks for the support that makes it possible.
"Atheist Evolution Theory" Wow, I wasn't aware we had our own theory. I feel so special.
lol exactly, they add atheist to everything like if it somehow makes it invalid. there are scientist of all religions that believe in the the big bang and evolution
Well I doubt that the theory of evolution can form beliefs so I don't think it believes a God exists.
Don't listen to Evil Mirror-Universe Creationist Jeff Goldblum. He is a twat.
I had the same reaction at first, because creationists love to tack on "atheist" where it doesn't belong - but there is the idea of a God-guided evolution so the distinction makes sense here.
The Atheist Evolution Theory goes like this:
Humans wanted to know why things happen.
They created gods to explain it.
The god stories started to conflict with reality.
The natural selection pressures from the conflict selected those who could accept that reality didn’t care about them specially.
As the understanding that they were not special in the grand scheme of things improved, the idea that their “god/ gods” might not be real developed as an emergent property.
They continue to evolve their understanding of reality, while the niche for believers in woo continues to shrink.
To sum up the end about space and time
"In Relativity, Matter tells Space how to curve, and Space tells Matter how to move. The Heart of Gold told space to get knotted..." - Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
YAY!!! FINALLY!!! My Paulogia fix!!!! Been miss you my unknown friend!
thanks, Lady D
Wow! Douglas Adams and Bozeman Science in the same Episode!
Hey Paul, that argument you and your wife (who is awesome btw) made on yesterday's The Non Sequitur Show blew me away! I think it's the most powerful argument I've heard in a long time when debating a Christian. It still needs to be polished, but the idea is there. You have to do a video about it!
The basic idea is, what if you want to believe, and you have tried everything you can to make yourself believe, but you know deep down that what you believe is not true. Since God knows what's in your heart, he will know that you are not convinced that Jesus rose from the dead etc., even though you profess that you do. This is exactly what I went through as well.
I came up with a way to break it down with an analogy: think of it as you are a magician, and you know how magic tricks are done. Someone comes along and does a cool trick, maybe an incredible trick, and fools everyone into believing the magic is real. Along with these magic tricks the magician tells people he's the son of God and so on.. You get my point by now I hope.
No matter how much you would try and believe it's real, you can't fully commit to that reality because you know more than the people that have been fooled by it know.
It's like science and history. The more you know about it, the less supernatural claims of religions can seem at all remotely credible. Also, the water into wine thing could have easily been done in antiquity by creating a two chambered terracotta vessel, which is what would have been used back then. It's been demonstrated before. I wonder if I can buy one, then do the trick for that christian lady, while claiming I'm Jesus. Would she would believe me? She seemed really convinced that it was supernatural.
Anyways, sorry for the wall of text, but I wanted to let you know that you were the saving grace on last nights show, because the Christians were very comfortable until your wife and you brought that up and then they were squirming. It's a solid argument. Also, The Non Sequitur Show is freaking awesome and everyone needs to subscribe to it, you can thank me at another time ;)
TheLacedaemonian300 ❤❤❤ why thank you! We rifined it a bit more in the after show last night on my channel. We had a guest who actually defines the terms in a manner that was very concise. That part is towards the end of the show. I'm glad you enjoyed the chat!
I can't believe I'm not subbed to you, that's gonna change right after I finish writing this. I'm gonna check out that after show right now! Thanks for the reply!! Keep up the good work.
The problem with the argument is that it is dependent on taking a persons word that they were genuinely seeking God. Though it's in our human nature to want to believe what others tell us about their experience and we certainly wouldn't say they are lying, how can one ever prove that they really wanted to know God? Discerning our own intentions in our actions can be very difficult. From my own experience, I became a Christian when I was 19, though I called myself a Christian long before then. At that point I actually went through a change in which I loved God and wanted to know him, yet I would have told you the same was true before I was changed! I was blind to my own intentions and desires, whose to say that this couldn't be the case for others? How do we know that we aren't proud and don't desire to exalt ourselves and that influences the way we look at any evidence presented? I like Jonathan Edward's illustration that the human heart is like an onion, every time you peel off a layer of pride there is another beneath it.
@@bjn3232 i don't get it "i loved god and wanted to know him" why? how? you could only be aware of a god through here-say, and yet you say "i love god" i really, really don't see any sense in that at all. i'm not even sure if i love my girlfriend.
I just had to stop the video for a second to tell you how much I appreciate all the work you put into the videos. I especially enjoy the additional clips you add (e.g., the one from The Big Bang Theory). It must take some effort to hunt those clips down and I just wanted you to know I appreciate the extra effort.
1) Confusing cosmology with biological evolution? Check.
2) Not understanding open/closed systems? Check.
3) Cherry picking from scientific articles? Check.
4) Misrepresenting the laws of thermodynamics? Check.
5) Special pleading? Check.
Yes! I've got creationist bingo!
BINGO!
you have to shout "BULLSHIT!" if you got five-in-a-row creationists
“Straight space” sounds like some technobabble that the writers on Star Trek Voyager
Stretching the heavens ... and the truth.
Psy Fi pretty much.
The hypocrisy is that they're using actual scientists and actual science to rebut science. They say "Science has it all wrong, and here's some science that proves it."
beat me too it. I need to get here earlier. :-(
cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/412511939235938304/446667482682359808/Ironic_meme.png
To the breaking point
“If we’re going to have a debate about science, can you please just be honest about it?” Good question to creationists.
I know you must get tired of explaining this over and over again, bt you explain it well, there are some of us that grew up with this crap and schools that refused to teach science as a result. We have to play catch up! you explain it well!
Thanks. I'm one of the people who grew up young earth, so I'm catching up just like you.
@@Paulogia yes, a big thanks for doing all the hard work of research so i don't have to!! 8>
Nice BABY DRIVER clip. One of my favorites from 2017!
thanks... mine too. love when people connect with those.
I think your editing has been getting better overall. I've noticed you seem to be playing with the medium a little more, where the edit to the specific clip, seems to make a small gag. I honestly can't think of any specifics, but I'm sure I've noticed a few now.
When you mentioned red shift and Doppler effect you meant the FREQUENCY would be compressed or extended changing the pitch/colour, amplitude would change the intensity or loudness of the wave.
I did. Thanks.
That’s what I’m here for, I enjoyed the video either way, it was just a little something I noticed.
When you mentioned "the FREQUENCY would be compressed or extended", you probably meant the wavelength, since the wavelength is indicated in metres (m) and thus this distance can be compressed or extended. The frequency is measured in cycles per second (Hertz) and might increase or decrease. Increasing -> blue shift, decreasing -> red shift.
Amplitude spot on.
I love the peer-review process ;-)
You are right but when you compress the wavelength you increase the frequency because C=F (Lambda)
Where C is the speed of light (3x10^8 m/s) F is the frequency and lambda (which I can’t find the symbol for on here) is the wavelength, so by compressing the wavelength you increase the frequency since the speed of like is constant
Of course I may have made an ass of myself because I’ve forgotten Paul’s exact wording of the sentence however using frequency instead of wavelength works exactly right, it’s just you would increase frequency to increase pitch, and it is common to say that a high pitch / violet colour is due a high frequency instead of using the wavelength which is why I jumped to using frequency instead.
However of course you are correct, and I agree I love peer review, and I enjoy discussion.
MysterMetalGeek thanks for the elaboration 👍
Later 🖐
What a brilliant video explanation of Boyles thermo and star formation. This should be in schools as a teaching aide.
Great video Viced Rhino
kodu HAHAHAHAHA 👆👆👆 This!
Lol
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Wow Paulogia! What a great video. I always learn so much from your vids and this one was heavy on the learning for me. I finish with a list of things to research abit further myself which makes me very happy. Thank you for another top notch educational video.
Thank you! I am so frustrated by these people who gave up on a geocentric solar system centuries ago only to claim a geocentric universe now. I didn't even know this was a thing until I ran into it in a Christian science textbook I had to teach from, and I wasted no time in informing my students that Earth's relative position in the cosmos was completely irrelevant to God's existence.
Awesome series. I love Tony's narration
he was the perfect addition. thanks.
Great description of some of the dynamics of stellar formation, as well as how little the AIG crowd either understands any of this, or is willing to present the science honestly. Excellent, as usual.
thank you, michael
Paulogia, Now I see why the long wait between part 2 and part 3, you had a lot more research to accomplish to properly counter the arguments presented in this section of the movie. Nicely done, keep it up.
Wow that is a great series! Can't wait for the next one!
Great video Paulogia. I have been waiting eagerly for part 3 and not disappointed. I wish just once these guys would make a prediction based on their hypothesis of a young earth the way science continues to make predictions that amazingly, despite clearly being inspired by the devil, keep coming true. I guess though this movie will not end with Eric saying "And you know it's true because in the next 10 years we will make these discoveries." because then when it falls flat on it's face we'll know him for the rotten apple that has not fallen far from the proverbial rotten tree. Thanks for all your work to fight this last gasp of the ignorant.
That would be amazing... to even make creation science predictions.
I so have to remember your open/closed/isolated system example. Great way to explain it, accurate and simple enough for a grade 3 kid to understand (without it sounding condescending) :).
it's not perfect, but it's easy to remember
Excellent work. Worth the wait.
Thanks, Timothy
It's so fascinating to see the CGI purty pictures of the creationist video pretending they are on top of the science (that none of them were responsible for doing) when they're so clearly not. Another fine video, Paul. Dare I quote a certain book ... "By their fruits shall ye know them"? And by that measure, creationism has offered a meal of no nourishment but plenty of prickly thorns still in place.
I'd go further and say creationism is negative-caloric. Feeding on it starves your brain and you get stupider the more you eat. :-D
This episode hurt my brain.. I'm going over to some Ham and Aig news where we react to Ken Ham reacting to things 😊😘
Made my day!! Great excuse to take a break from roofing on a hot day. Well done sir!
16:11 “Hot and dense” - This feels wrong but 😂
I couldn't not.
Woah, I just realized that this means that when my ex dies, she could become a new universe. But does that now make her a god? And conversely, does that make me the devil?
Your "hot dense universe" video clip was subtle and fantastic!
This is a awesome series dude .Thank You.
Anyone who can aptly quote, or use quotes, from Douglas Adams is a great person in my book.
My book being the collected 5 volumes of the Hitchhiker's trilogy, of course :-D
Re the formation of stars, there's a good video on it on SciShow. The problem of heat is overcome by the strong (I hope so. Maybe the weak...) nuclear force.
Ah, Dr Liar. See Martymer 81 for his wonderful series taking him down exquisitely!
I don't mean to send people away from you, Paul, these are "additional resources" ;) Your series is wonderfully detailed without being so scientific that only scientists can understand it. The perfect level of academia :) I wish you'd taught when I was at school. Let's ignore the fact that I'm older than you...
“He made the stars also”? He made 2 trillion galaxies each with a hundred billion stars each star with an average mass of a hundred thousand times the mass of the Earth on the fourth day and had barely enough strength to continue on for two more days to make fish and fowl and animals and man. No wonder life is so screwed up and barbaric on this planet: god was so drained from making all those stars he couldn’t think straight.
God invented automatic adaptation for life, what we call evolution; because he needed 3 billion years to invent humor; to give intelligent people an alternative to killing the stupid.
Chew Bird he was supposedly so focused on making earth and then sneezed out the rest of the cosmos and then went back to making earth.
*MemesAreCancer* - You're thinking of the Great Green Arkleseizure, Bless you.
hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Great_Green_Arkleseizure
and he has a personal relationship with 7.51 billion people on earth, that's one hellofa pile of post its.
Well done again. I look forward to the next video. Also: Tony makes a great 'Voice of God'.
Praise Tony
Love the POZ series with Tony and God
I love this series:-)
Thanks!
Lovely work as always Paul.
Loved the pun at 16:12!
Wow, so much info I'll have to watch it again! Oh how I wish Eric would sit down for a discussion with you!
Roberta Paley That's my actual dream!!!
seems less likely each day
you did an absolutely great job at explaining the science Paul. Better than some pop science documentaries which have tried to do the same thing. The 2nd Law of TD is one of my particular bugbears with these dishonest fools...
Thank you! Your content is amazing as usual!
Great video. Had a hard time understanding some of it. I will need to watch again, and read some more. Thanks again.
A excellent and informative presentation as usual. Please allow me to expand on at least two points you made.
Firstly, while you mentioned that the laws of thermodynamics need not apply to any kind of realm outside the universe, it is worth mentioning that this statement also applies to all laws of nature as well as the concepts of space and time itself. The universe need not exist within a realm that possesses a concept of space or time so, from an external frame of reference, because only space-time is expanding and space-time only exists in the realm inside the universe, the universe in it's current state need not take up any space in a realm external to it. Likewise any temporal framework that exists within the universe need not apply or be synchronised with any concept of a temporal framework in a realm external to the universe so from an external frame of reference the entire lifetime of the universe can pass in an instant so that all possible states that the universe can exist in, from a singularity through expansion to complete equilibrium and heat death, can exist simultaneously within the same instant while taking up no space.
The second point relates to red shifts.
Because space-time is a consequence of matter having mass, massless objects do not experience it and so, from our frame of reference, they travel at the speed of light which is the speed that photons travel through space-time as they have no mass. The speed of light isn't so much a maximum speed limit that can not be broken, it is the speed things appear to travel at when they do not experience space-time so in effect it is actually a measure of how much space-time is slowed due to matter having mass and consequently time slows in the presence of very massive objects.
This is relevant to red shifts because, though it may have travelled half way across the universe on a journey taking billions of years, from the photon particle's frame of reference, there is no space for it to travel across so it's journey is instantaneous which means that it exists at both it's source and destination simultaneously. Though a photon exists as a massless particle it oscillates and so behaves like a wave with the energy, and therefore speed of its oscillation being expressed as it wavelength with more energetic photons oscillating faster resulting in them having a shorter wavelength. From our frame of reference the photon particle has travelled a vast distance through space as the universe has expanded but from the photon's frame of reference it has travelled no distance at all. In order to reconcile this the photon is in effect stretched across the entirety of it's path from it's source to its destination even as it appears to propagate along that path over time from our frame of reference. Because the oscillations, in effect, reflect the movement of the photon through space and a set number of them take place between the source and the destination, as space-time expands along the path of the photon as the photon propagates it stretches the photon resulting in an increased wavelength which shifts the resulting light towards the red end of the spectrum and beyond as the wavelength increases.
This kind of cripples the creationist argument for a 6,000 year old universe where it is suggested that the universe was once considerably more compact than science suggests and expanded considerably faster than science accepts as in such a situation, in order for light from distant objects to be as red shifted as it currently is, in such a compact universe the source of that light would have to be several orders of magnitude more energetic than we know it to be meaning that the energy contained within and being emitted by the stars from which such distant light originated would be considerably greater than the gravity of those stars could contain in order to prevent them from exploding in a supernova or, because of mass-energy equivalence, they would need to have been several orders of magnitude more massive to produce light so energetic that it would actually be high energy microwaves, they would distort space-time considerably more than is observed, and every ancient star would collapse into a super-massive black hole due to their improbable mass!
The process of accepting the validity of papers is rather simple to creationists:
1) Was it published?
2) Does it support my creationist views?
If the answer to both questions is yes, then the paper must be true, and scientists are just denying it because they don't like its implications.
You slipped up a little.
It doesn't have to be properly published. It could be in a Creationist Journal, which have no standards.
Great vid Paul, science, reason and supportive evidence, plus a bonus for me watching your work I learn something new, top job as ever 👍
Love the clip you used for "hot and dense"
When we lost Douglas Adams, we lost a hero. I guess it was finally his turn to go hitchhiking into the unknown.
Great work Paulogia, loved it.
11:47 There is actually some indication that the universe may not be entirely closed, and that other universes can interact with it. It's a good hypothesis to explain some anomalies we've noticed, but I believe it does have competition.
I do not take anyone seriously who thinks they can determine design intuitively but then says that everything is designed. In order for anyone to be expected to take that seriously you'd need to show something that wasn't designed for contrast. A "creationist" cannot ever present an example of something that wasn't designed or their entire argument would fail. How is this argument meant to convince anyone of anything? Have they even considered the major flaw in this illogical argument? Creationist: I found a watch on a beach and recognised it was designed. Skeptic: Don't you believe god designed the beach? Creationist: Well yes I do believe god designed the beach. Skeptic: Can you show me something you don't think was designed? Creationist: Well no I can't. Skeptic: Then what was your point?
Thanks for pointing out that many religious people, including Christians, accept evolution. My dad was a physics teacher and he was also a Christian. The Vatican has many prominent scientists who could definitely hold their own in secular science. I agree that one can explain all physical phenomena with just science, and, if we are just talking about science, atheism is perfectly reasonable. As the great Steven J Gould pointed out, science answers one kind of question, religion answers another. It is a matter of magisteria. It just pisses me off that creationists claim to speak for all Christians. They certainly don't speak for me, or many other Christians I know.
How typical of Paulogia, well researched, accurate, and most excellent,
I can only experience the Universe through my senses, therefore I am the Universe. So I got that going for me.
It’s a good day when Paulogia posts
Woot! Worth the wait (and worth staying up late in Aus for :)
thanks, Gary
15:25 "What Ken is saying here is true." Now there's a sentence I never would have expected to hear!
It just struck me that it is not much more weird to imagine "into what" space expands than "into what" time expands. And yet the expansion of time is not very hard to conceptualise. This, for me, makes the expansion of the universe including across space way easier to think about.
As usual..lying for jesus is where the money is....creationists will lap this up and use these disproved arguments without even bothering to check the facts for themselves...another great post Paul....keep up the good work..
the series exists for the few that eventually will
I spit water all over the place when I heard the "hot gases expand" as an argument against stars forming.
Paulogia, you may have let an unfounded suggestion slide:
“It’s almost as if the world was wound up...”. Even if we interpret “world” as “universe”, the clock imagery suggests the world started organized and useful and has been decreasing in order and utility since then.
The current iteration (maybe the only one) of our known universe apparently had almost no entropy at the outset. That is also a useless condition. Life requires considerable entropy to develop or exist.
Thank you, Paulogia. I've been going playing checkers with a thiest pigeon for an hour. After all the shitting on the board, knocking off pieces, and yelling checkmate I needed something to grow back some brain cells.
Josiah Hanson
Ye it can be draining but always do it for the good off genuine readers.
wispa1a yes hopefully someone reads the comment string and gets a chuckle out of it. All I got was a headache.
wispa1a if you want to be a pal and check it out it would be cool for someone to see the derpy nonsense involved. It's on youtuber Godless Engineer's latest video's comment section. It's towards the top comments, and currently has 12 replies.
Thank you for uploading
*quality content* :)
Happy 15k!!!!!
Very well researched and also well-stated arguments. Great video, man! :-D
thanks, IHT
Excellent analysis Paul. I learned a lot at the same time as you took down those cherry picking believers. Good choice of accompanying video footage, it was difficult to appreciate it all while learning some finer points of Albert's theories; a second and third viewing is in store.
not sorry. :)
Well stated, Paul. You cannot have life w/o energy, hence no existence.
Great video Paul. One small issue I caught: at around 16:50 you say that there hasn't been enough time for photons from one end of the galaxy to reach the other end of the galaxy. I'm pretty sure you meant "universe" instead of "galaxy".
oops. I did. thanks.
Gravity waves and gravitational waves are different. Gravitational waves are the recent discover of the stretching and squishing of space-time. Gravity waves are caused by the interaction of two fluids with different densities reaching equilibrium after being disturbed. So the creationist is correct in the assessment of fluid dynamical gravity waves from blackholes (usually pulsars) disrupting the molecular gas clouds and causing the gas to clump up which in turn throws off the equilibrium between gravity and pressure.
Your argument still stands, just thought I could give you some insight to the opposite side's argument.
I appreciate the insight. The article Charles wasn't referencing gravity at all, though... I'm hoping to point out that he plays fast-and-loose with his claims.
The article was discussing gravity waves, though. I might be giving this dolt too much credit to assume that he extrapolated super nova gravity waves to blackhole gravity waves. I have heard the explanation of molecular cloud collapse proposed from gamma ray bursts, obviously way out of context of a creationist worldview. I totally get your point, and I hope I don't come across as defending these guys :)
Erik really should be selling used cars. He’d be so good at it.
Ok I have a question, something that occured to me a while back and trying to understand (and before someone jumps on me I'm just asking not trying to prove or disprove something). The universe is expanding from the Big Bang I get that but as I understand it that expansion is speeding up. I realize dark energy plays a role here but isn't the universe a closed system and shouldn't that expansion be slowing down not speeding up?
We can not fully comprehend what the "firmament" or "expanse" or "division" was or how far it extended, nor how high the upper "waters" were or how "thick" or "dense" it was, or what form it took.
I prefer Kent's crystalline ice theory, as the Jewish historian Josephus mentions a tradition of the firmament being crystalline.
Just as there are ice clouds high up now, there maybe could have been a thick layer of suspended ice all around the glove that helped to greatly shield the planet from cosmic radiation, contributing to long life in flesh and vegetation. Perhaps a denser, higher oxygen atmosphere did exist to help as well, as Kent's seminar points out from scientific evidence in amber (O2 levels), the giant sizes of (flying) insects and birds (would not be able to breathe or fly today, respectively), etc.
Peter says that the age, the world that existed *then*... vs the age or world that exists *now". What existed then our minds can not fully grasp as it was destroyed, altered, changed.
I disagree with 1:29 as that is not what is being said. Be careful, and don't just rely as a layperson on the KJV.
The moon is *not* said to give off its own light. Since you are nit picking, the account doesn't even use the Hebrew word for moon, which isn't used until Genesis 37:9.
It is understood that light comes from the objects. It does *not* say that either of them are the source.
19:50 Wave amplitude does not affect color. It should have been frequency or wave length. Probably just a slip of tongue, but maybe worth correcting.
Cheers
Paul, your video background clip that you played while referring to "hot and dense" matter was absolutely brilliant! I literally laughed out loud at that. I even re-wound that part to watch it again, in order to marvel at both (a) how hot that girl is and (b) how dense I recall her being when she spoke (which certainly takes the shine off her hotness once that aspect is in play).
This is of course why ballgags were invented, so that physically attractive but dimwitted women can continue to be perceived as hot without having the chance to ruin it.
Now that I have disgraced your channel with my scandalous attempt at humor, and established myself as a person of low morality whose praise would be a mark of shame, I will close with a simple "Well played, sir!"
Happy dance!
You've got Tony Reed to do your intro and outro! 👍👍👍
I did!
Hey, SlowMoGuys video, nice.
good catch
Hey Paul there's no i in the top right corner.
The Brony Notion I already gave him a lecture 😉 it should be now. He had the nerve to think he deserves to sleep!
Oops. Fixed now. Thanks.
Hey.. the universe revolves around me.
Love it- All anyone has to do to validate their 'scientific' argument is to mention Einstein!
It's a minor point to pick up on, but when the guy is talking about how many pages his book on the Anthropic Principle is - that demonstrates nothing. Possibly it's packed full of information, possibly it's packed full of padding and unnecessary verbiage written in a large font. "Ooh I have a fat book to support my claims" is little more than a runtish descendant of argument from authority.
But it was a fat book that DIDn't support his claims. Why bring it up?
Paulogia I must have missed heat part, the perils of doing two things at once. Even wierder then, perhaps the intent was to say "look how much rubbish these evolutionists talk"?
Since Douglas Adams was mentioned and we're talking about big books: The hardest part of time travel is not accidentally becoming your own father. That's nothing an open-minded family can't cope with. The hardest part is the language, especially the tenses!
There is a tense for talking about an event you have already experienced while travelling to the future, one for something that lies in the past but is future for you since you haven't gone back in time yet to do it, and so on.
The topic is so confusing that later editions of English for Time Travellers left the later chapters blank to save printing costs, since no one ever got there, anyway.
A fairly popular idea among cosmologists is that the universe has zero total energy. The positive energy of matter is balanced out by the negative energy of gravity, for a net zero balance.
Thanks Paul, I’ve learned a lot.
One major takeaway I’ve learned is that everyone involved in this project is using their interpretation of religion as a way to make money. They know what they’re spouting is incorrect.
My understanding is that the Big Bang doesn't require an "infinitely small point" -- only density and expansion. It could just as well have been dense and infinite.
I did Google light Travel problem. You are right i dont find Published papers and all i could find was Religous websites on the subject.
OK, editing geek moment - I like that you got the waterfall to go in front of the box graphic!
oh how I've been sorry I made that choice ;)
Is the key tough?
It's render intensive... but the main problem is that sometimes I need the viewer to see what's happening on that part of the screen. And it gives me less space to put up the science papers, etc. Oh well... keeping it. I like it.
Yeah that makes sense. I like it, but I'm an editing geek as I said.
You need to watch the principle movie about the hot and cold spots in the CMB correlating to our solar system
I love anything that's "firmament-ed". Beer, wine, whiskey, gin, vodka, brandy, schnapps...
"Above and below the firmament"... Is obviously (obviously) a human consideration. Our concept of above and below comes from our individual organic senses being tuned in to the gravitational pull of the earth so that we have 'up' and 'down' that is opposite to someone's experience of up and down on the other side of the planet. No one could have viewed the firmament from afar as it was created ... Although it could be imagined of course.
Conservation of energy is a result of time symmetry, and therefore would not be applicable where time symmetry is not present. It is possible that time symmetry did not hold at the moment of the Big Bang, so it is still actually possible that the energy of our universe was created in the Big Bang (or maybe the creation of the energy caused the Big Bang and time symmetry).
1:15 Are those...giant water tornados being sucked into the atmosphere? What the everloving hell is going on?
You know what I think this whole movie would be a lot less painful if I just watched it as a science fiction parody documentary.
Have you listened to Douglas Adam's hitchhikers guide to the galaxy? If not then the first 2 series are very ironically, witty humoured in that British tolerant way.
I’ve read all of adams’ fiction, and have my kids doing the same, but I have heard all of the radio work.
Paulogia
Admittedly I haven't read all but I own the complete 6 radio, 1 TV series.
New one released this year to. With the late Prof Hawkins opening up.
I think his humour and outlook was awesome.
"Space is not just curved, it is totally bent"
-- I can't remember who said this
I checked a few of the English translations I have to see how "firmament" is rendered in non-KJV versions. The NRSV is the worse, since it actually says "dome". NIV says "sky" and the Amplified says "Heavens". Of course we colloquially say "The Sun is in the sky" but don't mean that we think it is in the atmosphere. In that instance "the sky" is the frame or reference location of where to look for or expect to see the Sun.
I don't think there is another scientific concept more abused by the religious than the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
The sun was here before the earth by at least a million years!
"Secular mythology"....LOL! Does this mean creationists admit their position is mere mythology so they can project their position onto us?
one complaint well not a complaint but a correction and that would be the diagram you used for the sun reflecting the light from the moon... light from the sun to the moon would still be 100%
"He made the stars also" may be brief because with the naked eye we can't really see more than a few thousand stars. The galaxies (even Andromeda is fuzzy) are also unseen so there's not much point mentioning them. Same for other things not mentioned. I don't think we should expect an astronomical catalogue in a chapter which is designed to make the basic point of "God made it all" before moving on. Having said that, the lack of mention of the Milky Way is a worry. People must have wondered what that was.
I wasn't disparaging. I think it's the most bad-ass part of Genesis.
Amazing that some adults think that gods, magic and fairy tales are real, so naive.
I was one, until recently. I get it.
i have to add to the image of the cosmic wave background is a bit misleading
the colors might give you the idea that the temperature between red and blue is quite a bit
but the difference between the red zones and dark blue is literally just a few ten thousand of a degree.
it is just so accurately measured that those tiny differences can be shown with such detail.
also that are is about 13.5 billion lightyears away the point so far that it comes from very recent after the big bang (several tens of thousands of years after) and all it shows is that bath of radiation.
ironicly if there is a race of being looking at the same thing and are at the very edge of our cmb they will see a Very similar cmb and where our platet would be they will only see that bath of energy from way back then as they are looking at the location of earth but 13.5 billion years ago loong before even the sun was there.
Ready Player One has far superior CGI.
I do find it funny they used spherical planet images to represent their FE "Under the Dome" story.
I'm sure they thought about whether to do that, alienating some of their audience.