Diffraction shits on the big bang and kicks it out of its job at explaining red shift. Time can't explode, you deluded atheists. Carl Sagan preached a lie, and he was a massive fool regardless of his irrelevant eloquence.
Interacting with reality the way it presents itself is hardly delusional. However, trying to inject a deity that conveniently coincides with one's own ego driven beliefs into reality, a deity that NEVER presents itself as ever BEING part of that reality, can indeed be construed as delusional. God never shows up outside of people's minds, and I myself find that a bit curious for something that is supposed to be, and is boldly asserted to be, real. Hate to break it to people, but "feeling God in your heart," and going by a book full of errors and easily falsifiable bullshit stories, doesn't constitute as facts or evidence.
If destroying means introducing a calm, respectful, scientifically accurate, positive and friendly attitude to the debate, then yes, he utterly destroyed the caller. ;-)
@Robert Bradburn Of course, science changes everyday. Because we learn and discover new things and facts. Some things don’t change in science. Laws and constants for example. By the way, mathematics is a science, too. It has also „changed“ over the last centuries, because our understanding has grown and nowadays we can teach very complex stuff at school.
@Robert Bradburn „How many planets are there?“ - Really? That’s your argument? If you’re referring to the status of Pluto I suggest you google the discoveries made since 1992. You will find that discovering facts helps science evolve. There is no change in Pluto. Our possibilities and exploration and wisdom have changed. Oh, and the Meth was no typo. It was a joke referring to your uncontrolled use of bad language and anger. Sorry, you didn’t get that. But from your comments I have to say, I am not surprised.
@Robert Bradburn What on earth are "math guys"? People who believe mathematics is accurate? Surely no one disputes that. The caller Sagan was debating here is more of a "myth guy": helplessly clinging to a rapidly disintegrating mythological allegory from the Bible in the face of overwhelming, irrefutable scientific evidence.
@Jeff -66 surely its a kind of narrow-minded unscientific unreasoning form of pseudo-Christianity (‘young earth’ type) that addled your mind. True Christianity is healing, calming, harmonious with all nature, fully hopeful and consistent with true science, whilst drawing one closer to the Creator, Jehovah.
I love how he refuses to be rushed and respectfully but firmly refuses to be talked over or strawmanned and makes it clear that he won't participate unless he's actually respected. 💜 This man is such a role model for people everywhere on how to have a rational discussion where so many (and not only on the religious side) seek to inflame debate and jeer at or demonize the person.
Not only that but the host moderated the call effectively, realizing that the mans religious fervor kept him from being quiet and listening to the answer and shut him down. Something which is absent from modern debates. The loudest and rudest person wins and people applaud it. Rampant anti-intellectualism. Sometimes I wonder how we went from people like Sagan to the debacle of clownery we have in public discourse today.
daweller Religious people of the gods variety feel threatened by the luminaries of humanity. It's sad. They think they are enlightened. They are in the dark.
Michael Brown. I truly feel sorry for you. Maybe the correct medication would settle your confused brain down enough to think straight. Good luck to you, you poor thing.
The beauty of science and the facts we all have come to understand and observe, is that they’re true whether ignorant people like you believe in it or not. You just insult Darwin, while offer no support for a creator whatsoever so you’re just as bad as the people you’re bitching about. I wish you more logic and good health in the future.
Guess where the kindness comes from. He faces absolute inferiors. When he talks he does not talk to them. He talks half to himself half to an eventual idealistic other being. And I praise him for that just as you do. It’s pretty fucking hard to actually be in position to speak when you are not matched. You can be lonely and maybe your priorities are very simple and humble. The social environnement of today would eat him alive. Because there are many Carl Sagans and we only talk about the dead one.
@@CNCmachiningisfun Come on now, although I firmly believe in evolution many people derive inspiration and character from religion. A great many things in life and in the universe can not be explained through conventional means. Have to give props to someone with over 1.2 billion followers who lived over 2000 years ago. If you were a charlatan, you would have been exposed a long time ago.
@@josephmango4628 "A great many things in life and in the universe can not be explained through conventional means." True: Science can't answer everything. Religion can't answer *ANYTHING!* "Have to give props to someone with over 1.2 billion followers who lived over 2000 years ago." This just goes to show that delusion is common among religiots. "If you were a charlatan, you would have been exposed a long time ago." ALL gods have been exposed as manmade entities, but most people are just too stupid to accept facts. After all: Mark Twain said it best when he said, "Religion began when the first con artist met the first naive fool."
@@josephbuttita2644 "You Re a dick head." Do you mean You're (you are) a dick head? Or You Re: (i.e.: RE: for regarding) a dick head; or do you mean "You RE: (replying) a dick head? In which case, which dick head are you referring to? Perthaps learning some grammar might make your insult have more validity.
not only was he a brilliant scientist, but an incredibly eloquent speaker, an excellent teacher, a calm & cool dude, and an authentic person of integrity i could listen to him for hours without getting bored
+harpyion yeah, but isn´t it your conviction that now he´s dead. I mean really dead, no memories or feelings or thoughts anymore. He does not exit anymore! So what does it matter whether or not he was a great person or not in a billion years??? He is nothing worth and his life as well as ours are purposeless. - Just an accident. That´s your take on life, isn´t it???
+Rick Shoemaker I was also very young when I saw Cosmos (very early 80's) and after that space science have always been one of my main interests. When I was older I found out more about Carl Sagan and what a human he was. The best kind of one. So sad that he is no longer with us today..
The caller probably called in for the first time in his life. Carl Sagan did hundreds of interviews by the time he answered the caller. So of course Carl would sound a lot better.
Chris Money You also forget that Carl had fact on his side, and the poor caller was coming from a fictional world of sky fairies. A world where impossible things are the foundation off all that he believes.
Douglas man think about it, this shit was happening when I was a child and still to this day this ignorant people are everywhere preaching the same thing, guess patience runs out for some.
Carl Sagan could have dismissed the caller on the last interruption but Doctor Sagan patiently explained and answered the question without patronizing the caller. Brilliant!
@Tim Webb what 'several lines of convincing' evidence did you find in your bible? The word of a talking snake, a blonde god or the manipulation of deranged priests that only offer superstition for pervasive minds? 6,000 years, ja!
@Tim Webb You're out of your mind. Stop listening to religious quacks. Or, you could choose to disregard ALL of science and technology and go back to living in a cave starting fires and hunting with sticks and stones while waiting for your chosen deity's return. What are the odds that YOU and the dingbat that told you this crap found the absolute truth and every other lifelong scientist for generations ALL had it wrong? What has dingbat invented? How many published peer reviewed papers? (Outside of their religious system) What are the odds that out of the thousands of Gods throughout time immemorial You were born in the right time and in the right place to have been taught about the one and only God? From the one right book made by men that has been edited over and over by men into what it is today? I bet you're a white male in the US probably a southern or southwestern state. I bet your church also has a white Jesus image in it too. Even these stories were made in the middle east about men in the middle east.
@Tim Webb so it took you six days to respond with this absolute dribble? (Idk why I expected More) I get it. You're a young earth creationist. And you pick and choose which parts of science and the Bible that fits your beliefs. And surround yourself with material that creates an echo chamber for those beliefs. Not all people are capable of critical thinking. And are therefore more prone to believe in and create their own conspiracy theories. Please cite any/all peer reviewed papers that tell us ANY part of evolution or DNA or geology is only 6000 years old. Because that would be Nobel prize worthy. And about your Bible, How many books does it have? The original fabrication had many more than any of the current ones. I guess God inspired those books to be,, garbage? Or did he not inspire them and men had to remove them (after they had been used for a few generations)? One of MANY hypocrisies found throughout a book supposedly inspired by an all knowing being. And about electricity, why isn't that mentioned in the Bible? (A help to humanity) along with, germ theory/antibiotics, all humans being equal, women's rights, the American continent, cosmology (sun centered solar system), physics etc etc etc. If you don't abide by everything in the Bible (whichever covenant) then you are in fact worshipping a God that is different than those that came before you. If you only believe the science that you like (because it fits your narrative), then you are limiting your accumulation of proven truths. Just like the church did for generations
@Tim Webb more dribble. No links to this supposed peer reviewed science you speak of. More quoting from the 2/3 of a book full of hypocrisies (that you don't address) edited by men in power that wrote none of the books in it. If a third of my holy book was missing, I'd be interested in why and what it said. Have you ever read any of those books? Did you know that the Jewish faith began as a polytheistic religion? (Old testament has hints) Can you show anything that corroborates Jesus or his disciples outside of the Bible? I mean you'd think there would be SOMETHING. And the 6000 years is based on the 66 books. What if the other 37 books add in another few thousand years. Will your "science" change to back that up? I'm guessing all of the people that had those books too for over a thousand years are just in a different heaven. I wonder if there are rules in those books (that men took out), that you're not abiding by but should be. You believe that I haven't read the Bible. You're mistaken. I'm not the one picking and choosing the parts I want to live by. You accuse me of living in an echo chamber. And yet you're the one picking and choosing the science that you believe according to the author and how it fits into your beliefs. Real science is based on observable repeatable evidence. Which lead to hypothesis'. That are then peer reviewed and through observed repeatable experimentation are correlated into theories that are then still open to further peer review and or refutation at any time (with evidence). Why would your partial book be better than that or any other competing religious book belief system? Where's the evidence? Please don't confuse religion and science. Science exists DESPITE religious persecution throughout history
Carl was such a fool. Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the dumbass, "It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a vomit bag or trash can nearby for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, foolish person he was. Now, Carl the dumbass NEVER can get around these laws and what the lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet the buffoon thinks creation happened naturally, but the idiot says, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" as the crap-for-brains ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still the fool who ignores the laws farted out, "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as dumb as he is. So in his way of foolish thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan the dumbass will at some point face his Maker for his judgment of what he believed in this life. His extreme shame and regret was all his choice. He wanted to be a hypocritical dumbass. Then he'll be thrown into the lake of fire. It will be his 'The End' and be remembered no more. ALL his choice and for others who follow that fool.
@@jerrylanglois7892 so I give evidence and you fart out... "prove it" ?" I don't give reading lessons to idiots who can't read and then want to respond to me.
He is how people should be in these discussions. Calm, respectful, hungry for knowledge, refusing to be rushed or pressured to defend himself, keeping the discussion on track. The trick is to prioritise your own learning rather than seeing yourself as being responsible for or at the mercy of those who don't understand. This short clip has taught me so much about how to better respond to people who want to debate. Very often those who genuinely want to know answers sound very similar to those arguing in bad faith from internalizing the same arguments, or switch to actually wanting to know once they realise that you genuinely seek truth and aren't trying to persuade them, and the only way to respond is in good faith but with firm boundaries just as he demonstrated here.
The way he makes a point to not be ran over yet not being consumed emotionally and not becoming an a hole himself. Masterful conversation technique which many lack.
Baffling, SK isn't it ?.. and why so many reject science as they tweet their woo woo on mobile phones, the product of centuries of scientific evolution and human endeavor in so many fields - geology, geophysics, engineering, chemistry, quantum physics just to mention a few, as well as that of human dreams and artistic creativity.. not just an amazing solid theory, I love and celebrate evolution, how we have arrived here against the odds, and are here together as fellow humans (and all the other critters) at this juncture in space and time.. Carl thought we'd be flying to the stars by now if it wasn't for so much belief in irrational nonsense.. and also hopefully get on a lot better with each other.. we do have so much to appreciate still ;-)
Completely agree. I find it curious that they don't seem to eschew the science of medicine, as well. They tend to cheer-on a god for "miracle" cures, but don't discuss the ridiculous amounts of science that went into curing their beloved. As for evolution, I also see it as a triumph. A triumph of fluke, sure, but we're here nonetheless. I feel kinship with other living creatures, and that holds a profound feeling of connectivity, real connectivity, to not only this planet, but the rest of the universe. We don't need to look outside of nature to find magic of any sort; nature, as viewed through the lens of science, holds enough "magic" to satiate anyone looking for it. I'm sure this comes across as silly and pompous and a million other adjectives, but I've no better words to describe it.
They will happily use a computer to type out their contempt for the same physical sciences which also created that computer. A flat earther will use GPS without even flinching and they may even watch broadcast TV which needed a satellite uplink. There are so many ironies of this kind they are endless yet, almost without exception, no creationist ever perceives that irony. Going to go out on a limb here and suggest this happens because creationists are either 1) unbelievably stupid, or 2) they are easily made intransigent by the brute force appeal of wishful thinking, or 3) both 1) and 2) at the same time.
@@BartAlder LoL I can understand the creationists and flat earthers way back when! but you're so right, they have no idea....or should I say, they simply refuse
@@SmittenKitten. Bingo! But tell that to the Christians. "We don't need to look outside of nature to find magic of any sort; nature, as viewed through the lens of science, holds enough "magic" to satiate anyone looking for it." Yes indeedy!
@@clarkomarko2730 My wife had the privilege of meeting him in Zurich when she was 8. He told her "A smile is infectious and laughter is better than chocolate." He was truly a better man than humanity deserved. A Saint of truth, kindness, wisdom and understanding.
I must be jaded because I find it extremely easy to believe that a creationist thought they could outsmart Carl Sagan. Creationists tend to think they can outsmart everyone in every single science discipline.
Well, Carl... Carl! Llamas with hats... sorry. Actually, one thing worth keeping in mind, which Sagan might not have been aware of while he was alive would be the efficiency in genetic recombination and gene editing we have today in various forms, to CRISPR, and on. With such technology, and a little understand, we can go ahead and create gaps in the evolutionary record. For example, I've already made organisms with a blue phenotype that is not found in nature, nor is there any natural, or selective breeding process which would yield the offspring I created with blue flesh. But that was a college project for a genetics class. Generally, given the equipment and materials, it wouldn't be at all difficult for me to make things, like cosmopolitan ice-cream style breadfruit. That is, we have tomatoes with fish genes, which again, nature has no real purpose in creating over a million years -- even though it would be an evolutionary advantage for that species. And to come up with that concept, and have a finished product took less than 10 years. Evolution, as a mean of change is 100% fine, however, to know even the slightest amount about genetic manipulations available to mankind, and even more so after Sagan's death, creates a situation where man can essentially intelligently design creatures of all kinds. But, we already know that based on our understanding of the age of the universe, and the age of the earth in comparison, as well as the period we believe life came to exist on this planet based on carbon dating that any given galaxy closer to the center of the universe already has a great advantage in time -- presuming similar events took place on that planet to "spark" life. Thus, if say, a species were to develop much closer to the center of the universe and propagate to just our level of understanding today in as many years as it took humanity, then given the distance from our own planet alone, they would potentially have millions of years to further develop everything from genetic engineering to far faster space travel. It is also worth keeping in mind the petri-dish concept, or a petri-dish is without life or resources until a scientist fills it. A garden is empty, or alternatively overrun by weeds prior to the gardener's visit. In the petri-dish, we drop a small amount of potential life from which all things form and grow. How different then might the universe be from a petri-dish of incomprehensible magnitude? In such a case, it would be not at all impossible to come to any number of conclusion from the inside about what is outside (in our more limited cases, on the earth), but there are few things which escape a petri-dish in a good lab (all of which are desired by the scientists). Sagan is certainly no moron, but even the most intelligent people, or those with the pen-ultimate amount of potential are limited still by the people and resources around them.. Carl Sagan in the stone age, with his understanding of today, would likely not even be able to start a iron-age -- and certainly not on his own. Still, fascinating guy. Science.
He was a condescending, ill mannered mouthpiece paid to stifle all discussion that exposed his religion of evolution as a fraud. He owes his fame to nothing else except that he was willing to lie for money.
@@DavidParker-cf2km You obviously a sick man. Please see a doctor. Show them what you have written. Show them the photo you have next to your name. Pointing a gun at two females is very disturbing. If you feel that it is normal you can talk to someone about that. Please I am serious.
Carl has been a major influence in my life since watching Cosmos in the early 80's as a young teen, it through this series I spent 3 years back in the mid 90's traveling overland through Asia, middle East and most of Africa, he installed within me a love of culture, anthropology, evolution, philosophy and of course astronomy.
@@mrstanskaggs1 I guarantee u haven’t done anything hes done in his life u just wanna seem superior by sayin he needs better idols 😂 you are a nobody telling the OP something...seems like that man lived a beautiful life
Vicente Unicorn He didn't really destroy anything. Those who are open to fact and reason already agreed with him. Those who believe in grandiose fairy tales walked away from this tête à tête believing they won the day. "I got him with that transitional species rhetoric" That's what they think because the reasonable reply given wasn't understood. The second someone goes over the head of a theist, they turn their ears off.
Typical creationist tactic. Throw out a debunked claim as if its never been addressed then scamper off whilst claiming victory before the opponent has had time to set them straight. No matter how many times these old challenges are put to rest the religionists continue to re-introduce them. This is patently dishonest.
Is your username supposed to be a joke??? You do realize that conservatives are largely the "religionists that continue to re-introduce" these challenges and fallacies??? You are being very inconsistent. I take it you are not aware of this fact???
ThinkTank255 that's actually not true. I am a republican and an atheist. I don't believe in abortion after a certain week because of science not god(viability of the fetus). There are plenty of liberals who are "god fearing". Every party has zealots ours just happen to be fucking batshit crazy and on fox news a lot.
Michael Brown I don't understand why people keep calling atheism a religion. The idea of atheism is that we do not believe in gods lol the absence of religion. We seek truth. When we read the bible it is nonsensical with the evidence. Where would you put a whale(World wide flood would dilute the salt water killing salt water fish/mammals) Surely you can't be telling me that those gigantic dinosaurs we have found could fit on Noah's arc can you?
Death To Liberalism, That depends upon how you define "liberalism." Personally, I don't believe that state socialists deserve to call themselves "liberals," since real liberals have historically been opposed to state power. I would recommend the book Liberalism by Ludwig von Mises. Respectfully yours, Alex Peak
Carl Sagan ( 9 November, 1934 - 20 November, 1996 ) American Astronomer, Astrophysicist, Cosmologist, Author, Science Populariser, and Science Communicator in Astronomy and Other Natural Sciences. A Very Mature and Nice Person as well!
It’s funny how people come at Carl Sagan by telling him there is a gaping hole in the theory of evolution because they don’t understand it nor want to.
@@keithmarlowe5569 They turn everything into a belief in order to give their's some "credence." In fact of course, it's achieves the opposite, as reality is something. A False equivalence.
I have tried numerous times to explain evolution to creationists. It is impossible 1) because even when they "ask" for an explanation, their minds are already made up against it; and 2) yeah, interrupting is their first line of attack, comparable to sticking their fingers in their ears and going "la-la-la-la-la!" Really? How are you supposed to have an "intelligent" adult conversation with someone who insists on living in childhood?
It does seem that way. Though, probably the reason why it is "asked" is because of the search for holes in science in order to exploit their own agendas.
Christians don't want to understand atheism, science or logic. All they want is confirmation of their bias and to uphold their bullshit dogma. If you even begin to scratch the surface of their nonsense you will see the fangs come out, and you will see the true face of blind faith.
Michael Brown You are clearly deluded! No has ever claimed that 'land mammals magically evolved into sea mammals', you're replacing the world 'magically' with literally billions of years of evolution. A tadpole can grow legs and become a frog in as little as 6-9 weeks. Obviously that isn't evolution but if a tadpole can do it I'm sure billions of years of evolution can do it. The most unbelievably asinine part of your argument is that your mind somehow can't grasp sea animals evolving into land animals yet your theory is that two naked people and a snake created humanity, god created everything in one work week and an old man brought the entire animal kingdom off a wooden boat.
Bouchon211 And that is part of the crux of the problem, these myths and legends have been around for much longer than what we know of as modern science. Compare a few thousand years of creation myths, legends and stories trying to explain the natural world against the last, hmmm, I suppose 500 years of scientific advancement.
Our caller is too ready to do battle rather than to listen. Perfectly put. That's all creationists ever want to do is 'win the argument'. They couldn't care less about reaching the truth
It's called a soldier mentality, whereas smart people usually have a scout mentality. They observe, listen, ponder, and base their beliefs on evidence and logical reasoning. Instead of sticking with one set of beliefs, vehemently defending it and attacking anyone who thinks differently.
Of course, ONLY evolutionists have or know the truth. It is extremely stupid to believe in evolution. There is absolutely no proof! No matter how much of a gentleman this guy is, he is completely wrong.
Ed Gomez Hey little Eddie, put it back in your short pants, wipe the drool off your receding chin and go back under your rock to Mommy Lizard. This thread is for humans who actually think.
Bang on the money - they really *DON'T* want to face up to the truth. That's probably because without the 'insurance' of a fluffy-bunny Afterlife, the dreaded fear of their own mortality suddenly creeps in.
That technique has been named the "Gish Gallup" after Wayne Gish, a prominent Creationist debater who employed it consistently. I think it was Richard Wiseman that coined the term, but I'm not sure of that. The only way to combat it is to do exactly what Sagan did, and just stop him from introducing new material until you have fully answered the previous question. Man, he was the greatest!
Interesting how this could be recorded in today's world. All the tropes are here: interrupting the scientist's answer because it is not the answer you expect, bombarding the scientist with more questions than you let him finish, so you give the impression that you're "winning", purposedly closing your eyes and ears for the facts that the scientist is giving you... How I miss Carl Sagan in this contemporary world of ours.
There are plenty of people with demeanors like his around. The problem is that the only thing promoted on media/social media now is sensationalist garbage only meant to capture attention to get more money from advertisers.
Scientists were too scared to question a Va c c i n e that had all of 6 months trials before being unleashed on the public for real world testing. They also were nowhere to be seen when the pharmaceutical companies requested their "trial data" be hidden from the public for 75 years. Gene therapy is no joke and to quote emperor fauci himself. "in 10 to 12 years all hell could break loose". I'm paraphrasing what he said about experimental hiv/aids vaccs many years ago. FYI, I love science and the cosmos. Science should be done right, not rushed and open to criticism otherwise it's nothing more than a religion. Right?
Carl can destroy creationism but people's stupidity will never end. How can anyone seriously question the fossil record: Here are some strong evidences of Evolution. Much stronger than arguments for God or Religion 1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended. This doesn't contradict that god couldn't have started it all, but it certainly contradicts the biblical telling. 2 The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another. The more we search, the more this is proven. I guess some could think god has planted millions of fossils to fool scientists. One never finds dinosaur fossils with humans unless they were planted by someone as a goof or misleading "plant". When we find a particular dinosaur fossil, elephant, or a DeLorean car; it's always falls inside a certain historical time-line, and we know this by radiocarbon dating or radioactive decay of Isotopes verified repeatedly by scientist throughout the world. 3 Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we hared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to ow long ago our genetic lines diverged. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordate" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor. 4 Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations. When an antibiotic is applied, the initial inoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.? 5 We have seen Evolution occur during the Industrial Age in England where black-peppered moths can hide in trees more easy than white moths and so after a generation there were most black moths . But the evidence in favor of natural selection (evolution) on peppered moths continued to accumulate. England and other countries cleaned up their air in the late 1900s, and trees went from dark to light. Now natural selection’s balance shifted: black moths became a liability. And, as you’d predict, the dark moths went from common back to rare again. Evolution has tons and tons of evidence supporting it. All different fields of science like: Anatomy, Chemistry, Zoology, Paleontology, Archaeology, Taxonomy, Embryology, Genetics, Molecular Biology, Geology, ERV's and the Fossil Record all cross-confirms the theory of evolution independently. 6 homologies . Evolutionary theory predicts that related organisms will share similarities that are derived from common ancestors. Similar characteristics due to relatedness are known as homologies. Homologies can be revealed by comparing the anatomies of different living things, looking at cellular similarities and differences, studying embryological development, and studying vestigial structures within individual organisms. 7 Vestigial Structures (This particular proof is not one of the strongest and there are flaws in the argument..) Vestigial organs (tonsils, third molars, appendix) have long been one of the classic arguments used as evidence for evolution. The argument goes like this: living organisms, including man, contain organs that were once functional in our evolutionary past, but that are now useless or have reduced function. More importantly, vestigial organs are considered by some evolutionists to be evidence against Creationism because they reason a perfect Creator would not make useless organs. 8 The incredible rate at which we're finding transitional fossils now that we're looking 9 the dating of the strata and the knowledge of mutation rates in species lead to conclusions that time after time, strongly correlate 10. Science using Radiocarbon dating works up to 50000 years and uranium lead Isotopes goes back much future to provide time and other radiometric isotopes the age of the earth and fossils and estimates the world began around 14 billion yrs ago, and the earth was formed from supernovas about 4.5 billion years ago. Radio dating and Isotopes are one of the strongest evidences that prove evolution because these tests are duplicated every waking hour by scientists
@@mobiusklein9140 the KLINGONS!!!! Their whole race and existence religion and superstition. The Klingons are I think one of the most "religious" races in Star Trek...... not that they sit for 100 years and meditate and ponder shit like the vulcans..... but the klingons are indeed "predictable"...... because OF their "religion". In fact even their death ritual is religion. You could compare Klingons with our own Viking Mythology and "religion" and way of life. The Ferengi are also driven by "religion"..... Greed is their "God" and they worship it RELENTLESSLY and unlike most "holy books"..... theirs does not contain stories and shit to "teach" them the values and how to live....... but a entire book of "Commandments"...... nothing BUT "Commandments" to follow. Star Trek is DRENCHED in religion all throughout the galaxy. Hell...... even Captain Picard was a GOD!!!! and a whole planet worshiped him as such.
Thank you for keeping this available for anyone searching to find. I’ve always highly respected this man. After this he’s s a historical legend. Profound.
Be careful who you listen to, he is saying that God doesn't exist, meaning that we evolved from a rock and a everything popped into existence. Comment this comment, I would like to chat 🙂
@@johndoetoptek6505 Just saying something doesn't prove anything, if you want an example, let's try. In 3 seconds there will be a piano falling from the sky and hit your house. It is true because I say it is true. That's not how science works.:)
@@johndoetoptek6505 Life God did it, evil god did it. Buybull God did it the bible is provably wrong ! Thats the word of man SIGHS That is theist logic !
@Tim Webb there were massive floods in the past yes, this is shown by Graham Hancock on Joe rogans podcast if you'd like to listen to it, however; this does not mean that Noah built an ark or that God sent down these floods. This is the reason you see the reference to massive floods in nearly every religion, and it does not prove yours correct. Massive floods can occur as the planet goes through states of major and rapid climate change, as it did about 15,000 years ago. Also as far as the grand canyon goes, there are clear sedimentary layers, which you would have been able to deduce if you had spent even ten seconds researching what the fuck you're talking about. But since you're too sure of yourself and lazy, I did it for you.
Introduction to Grand Canyon Geologic Principles Stratigraphy is the study of the rock layering, and reveals a wealth of information about what Earth was like when each layer formed. In the Grand Canyon, there are clear horizontal layers of different rocks that provide information about where, when, and how they were deposited, long before the canyon was even carved. The Law of Superposition states that sediment is deposited in layers in a sequence, the oldest rocks are on the bottom and the youngest rocks are on the top, similar to the way that sand piles up in an hour glass. This principle is a key part of determining the relative age of a rock layer. The three main rock layer sets in the Grand Canyon are grouped based on position and common composition and 1) Metamorphic basement rocks, 2) The Precambrian Grand Canyon Supergroup, and 3) Paleozoic strata. These three main sets of rocks were first described by the explorer and scientist John Wesley Powell during his expeditions of the Grand Canyon in the late 1860s and early 1870s. To learn more about the Powell expeditions, visit www.usgs.gov/Powell150. A USGS geologic field photograph map of the Grand Canyon can be viewed or downloaded here.
Creationists come to the debate with no evidence, no facts, and no intentions of even trying to provide any but they want the other side to provide full evidence and facts
@@davemiller6055 Lol, what, there are far more scientifical evidence pointing towards evolution than anything your fairytale book has ever provided, the thing is it's pointless talking to people like you since even in the modern era we see people denying viruses and saying deaths are made up even when they see it in front of them, it's better talking to a wall
my favorite retort of Christians...but..but..the bible says. me: ummm yeah...didn't man create the bible? Christians: yes..but.. Me: don't people create imaginary characters and stories that are not real? Christians: yes..but...but...God told the people to write the bible. Me: ummm...how do you know that? Christians: cause the bible said that! Me: where does it says in the bible god had someone write the bible? Christians: well...its assumed cause this saint...that saint/apostle wrote this book...see it has his name on it. Me: So let me get this straight...no where in your fantasy/fiction book...does it actually say god told so and so to create this book...and your argument that God did...is this fiction book...cause a made up character in the book has a chapter named after him....right? Christian: *sighs with frustration* you just do not understand....its about belief and faith! Me: Well I like harry potter and LOTR books...I wish some of that stuff was real...but no matter how much I want or believe it could be real...that just makes me an insane person for believing in unreality. Christian: But...but...you just don't understand because the bible says. Me: You know what...I don't know understand you are right...cause I'm not insane. enjoy your fairytales all you want buddy. Me i'm stickin with reality. Christian: *starts foaming at the mouth and throwing obscenities at me.* Me: Yeah you have a good one too buddy. *smh* nutjobs!
There was only one issue - that there are no fossils of transitional forms. Sagan was in evolutionist damage-control mode, quickly stifling that fact, then lying that "There are lots of intermediate forms", then denigrating the caller and condescendingly cutting him off. Sagan was a fraud, far from being an intellectual, he was an evolutionist fanboy, doing his best to perpetuate the hoax that is evolution, the religion of the atheist.
@@lythalls Actually you excel in being dimwitted. Read the transcript of the call. Listen to the video. What part of what I wrote is in any way incorrect?
That's what people who really have no fundamental understanding of evolution say. But whats really funny to hear creationists talk about "intelligent design", they often in their ignorance forget about STUPID DESIGN. Your apples and oranges comparison to airplanes is apples and oranges. A Boeing 747 doesn't have a DC-10 wing on it. Animals on the other hand do have clear transitional phases using existing parts, and vestigial limbs. You have one your ass, literally from when we had tails, you also have a useless organ known as an appendix. In fact, most of the problems humans have in mid to late life from slipped disks, lower back pain, hernias etc, come from the fact that we are evolved from a species who was "designed" to walk on 4 limbs and now walk upright on 2. Or wisdom teeth which generally have to be removed because they cause more problems than they help, ergo, if god was an "intelligent designer" hes rather stupid and inefficient, I could go on with more specific examples, but would it really make a difference? Your prefer a religion which you just happened to be born into a culture with the only correct religion, how remarkable. Meanwhile people born in India are just as convinced as you are that the one they were born into is the only correct one.
I did Google Appendix, WebMD says this "Surgical removal of the appendix causes no observable health problems." and "The function of the appendix is unknown. "
Carl Sagan knows perfectly well that caller will not be convinced, nor will a large part of the audience. He patiently tries to answer and explain it anyway, what a hero
i'm sure he would agree about being sorely missed...........cause he's in hell right now...........AND,,,,,,,,,,HE'S NOT BRILLIANT...........BUT HE WAS AND IS FOREVER,,,,,,,,,,,,,THE DEVIL''S FOOL........
@epstein was killed Nobody alive today can say with any confidence what Jesus said or did not say. What he did or did not do. The only records we have of him are highly contradictory hearsay accounts written decades after his death by people who never met him.
Lots of people are going to be surprised at their ignorance or denial or both at their time of death! Better think a lot deeper while you have the time...
Do you mean "patience"? Because patients are the people a doctor tends to see. :P If that's what you meant, yeah, I don't know how people like him do it. I do think it has a little to do with their ever-expanding intelligence & ability to completely tear apart all the stupid little arguments people like this try to bring up. The rest of us have too much other shit going on & aren't physicists & shit, so it's much more of a pain in the ass trying to battle someone with facts, that refuses to listen & states things like bible passages as if they were truly fact & therefore proof of something. It takes pretty good wit, knowledge & skill. I'm sure it wasn't always so easy for him. It rarely is, even for the smartest of guys. I mean, when talking to someone like that, it's like you can watch your own intelligence quickly being sucked out of you like there's a vacuum nozzle attached to your brain. It's more infectious than fucking zombies, man. That's why we need to get control of the epidemic & either quarantine these fuckers or just kill them like we would zombies, since they pretty much already are anyways.
This, guys and gals, is how to handle baseless accusations, emotional butthurt, and overall intellectual dishonesty. Zeusdammit I miss Sagan, Hitchens, Carlin, and Hicks.
I'm going to guess it's to illustrate the reality(or absurdity) of the phrase goddamnit. As you (imo) correctly pointed out, they are about the same concept.
Thousands of Gods have been dreamt up and many didn't survive as time and culture progressed. I agree that all are equally improbable, but a few pesky ones still have significant impact on today's society. Zeus is not one of those. If Zeus were relevant today I would value them the same.
Aeradill Maybe it just annoys me more that he even chose to use the phrase at all as there are a plethora of other useable ones that are natural language.
Yes, that's exactly right. And indeed we humans are a transitional species, as are all species alive on the Earth today (as long as they don't become extinct).
Really? What proof have we that any fossil had progeny? And what do fossils prove anyway, Willy in your view? BTW, evolution has NOTHING to do with explaining CREATION ex nihilo. Sorry dear friends, evolution is a theory about how life changes. It has NOTHING to do with explaining how or why all time, matter and space came into existence in the finitude of the past. It has NOTHING to do with how "man was created from the dust of the earth" (life came from non life) nor the origin and existence of all the abstracts laws on which science can be done. Ergo, We are all creationists, even Krauss and hawking b/c of the abundance of evidence for ex nihilo creation. The HOW EVERY thing came from nothing in the FINITUDE of time, is an insurmountable problem for atheists who for centuries maintained a static, eternal universe. I am amused if not saddened, by all the gullible young YT skeptics who rejoice in the erroneous belief that evolution somehow has disproved or negates the need for Creation! Well sorry to spoil your delusion but it has nothing at all to do with the birth of our finite, awe-inspiring, rationally intelligible universe. "Why there is something rather than nothing" is not a scientific question. • Oxford Nobel Prize scientist (& agnostic) sir Peter Medawar,' That there is indeed a limit upon science is made very likely by the existence of questions that science cannot answer & that no conceivable advance of science would empower it to answer It is not to science, but to metaphysics, intuitive literature or religion that we must turn for answers to questions having to do with first and last things.' Which is why the deepest desires of the human heart will never be reconciled with a purely materialistic view of reality in which mindless matter is the only game in town.The HOW EVERY thing came from nothing in the FINITUDE of time, is an insurmountable problem for atheists who for centuries maintained a static, eternal universe. I am amused if not saddened, by all the gullible young YT skeptics who rejoice in the erroneous belief that evolution somehow has disproved or negates the need for Creation! Well sorry to spoil your delusion but it has nothing at all to do with the birth of our finite, awe-inspiring, rationally intelligible universe. "Why there is something rather than nothing" is not a scientific question. • Oxford Nobel Prize scientist (& agnostic) sir Peter Medawar,' That there is indeed a limit upon science is made very likely by the existence of questions that science cannot answer & that no conceivable advance of science would empower it to answer It is not to science, but to metaphysics, intuitive literature or religion that we must turn for answers to questions having to do with first and last thingsWhen matter & energy is the only game in town, metaphysics has to be illusory, rightFor centuries atheists denied Creation b/c of the obvious Biblical implications, now that we have compelling evidence all time matter and space had an absolute beginning. Recently we have the most fanciful theories coming from atheists cosmologists like Hawking and Krauss. If anyone is really interested in a naturalistic explanation for ex nihilo CREATION read The NYTimes book review of Krauss's new book. www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=1& For centuries atheists denied Creation b/c of the obvious Biblical implications, now we have compelling evidence all time matter and space had an absolute beginning in the finitude of the past. Recently we have the most fanciful theories coming from desperate atheists cosmologists like Hawking and Krauss. If anyone is interested in a naturalistic explanation for ex nihilo CREATION read The NY Times book review of Krauss's new book “A Universe from Nothing”. www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=1&For centuries atheists denied Creation b/c of the obvious Biblical implications, now we have compelling evidence all time matter and space had an absolute beginning in the finitude of the past. Recently we have the most fanciful theories coming from atheists cosmologists like Hawking and Krauss. If anyone is really interested in a naturalistic explanation for ex nihilo CREATION read The NYTimes book review of Krauss's new book. www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-fromFor centuries atheists denied Creation b/c of the obvious Biblical implications, now we have compelling evidence all time matter and space had an absolute beginning in the finitude of the past. Recently we have the most fanciful theories coming from atheists cosmologists like Hawking and Krauss. If anyone is really interested in a naturalistic explanation for ex nihilo CREATION read The NYTimes book review of Krauss's new book. www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from
Augustino "Ergo, We are all creationists, even Krauss and hawking b/c of the abundance of evidence for ex nihilo creation. " lmao what? There is evidence that the universe come from "nothing", you are conflating that with "created from nothing" There is no evidence for creation. "I am amused if not saddened, by all the gullible young YT skeptics who rejoice in the erroneous belief that evolution somehow has disproved or negates the need for Creation!" It doesn't negate the need for it, it just has no need for it, and there's no reason to believe it to be the case because there is no evidence for creation. As far as we can tell the universe is just adhering to the laws of nature. "For centuries atheists denied Creation b/c of the obvious Biblical implications" Wrong again. There just isn't any evidence of a creator. I'm pretty sure it's the other way around, to say; religious people deny science because of the biblical implications being false. Don't really care to wade my way through the rest of your word salad. And I'm pretty sure Krauss would disagree with mostly everything you are saying. So using him to support your arguments doesn't really help you.
The fatal mistake you make is that even if we can't explain a physical process yet, or in fact ever, it doesn't mean that there has to be magical intervention. It's even quite the opposite since there is no historical evidence anywhere in the observable universe that magic exists which rules it out altogether. What you are using is what even the frontier creationists have discarded, since it creates a circular argument and hence it completely flawed: the god of gaps. First of all, there is no way to prove that Christianity is more true than let's say the gods of a tribe on Madagascar. It simply can't be done. All religions are based on hearsay (implied that no evidence exist) and belief (again implied that evidence is completely taken out of the equation). So, you can surely believe that Hinduism is better than the Norse religions (Odinism and Asatru) but never in a million years can you prove it. If for nothing else, it's existence is based on a subjective preference just as when we look at a painting or listen to music. What can be done though is to disprove ALL religions. Not a single religion existing today, extinct or coming in the future, is based on facts or evidence. There is no more proof of any god from any religion than Santa. And, no, the Bible is no more proof than the Koran is. Get over it. At least the believers in alien life forms can use likelihood through statistical probability even if we don't have a shred of evidence. It makes their beliefs plausible as opposed to religions that can't fall back on any form of documentation that will hold up to scrutinisation. Imagine living with a legal system that was based on the principles of religion. Imagine being accused of something without any evidence whatsoever. Not a single physical proof that you did what they claim you did. One morning you are pulled from your bed and home and thrown into jail accused of witchcraft. Firstly, how do you defend against that? The logical conclusion would be that you point to the fact of lacking evidence. Imagine that you would be convicted and executed anyway because someone saw you do it in a vision. And that is proof enough for the judge. No evidence required. What so ever. Sounds scary? Of course. And even scarier is that this is how the legal systems in e.g. Europe used to work. People were burned on the stake because someone had a dream or found some obscure pattern in mushrooms that surely must point to that it was YOU that were a witch and caused the drought. Would you like to live in such a place? I'm sure you wouldn't. And still, you dedicate your life to something that can't be proven. It's all based on the face value of what someone told you. Remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
It is no accident that every creationist posting comments is a science illiterate. Wherever you find someone who rejects evolution, there too you find someone with a cartoon understanding of science and a grasp of evolution that amounts to barbershop gossip. The Dunning-Kruger Effect ensures that those who are the most profoundly ignorant of science continue to reject evolution based on their cartoon understanding of science in general and evolution in particular.
Unfortunately , this is true . People who actually understand evolution accept the evidence as compelling . All you get from Creationists is froth which demonstrates their ineptitude . Same old boners over and over . "It`s only a Theory " "Darwin said the eye couldn`t have evolved" "Where are the transitional fossils? " Google the fucking answers to your misunderstandings. It isn`t that hard .
Actually, f friend, you're talking about yourself. I clarified in another post, exactly why that's true by challenging you to produce empirical evidence rather than the combined opinions of an obviously, and in fact, terroristic biased secular, pseudo science agenda! Read your own posts! You do not respect any other opinion! But that's not because macro or abiogenesis or the big bang are factual, observed realities. The only other reason you would submit your puny mind to such obviously unscientific nonsense is for personal reasons. You hate God, therefore you mock everyone and everything that implicates Him. The universe and everything in it, including yourself, in this case! Now. If you actually had science to back you up, all you'd have to do is state the paper/s, the logged, documented, empirical science that proves I'm lying or stupid! I have no fear of that. Instead you'll simply avoid that issue altogether and defer to empty antagonistic rhetoric and, or insults. As usual.
lederereddy You demonstrated you were intellectually inept and a science illiterate. No amount of science illiterate gibber refutes the actual science of evolution.
That's correct. However, absence of evidence where evidence should be ample is a very good indication of evidence of absence. Examples of amply missing evidence include: the Great Flood, Jewish slavery in ancient Egypt, the Exodus, the Roman Census on year 1.
sam mccross "see creation.com evidence abounds for the flood" And ignore the mounts of evidence, ignore logic and reason in favor of your religious belief.
You don't need to be a scientist to see through the foolish proposition of Christian/Jewish/Islamic lies of creationism. You just need a logical mind to dismiss these absurdities.
I do not deny the science behind Evolution or the 4 billion year old earth, but I do love the way Sagan says "If you don't buy the 4 billion year old earth, you don't buy Evolution." He was a rational man who knew the power and limitations of science. This was a man who understood reality, far better than most of his modern "counterparts".
PWakeup. I don't think you understood my point. Science can be true, but it is inductive. Science is not necessarily true, and I mean that in the truest sense of the word necessary. Our current understanding of science is not automatically true. That quote can be applied to anything that is true. It is redundant, because anything that is true is true whether or not you believe in it. The question is, is a particular part of science true? It might seem true to us at our present point, but quite often scientific "fact" merely comes from an appeal to novelty. That is not to say that all science is wrong, merely that it is not true simply because it is the current scientific development.
Icepick "If you don't buy the 4 billion year old earth, you don't buy Evolution." Meaning if you have a religious conviction, you're going to disregard all the evidence for evolution in favor of your religious conviction. We know "science" is true because it works. I don't think you understand "science" at all.
PWakeup. Oh, I understand his point. I was simply calling attention to his intentional use of words. Also, keep in mind there are different types of science. There is empirical science, and there is observational science. Empirical science deals with experimentation. Most of the time, the conclusions gathered from empirical science remain respected in the scientific community for a long period of time. That is because they can be supported with concrete, causal evidence that shows a situation before, during, and after certain changes are imposed on a system. For example, when we add chemical x to chemical y, reaction z occurs. Even does not necessarily produce concrete conclusions, because as Humans it is impossible for us to measure every single possible variable within a system. However, in the vast majority of cases our conclusions are probably correct. Observational science deals with retrospective and speculative theories. This involves taking what we know from experimentation and observation, and extrapolating it to broader truths. The best examples of this are the theories of evolution and the Big Bang. With evolution for example, we look at patterns in genomes, and conclude that species probably have common ancestors. However, until we can show evolutionary jumps in a controlled setting, the best we can get is a theory. The Big Bang is similar, in that we observe the patterns and movement in outer space, and conclude that there must be some specific type of root beginning. Neither of these involve controlled experimentation. There is a clear ontological difference between these two types of science. The former is usually accepted as basic truth by most people. The latter is often disputed, even from within the scientific community. To believe that what we know or declare about science in modern times in absolute fact shows an ignorance of history. Science is constantly evolving. That doesn't mean that modern science is wrong, simply that it is not indisputable. The disputability of science is what allows science to progress.
Icepick The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
***** Yeah, I'm sure God pulled him because he was posing too much of a threat spreading that paganism and what not. (I actually read that post somewhere.) God rolls like that.
+Christopher White then why god died ,he couldn't manage to escape his death i mean jesus, death is natural process nothing to worry,afraid about it.there no such thing called god(?).
Carl Sagan was my idol when i was in junior high school. Loved this handsome, brilliant man. He could explain the most complex questions in way the average layman gets it. A very rare quality in a genius. I followed his career and his work on the SETI project and have his book, 'COSMOS'. Plus i never missed any of his 23 episodes of the documentary 'COSMOS'. I was in awe of him, me being a science student at that time , that a scientist could be so intelligent, good looking and he made the study of astronomy interesting and simple to understand. He appeared in many talk shows and shied away from being quite a celebrity those days . Of course, my friends thought i was weird coz i was a girl who idolized him. Scientists were considered nerds back then and so were students who chose science subjects. i went on to get a degree in maths and became a professional in the IT field eventually. RIP Carl Sagan, truly missed but not forgotten and now you live among the stars that always intrigued you. No one comes close to explaining things his most simple way, not even Neal Tyson. Neal is a disappointment. i stopped watching Neal.
Knock Knock Who's there? It's Jesus, let me in! Why? So that I can save you! From what? From what my daddy and I will do to you if you don't let me in.
One of Dr Sagan's book is excellent "The demon haunted world" where he debunks all of these phoney pseudo-science creationist myths. He is forever missed.
@Donald Ring Oh , poor wittle Donald goes back to his hot button issue of abortion. Obsessed with protecting a mass of cells but after its born, fuck it, especially if its black or brown. Btw, there is no hell , Donnie. It's a made up place just like your god. ALL FAKE NEWS!!! Kinda too bad there isn't a fiery hell, Donny, because you and your wanne be King, Donald Trump, would split it wide open!!! Suck on that awhile, Donny!
''It is a horrible idea that there is somebody who made us, who owns us, who supervises us - waking and sleeping, who knows our thoughts, who can convict us of thought crime - just for what we think, who can create us faulty and sick and than order us to become well again, on pain of eternal torture if we fail to do so. To wish this to be true, is to wish to live as an abject slave. It is a wonderfull thing, a wonderfull thing indeed, that we have absolutely no evidence to support this ghastly proposition and I invite you to join me in celebrating that fact.'' -Christopher Hitchens.
Aron The biblical God Yahweh whom I worship in no way resembles a cosmic tyrant or a dictator or slave master. He is not a slave master and He does not control our actions. One of the main reasons we are in the mess that we are in with sin being ever so present in the world and why God seems distant is because He always offers us free will and a choice. If God did not then our relationship with him would be shallow and He would have no way of knowing whether or not we truly love Him. So He offered our first ancestors Adam & Eve two options. The tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve made the first choice to sin and that affected all of their descendants (all of us) and everyone since then has chosen at least once in their lives to sin. All have broken God’s laws. God has endured a lot of pain and suffering and has had to watch us make mistake after mistake and sin after sin because He wants to offer us a choice so that the few that do chose to follow Him and His Son chose Him over evil and will have a deep and enriching relationship with Him. Furthermore on the accusation of “thought crime” it would be a crime if any mere mortal or government agency made rules and regulations of free speech and freedom to think. That is because no human can govern you and tell you what to think. God can because He is God. His ways are above our ways and He is perfect. He is good and He is the origin and definition and standard of goodness in the universe. A perfect almighty being can judge us and convict us of our sin. He gives us our whole entire lives to turn from our sin and turn to Him so anyone who doesn’t by the time they die has missed their chance and had all the time in the world. Lastly it would be impossible for the universe to exist at all if not for God because we know the universe had a definite beginning and that before the universe began there was nothing. How can nothing explode into something? Never mind exploding into all of the matter in the universe, all the elements, all the stars, galaxies, planets, asteroids, etc. We know that space, time, and matter all came into existence at the same moment at the beginning of the universe. So the universe had to be created by an all powerful being who is outside of space, outside of time, and outside of matter. There simply is no better way to explain the existence of the universe. Also the fact of God’s existence and especially the knowledge of His glorious plan for salvation through Jesus Christ is a glorious thought that should be celebrated by everyone throughout the world. Why? Because God offered us and all our ancestors going back to Adam and Eve the choice to stay in His will and do good or to go our own way and do evil, we have all chosen to go our own way and to sin and there is no way we could suffer the consequences of our actions, which is eternal death, and make it into heaven. Once a person sins even once there is no way to earn your way back to heaven no matter what we do. You cannot even look to or rely upon another mere human to save you because we have all sinned and one sinner cannot save another. So God humbled Himself and became man through the person of Christ Jesus, the Son in the Godhead, and lived a perfect and pure life without sin and the does the most brutal painful and horrific death ever so that anyone who believes in Him and trusts in His sacrifice will be saved. God payed the price of our sin Himself so that all we have to do is accept Him as our Lord and Savior and walk in His righteousness. That is why the Gospel is called the “good news”! Because it is good news! There is no way we could of saved ourselves so God made a way Himself for us to be saved and all we have to do is trust in Him, our creator and savior. I really do not want to live in your world (which is physically impossible by the way) where there is no God and no way to be saved and no justice and no judgment after death for the wicked and no reward after death for the righteous and no afterlife at all. It’s nonsensical! If I have consciousness and a thinking mind here on earth why should I accept my consciousness and mind to fade into nonexistence after my body dies? Of course my soul is eternal and my consciousness survives into the next life. The question is where are you going? Heaven or hell? Did you trust in Jesus or not? Either way scientists have proved that the soul leaves the body upon death and that human consciousness is eternal. I hope I have done a good job explaining Christianity to you and the reality of creation and the need for a savior. You may not accept it but it is true and every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, that includes you. The only question is will you do it before the throne of God on judgement day before you are condemned to hell for your misdeeds, or will you do it now while you are alive and grab the hand of salvation that is Jesus Christ’s perfect sacrifice. Much love to you brother. I pray you accept Jesus and the reality of creation and that God softens your heart and takes the scales off of your eyes so that you can see the truth. Amen.
Aron well your biological parents come close, but God created all and so owns all, he should have the last say. Like a business owner is entitled to all the profits and can fire anyone at will.
Film Buff 92 - wow, that is an impressive word wall. "He would have no way of knowing whether or not we truly love Him" - WRONG - God is omniscient, God knows everything that has ever happened, is happening, or will happen. "He always offers us free will and a choice." - WRONG - No one has ever chosen to be created. No one chose to be alive and put to this test where failure becomes eternal torture. "So He offered our first ancestors Adam & Eve two options. The tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." - This makes no sense, Adam and Eve were innocent and did not know the difference between right and wrong, how can they be so severely punished for an act of ignorance? They didn't even know they were naked. It's like blaming a 2 year old for playing with a loaded gun you left on the coffee table even though you told them not to. "He is perfect. He is good and He is the origin and definition and standard of goodness in the universe." - Then why did God encourage slavery in the Old Testament instead of condemning it? Then Jesus didn't even address slavery in the New Testament. Not a very high standard. - (Israelite slaves were to be offered release after six to seven years of service, except when the male Israelite slave chose to remain with his wife; the male slave, the female slave and all children would consequently endure bond-slavery throughout their lives. A foreign slave could be bequeathed to the owner's family, and be made to serve for the life of the slave, except in the case of certain injuries.) "Because God offered us and all our ancestors going back to Adam and Eve the choice to stay in His will and do good..." - What about the billions he drowned in Noah's flood? Didn't give those people any extra time to repent. Or did He know whether those people truly loved Him which contradicts your earlier claim. "There simply is no better way to explain the existence of the universe." - This is a classic "Argument from Ignorance." "Either way scientists have proved that the soul leaves the body upon death and that human consciousness is eternal." - Citation needed otherwise this can be dismissed as nonsense. God created all things, evil is a thing, God created evil and punishes us for it. God created Satan, cast him out of heaven, gave him super powers, and then turned over Earth and Hell to him, then punishes us mortals for being tricked by an immortal super being with magical powers. Not exactly a fair fight. But since an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God doesn't know our true heart He would need an evil henchman to beguile us into revealing our true nature to Him God ETERNALLY burns Buddhists and followers of Jainism because they don't know Christ. You can't get any more humble or peaceful than Jainism. I shudder to think of the millions of children writhing in eternal agony because they were born in a non-Christian culture. Have you ever stopped to think of any of what you claim?
Anthony Behrends, luckily we no longer live in the dark ages when the church could tell people what to say or think. If you bothered to do even a little research you would find that most atheists have spent a lot of time researching different religions and generally know more about religion than people who are theists.
*Creationism* - The ignorant belief that Kirk 'Giggity' Cameron and Ray 'Banana' Comfort know more than Professor Stephen Hawking and Professor Richard Dawkins.
Reve Kiehl God cannot know anything - he does not exist. And Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of knowledge mankind has gathered so far. Nice try btw - waiting a month to then have the last word. I'd say you failed. Try again next month.
ShadeyBladey Faith is the glorification of wilful and voluntary ignorance. They use belief to justify what doesn't exist in reality, as Dan Dennet says, "they believe in belief", nothing more.
Carl Sagan changed my life when I was a kid back in the late 1970s. He provided answers. My father was a great critical thinker who I dogged with endless questions. He eventually sat me down in front of a tv tuned to our local PBS affiliate. The was Carl Sagan on Cosmos.
Gosh we miss Carl. I love when someone argues and when you challenge that, he changes to another question before you have the opportunity to dispel his first point. Carl’s patience is wonderful.
hammer r that’s largely because they’re disguising talking points as questions so they can slip them into what would otherwise be an intelligent conversation.
Give a clear definition of "same type human". "Anything that I see as human" is not a clear definition. Once you define it clearly Im sure the rest of us can point out the transitional cases.
what you think of as human today would not be considered human if you go back in time or into the future. by the time youre old enough to reproduce you already have dozens of mutations that will carry over to your proginy. only way to stop evolving is if every human being has the exact same DNA and never mutates. every living being of every species on earth is transitional.
By dozens of mutations I am guessing you mean eye, hair and skin color. The shapes and sizes of numerous appendages on the human body. Markings or physical traits are not a sign of mutation into another kind of animal. All humans carry the same basic genome the only differences are how the genes from each parent join to create a unique individual. This is hardly a mutation but a trait if you will of human DNA. The information is always there just combined in different ways to create a unique individual. The human genome will always be the human genome, seeing as DNA is self correcting unless otherwise manipulated by outside influences. No two leopards have the same markings or color, each is distinct from the other much like human finger prints. They still belong to the same Genus. The same way any breed of dog or house cat is of the same genus, yet their markings may differ. Look at the breed of dogs called jack russels. Still the same genus just different markings. If all genus's evolve why have crocodiles, coelacanth, frogs, turtles, ants, bees and many other creatures exhibit the same physical traits. How long does it take for one animal to mutate into another kind of animal. That is after all what you are proposing. The earth is roughly 4 billion years old with mass extinctions happening roughly every 62 million years, that's roughly 64.5 mass extinctions, in the history of the earth. Seems to me a mass extinction every 62 million years, would really throw a wrench in the time needed for micro evolution to produce macro evolution.
That was the most beautiful, a polite and kind way, to point out a illogical arguing style. I wish I had his poise and calm. It absolutely drives me crazy when, as you try to give someone a calm rational explanation as to why you believe they are wrong, they immediately jump to another point, completely ignoring or cutting off your explanation.
mark marsh - here's a good one. science doesn't know anything.people do. though very little. another good one, carl sagan is just one of great multitudes of scientists who are almost all believers. another good one , 99.9999999999999 % of everything that has ever been invented was invented by a believer. don't take my word for it. actually look something up yourself for a change !
Max Barker so all of the "smart" things developed by humans were developed by Christians?...that ridiculous...Carl Sagan had a lot to do with teaching me that Religion is nonsense so how the hell is he "almost a believer"---idiotic...read Cosmos and you'll grow out of your faith...what you've done here is illustrate the main problem with religious people---being already in a completely deluded state, willing to take nonsense assertions on "faith" you think it's okay to prop it up with more nonsense...I doubt very much that you have researched the topic more than I have--if you had, you would not be a Christian...but you Christians always begin with the assumption that your "revelations" from the invisible man in the sky have brought you some sort of superior enlightenment, when in fact, you've just switched off your brain and can't make sense of anything
According to google there are 20 million hits for "evolution Vs Creation- What a false dichotomy if ever there was one, deified by the intellectually bereft god-denier. What part of evolution is science which is testable, observable, falsifiable and makes predictions? What part of evolution explains ex nihilo creation or the finitude of past time? Just asking the openminded truth seeker, which I assume, we all are, right?? "some people believe whatever they want, not on the basis of evidence but what they find attractive" Blasé Pascal
Because of their belief a creationist could never be seen as open - minded and definitely could not be seen as a truth - seeker . When you begin from a position of " god did it " there is no reason to seek any other truth . With that belief all other investigation is pointless because whatever science proves and science has shown and continues to show that evolution is fact a creationist will continue to deny. It does not fit with their belief which is based entirely on an ancient , unsubstantiated book written by men and by their own delusionary " revelations " . Nothing in religion is testable , observable , falsifiable nor does it make predictions . To believe in a creator is to believe the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old , that should be enough to convince any thinking person ( whose mind is not warped by their belief ) that divine creation is impossible .
Tell me then why so many scientist, like micro biologist and astronomers have come to believe in a created universe? I mean after all these are people who chose a scientific career thoroughly schooled in the scientific method, studied all the evidence, yet believe in a created universe.
Tell me why you do not believe in the Islamic version of god . Why do you not believe that the prophet Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse and that he split the moon in half ? No doubt you believe those who believe in such things to be insane . Why do you not believe in any of the other hundreds if not thousands of gods that have been worshipped in the past . All religion is seen that way by an atheist , there is no evidence to prove the existence of any god or that the world was created by a super-being . The scientists you talk of have a belief in something they have no evidence for , it proves nothing . Some of the greatest minds in history have held some form of faith . Isaac Newton was unable to answer a question despite spending years researching the answer so came to the conclusion that a higher form of intelligence must have been responsible . He had done all he could to find the answer but could not . A couple of hundred years later a French scientist did find the answer to that question so it wasn't a creationists design after all . Science works to find the answers because they have a desire to further mans knowledge of everything around them . Creationists simply say god did it .
OK - 93% of Nobel Prize winning scientists are declared atheists. Bring forth the hundreds of credible theist-scientists...... waiting, waiting....zzzzzzzz
If our educational system was worth a damn, every schoolchild would be given the opportunity to see the original Cosmos series by Carl Sagan in it's entirety. The problem is, our educational system today is controlled by people who want to teach our children WHAT think, not HOW to think. Our youth are viewed as cogs in a machine which serves the interest of a select group. This is having a major impact on our advancement as an intelligent species. I have serious doubts that the human species will ever colonize other worlds so long as these people are in control . They must be brushed aside if we are to survive.
Carl went right over this guy's head when he uttered the words "the record in the nuclaeic acids". After that it was nothing but downhill for this guy. Logic and reason are lost on these people. The bible said it so that's it. Unbelievable.
"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." -Carl Sagan and Carl was not an atheist "Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.” -Carl Sagan
Carl was agnostic, not atheist, which some may interpret the first as, which is why I brought in the second quote. I was not saying that feeling a connection to the Universe=Theism.
“We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.” sounds as if there is some motive or spiritual connection to everything. It's profound. But not the words of an athiest.
Random I find it odd that you would paint with a wide brush, and imply that atheists would not use profound words and ideas. There is no indication that being an atheist means that you lack a connection with the reality around you.
Daniel Neves That "spiritual" feeling he is expressing is the same feeling the religious people feel when the try to imagine God. It's the same feeling, from a different angle. Every culture, religion and ethnicity feel it. The Japanese call it Yugen. You can call it whatever you want. Accepting that you are nothing in this vast Universe, is the same as accepting that you are nothing in the vast power of an omnipotent god. I was simply saying i was surprised that he stated that quote as if the Universe is some entity with a motive to experience itself. There is no self. There is no motive or thought process.
I love how relaxed, rational and impersonal Sagan always remained in debates, regardless of how foolish the person he was engaging with. I still find it challenging to remain so at ease in face of such stupidity - especially, arrogant ignorance.
The question "where are all the intermediate species in the fossil record?" completely misses the point of natural selection. They're all intermediate species. Every single fossil is an intermediate, between its ancestors and its descendants. Any fossil you choose can be seen as a "transition" between the first life that once was, to the life that is still yet to be. It's like taking a single frame out of a 3 hour movie and then asking "where's the movement?". And you pick another frame out of the movie: "show me where the movement is! I don't see these individual still frames moving." Well, of course not. They are still frames. You gain the appreciation of movement from playing back all the frames in order, then you can see how it all moves. And that's what the fossil record looks like when you "play it back". This is the whole point of natural selection: EVERY SINGLE FOSSIL - ALL OF THEM - ARE INTERMEDIATES.
i felt it was like trying to find a number between 0 and 1. there should be some numbers during the transition from value 0 to 1. So 0.5? ok whats between 0 to 0.5? 0.25? and on it goes! Do they expect us to dig out every dead animal to show a perfect chain? Cant do that but that is still way more evidence than what creationists has to offer!
I've been explaining evolution to non-science thinkers for nearly 30 years, and that is probably the best metaphor I've ever read, the 'still frames' of the movie :)
This is ultimately what scares someone invested in dogma, particularly a dogma that states that they are God’s perfect and favorite creation. Because WE are ALSO an intermediate to what’s to come. How can that be if we’re the perfect and favorite creation of God? This is why they think up this stuff and cling to it. They can’t handle the idea that we’re not so special after all.
Of course, there are now a ton of intermediate fossils found, including predicted ones, which couldn't have fit into the fossil record any more beautifully.
+carpy1970 That was sarcasm BTW. Also, these idiots always fixate on the fossil record like that's the only evidence for evolution, when it's actually one of the weakest of a whole plethora of evidence for evolution.
Carl Sagan does not destroy people. He elegantly teaches and states facts
Well, he did. Until he died 22 years ago.
Papa: If only the politicians could do the same thing.
Exactly
Diffraction shits on the big bang and kicks it out of its job at explaining red shift. Time can't explode, you deluded atheists. Carl Sagan preached a lie, and he was a massive fool regardless of his irrelevant eloquence.
Interacting with reality the way it presents itself is hardly delusional. However, trying to inject a deity that conveniently coincides with one's own ego driven beliefs into reality, a deity that NEVER presents itself as ever BEING part of that reality, can indeed be construed as delusional. God never shows up outside of people's minds, and I myself find that a bit curious for something that is supposed to be, and is boldly asserted to be, real. Hate to break it to people, but "feeling God in your heart," and going by a book full of errors and easily falsifiable bullshit stories, doesn't constitute as facts or evidence.
If destroying means introducing a calm, respectful, scientifically accurate, positive and friendly attitude to the debate, then yes, he utterly destroyed the caller. ;-)
That is exactly what it means.
@Robert Bradburn Meth guys?😂
@Robert Bradburn Of course, science changes everyday. Because we learn and discover new things and facts. Some things don’t change in science. Laws and constants for example. By the way, mathematics is a science, too. It has also „changed“ over the last centuries, because our understanding has grown and nowadays we can teach very complex stuff at school.
@Robert Bradburn „How many planets are there?“ - Really? That’s your argument? If you’re referring to the status of Pluto I suggest you google the discoveries made since 1992. You will find that discovering facts helps science evolve. There is no change in Pluto. Our possibilities and exploration and wisdom have changed. Oh, and the Meth was no typo. It was a joke referring to your uncontrolled use of bad language and anger. Sorry, you didn’t get that. But from your comments I have to say, I am not surprised.
@Robert Bradburn What on earth are "math guys"? People who believe mathematics is accurate? Surely no one disputes that. The caller Sagan was debating here is more of a "myth guy": helplessly clinging to a rapidly disintegrating mythological allegory from the Bible in the face of overwhelming, irrefutable scientific evidence.
"You rather remind me of Pontius Pilate he asks what is the truth but does not stay for answer."
😂
Then you have Biggus Dickus, he on the other hand, would stay around to hear the truth!
@Scott Scotty Incontinentia Buttocks
In this interview, the caller interrupted Mr. Sagan's request to stop interrupting him.
I love your tital .....did you read my question in the comments ? Can you. offer any response ?
@Jeff -66 surely its a kind of narrow-minded unscientific unreasoning form of pseudo-Christianity (‘young earth’ type) that addled your mind. True Christianity is healing, calming, harmonious with all nature, fully hopeful and consistent with true science, whilst drawing one closer to the Creator, Jehovah.
I love how he refuses to be rushed and respectfully but firmly refuses to be talked over or strawmanned and makes it clear that he won't participate unless he's actually respected. 💜 This man is such a role model for people everywhere on how to have a rational discussion where so many (and not only on the religious side) seek to inflame debate and jeer at or demonize the person.
Yeah, the caller sounded like a senator Rand Paul type, asks the question and then interrupts if the answer doesn’t suit him.
Not only that but the host moderated the call effectively, realizing that the mans religious fervor kept him from being quiet and listening to the answer and shut him down. Something which is absent from modern debates. The loudest and rudest person wins and people applaud it. Rampant anti-intellectualism. Sometimes I wonder how we went from people like Sagan to the debacle of clownery we have in public discourse today.
It’s a classic tactic of evangelicals to run off point after point and block questions. The goal is to overwhelm and provide ‘facts’ with no rebuttal.
@@TheBeingReal Yeah. I'm not sure if it's a conscious tactic or just a learned behavior.
@@CollectorDuck
C'est très simple: la vérité intéresse moins que se montrer dans les médias, et donner son opinion qu'elle qu'elle soit.
Carl Sagan is a huge inspiration. He is entirely calm-headed, civilized, and most importantly logical.
Sunyata Class for days.
He was also a sensitive, empathetic person.
Leyvenn L I just don't understand why he was involved in a number of divorces though
Martin Lutaaya We cannot exceed in everything we do
YOOMIN!
That caller sucks. If I had the opportunity to get a reply from Sagan, I would damn well listen.
daweller Religious people of the gods variety feel threatened by the luminaries of humanity. It's sad. They think they are enlightened. They are in the dark.
daweller that’s the problem they don’t listen..or hear.
Pony Trekker More specifically they have chosen to turn those abilities off.
These people don't ask to learn, they ask to create an argument from ignorance.
How can you listen to a person who is a storyteller.
The irony of Creationists is they whine about a supposed lack of evidence while clinging to a belief that has absolutely zero evidence. LOL
Michael Brown - I've seen your posts before. You are the king of the ignorant. LOL
Michael, you are either a troll or a moron. Either way, no one cares.
Michael Brown. I truly feel sorry for you. Maybe the correct medication would settle your confused brain down enough to think straight.
Good luck to you, you poor thing.
The beauty of science and the facts we all have come to understand and observe, is that they’re true whether ignorant people like you believe in it or not. You just insult Darwin, while offer no support for a creator whatsoever so you’re just as bad as the people you’re bitching about. I wish you more logic and good health in the future.
Michael is either a troll or mentally ill. There's no point in trying to talk sense into him. Don't waste your time feeding the troll.
I love Carl Sagan. He is handling a hyper-challenger with such kindness.
Guess where the kindness comes from. He faces absolute inferiors.
When he talks he does not talk to them. He talks half to himself half to an eventual idealistic other being.
And I praise him for that just as you do. It’s pretty fucking hard to actually be in position to speak when you are not matched.
You can be lonely and maybe your priorities are very simple and humble.
The social environnement of today would eat him alive. Because there are many Carl Sagans and we only talk about the dead one.
The new Promoted Darwinian Religion
@@jshssh8930
Agreed. Theists ARE dimwits!
@@CNCmachiningisfun Come on now, although I firmly believe in evolution many people derive inspiration and character from religion. A great many things in life and in the universe can not be explained through conventional means. Have to give props to someone with over 1.2 billion followers who lived over 2000 years ago. If you were a charlatan, you would have been exposed a long time ago.
@@josephmango4628
"A great many things in life and in the universe can not be explained through conventional means."
True:
Science can't answer everything.
Religion can't answer *ANYTHING!*
"Have to give props to someone with over 1.2 billion followers who lived over 2000 years ago."
This just goes to show that delusion is common among religiots.
"If you were a charlatan, you would have been exposed a long time ago."
ALL gods have been exposed as manmade entities, but most people are just too stupid to accept facts.
After all:
Mark Twain said it best when he said, "Religion began when the first con artist met the first naive fool."
"Dr.Sagan, do you believe in God?"
"Which one?"
"There is only one."
"That's what they all say."
Why,? he speaks the truth.
@@josephbuttita2644 stop reporting my shit
Christianity is just a cult newcomer, like Mormons and Scientology. Zeus is the one true god.
The unpleasant truth. Atheists believe in one less god than Christians.
@@josephbuttita2644 "You Re a dick head." Do you mean You're (you are) a dick head? Or You Re: (i.e.: RE: for regarding) a dick head; or do you mean "You RE: (replying) a dick head? In which case, which dick head are you referring to? Perthaps learning some grammar might make your insult have more validity.
not only was he a brilliant scientist, but an incredibly eloquent speaker, an excellent teacher, a calm & cool dude, and an authentic person of integrity
i could listen to him for hours without getting bored
harpyion I was very young when he did Cosmos but it made a huge impact on my life. I agree with you, even today I feel the same way.
+harpyion yeah, but isn´t it your conviction that now he´s dead. I mean really dead, no memories or feelings or thoughts anymore. He does not exit anymore! So what does it matter whether or not he was a great person or not in a billion years???
He is nothing worth and his life as well as ours are purposeless. - Just an accident. That´s your take on life, isn´t it???
+Rick Shoemaker I was also very young when I saw Cosmos (very early 80's) and after that space science have always been one of my main interests. When I was older I found out more about Carl Sagan and what a human he was.
The best kind of one. So sad that he is no longer with us today..
+harpyion You said it. I wish I'd had him as a teacher. I woulldn't have missed a single class. Cheers.
+harpyion Oh.!!! IF there was one person who we could clone.... the world was his classroom and we were such happy students. I miss him.
Soothing voice and much patience. Carl Sagan, a proper gentlemen.
+Stephen Williams and a very intelligent physicist as well
When I was a kid I would've wanted this guy reading me bedtime stories...
The caller probably called in for the first time in his life. Carl Sagan did hundreds of interviews by the time he answered the caller. So of course Carl would sound a lot better.
Chris Money
You also forget that Carl had fact on his side, and the poor caller was coming from a fictional world of sky fairies. A world where impossible things are the foundation off all that he believes.
Douglas man think about it, this shit was happening when I was a child and still to this day this ignorant people are everywhere preaching the same thing, guess patience runs out for some.
I love how he had all the right to end the call there and still said "Let me address this one at least" and proceeded to calmly explain it to him
Carl Sagan could have dismissed the caller on the last interruption but Doctor Sagan patiently explained and answered the question without patronizing the caller. Brilliant!
@Tim Webb what 'several lines of convincing' evidence did you find in your bible? The word of a talking snake, a blonde god or the manipulation of deranged priests that only offer superstition for pervasive minds? 6,000 years, ja!
@Tim Webb You're out of your mind. Stop listening to religious quacks. Or, you could choose to disregard ALL of science and technology and go back to living in a cave starting fires and hunting with sticks and stones while waiting for your chosen deity's return.
What are the odds that YOU and the dingbat that told you this crap found the absolute truth and every other lifelong scientist for generations ALL had it wrong?
What has dingbat invented? How many published peer reviewed papers? (Outside of their religious system)
What are the odds that out of the thousands of Gods throughout time immemorial You were born in the right time and in the right place to have been taught about the one and only God? From the one right book made by men that has been edited over and over by men into what it is today?
I bet you're a white male in the US probably a southern or southwestern state. I bet your church also has a white Jesus image in it too. Even these stories were made in the middle east about men in the middle east.
@Tim Webb i hope your are trolling. For your well being.
@Tim Webb so it took you six days to respond with this absolute dribble? (Idk why I expected More)
I get it. You're a young earth creationist. And you pick and choose which parts of science and the Bible that fits your beliefs. And surround yourself with material that creates an echo chamber for those beliefs. Not all people are capable of critical thinking. And are therefore more prone to believe in and create their own conspiracy theories.
Please cite any/all peer reviewed papers that tell us ANY part of evolution or DNA or geology is only 6000 years old. Because that would be Nobel prize worthy. And about your Bible, How many books does it have? The original fabrication had many more than any of the current ones. I guess God inspired those books to be,, garbage? Or did he not inspire them and men had to remove them (after they had been used for a few generations)? One of MANY hypocrisies found throughout a book supposedly inspired by an all knowing being. And about electricity, why isn't that mentioned in the Bible? (A help to humanity) along with, germ theory/antibiotics, all humans being equal, women's rights, the American continent, cosmology (sun centered solar system), physics etc etc etc.
If you don't abide by everything in the Bible (whichever covenant) then you are in fact worshipping a God that is different than those that came before you. If you only believe the science that you like (because it fits your narrative), then you are limiting your accumulation of proven truths. Just like the church did for generations
@Tim Webb more dribble. No links to this supposed peer reviewed science you speak of. More quoting from the 2/3 of a book full of hypocrisies (that you don't address) edited by men in power that wrote none of the books in it. If a third of my holy book was missing, I'd be interested in why and what it said. Have you ever read any of those books? Did you know that the Jewish faith began as a polytheistic religion? (Old testament has hints)
Can you show anything that corroborates Jesus or his disciples outside of the Bible? I mean you'd think there would be SOMETHING.
And the 6000 years is based on the 66 books. What if the other 37 books add in another few thousand years. Will your "science" change to back that up? I'm guessing all of the people that had those books too for over a thousand years are just in a different heaven. I wonder if there are rules in those books (that men took out), that you're not abiding by but should be. You believe that I haven't read the Bible. You're mistaken. I'm not the one picking and choosing the parts I want to live by. You accuse me of living in an echo chamber. And yet you're the one picking and choosing the science that you believe according to the author and how it fits into your beliefs.
Real science is based on observable repeatable evidence. Which lead to hypothesis'. That are then peer reviewed and through observed repeatable experimentation are correlated into theories that are then still open to further peer review and or refutation at any time (with evidence). Why would your partial book be better than that or any other competing religious book belief system? Where's the evidence?
Please don't confuse religion and science. Science exists DESPITE religious persecution throughout history
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."
--Voltaire
Carl was such a fool.
Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be."
Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky."
More from the dumbass, "It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?"
from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939
Read the article. Have a vomit bag or trash can nearby for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, foolish person he was.
Now, Carl the dumbass NEVER can get around these laws and what the lead to...
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
....yet the buffoon thinks creation happened naturally, but the idiot says, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" as the crap-for-brains ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still the fool who ignores the laws farted out, "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence.
His question, "Who made God?" is as dumb as he is.
So in his way of foolish thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are.
Sagan the dumbass will at some point face his Maker for his judgment of what he believed in this life. His extreme shame and regret was all his choice. He wanted to be a hypocritical dumbass. Then he'll be thrown into the lake of fire. It will be his 'The End' and be remembered no more. ALL his choice and for others who follow that fool.
@@2fast2block Two words for you spiel : '' prove it '' ?
@@jerrylanglois7892 so I give evidence and you fart out...
"prove it" ?"
I don't give reading lessons to idiots who can't read and then want to respond to me.
@@2fast2block You haven't given me anything but your opinion ... how bout some facts, evidence or logic ?
@@jerrylanglois7892 I post comments and don't give reading lessons to those that want to reply.
I love the Carl Sagan's voice,it's so beautifull.
+nonameslb Agent Smith in the Matrix....
+nonameslb miss him much!
+nonameslb You'll travel far to find a more eloquent and organized speaker.
he's like a calm Jeff Goldblum
Brooklyn born... blows my mind.
He is how people should be in these discussions. Calm, respectful, hungry for knowledge, refusing to be rushed or pressured to defend himself, keeping the discussion on track. The trick is to prioritise your own learning rather than seeing yourself as being responsible for or at the mercy of those who don't understand. This short clip has taught me so much about how to better respond to people who want to debate. Very often those who genuinely want to know answers sound very similar to those arguing in bad faith from internalizing the same arguments, or switch to actually wanting to know once they realise that you genuinely seek truth and aren't trying to persuade them, and the only way to respond is in good faith but with firm boundaries just as he demonstrated here.
I had the great pleasure of meeting him after one of his lectures. He was a man generous of spirit, and truly kind. He is still terribly missed
He looks pretty calm and nice.
That’s awesome
You were damn lucky
He was a legend
Lucky you!
The way he makes a point to not be ran over yet not being consumed emotionally and not becoming an a hole himself. Masterful conversation technique which many lack.
Might I ask why so many Creationists desperately want to use science to explain their beliefs, but don't trust science in any other way?
Baffling, SK isn't it ?.. and why so many reject science as they tweet their woo woo on mobile phones, the product of centuries of scientific evolution and human endeavor in so many fields - geology, geophysics, engineering, chemistry, quantum physics just to mention a few, as well as that of human dreams and artistic creativity.. not just an amazing solid theory, I love and celebrate evolution, how we have arrived here against the odds, and are here together as fellow humans (and all the other critters) at this juncture in space and time.. Carl thought we'd be flying to the stars by now if it wasn't for so much belief in irrational nonsense.. and also hopefully get on a lot better with each other.. we do have so much to appreciate still ;-)
Completely agree. I find it curious that they don't seem to eschew the science of medicine, as well. They tend to cheer-on a god for "miracle" cures, but don't discuss the ridiculous amounts of science that went into curing their beloved.
As for evolution, I also see it as a triumph. A triumph of fluke, sure, but we're here nonetheless. I feel kinship with other living creatures, and that holds a profound feeling of connectivity, real connectivity, to not only this planet, but the rest of the universe. We don't need to look outside of nature to find magic of any sort; nature, as viewed through the lens of science, holds enough "magic" to satiate anyone looking for it.
I'm sure this comes across as silly and pompous and a million other adjectives, but I've no better words to describe it.
They will happily use a computer to type out their contempt for the same physical sciences which also created that computer. A flat earther will use GPS without even flinching and they may even watch broadcast TV which needed a satellite uplink. There are so many ironies of this kind they are endless yet, almost without exception, no creationist ever perceives that irony. Going to go out on a limb here and suggest this happens because creationists are either 1) unbelievably stupid, or 2) they are easily made intransigent by the brute force appeal of wishful thinking, or 3) both 1) and 2) at the same time.
@@BartAlder LoL
I can understand the creationists and flat earthers way back when! but you're so right, they have no idea....or should I say, they simply refuse
@@SmittenKitten. Bingo! But tell that to the Christians. "We don't need to look outside of nature to find magic of any sort; nature, as viewed through the lens of science, holds enough "magic" to satiate anyone looking for it." Yes indeedy!
I truly wish Carl Sagan was still among us.
Quite an honourable and knowledgeable gentleman he was.
I too miss him. But I wouldn’t wish this current state of the Country on him. Look at the toll it’s taken on Fauci.
among us
@@clarkomarko2730 My wife had the privilege of meeting him in Zurich when she was 8. He told her "A smile is infectious and laughter is better than chocolate."
He was truly a better man than humanity deserved. A Saint of truth, kindness, wisdom and understanding.
@@clarkomarko2730 sus
@BackYard Engineer god is dead
I love Carl Sagan. What an awesome man he was. His absence is a loss.
No kidden we need about 30 thousand more people like him on this planet
@@jannellecox3202 : More like 30 billion more like him!
@Bir Datt : If he was a "salesman" he was selling knowledge, intelligence, and common sense. I'll take about a billion copies of those!
@@anonymousjohnson976 No! That would be too many for the planet to support! 🤔
When Sagan kicked the bucket it was addition by subtraction. 😆
Hard to believe some guy thought he could outsmart Carl Sagan
I must be jaded because I find it extremely easy to believe that a creationist thought they could outsmart Carl Sagan. Creationists tend to think they can outsmart everyone in every single science discipline.
@@BartAlderArrogance seems to walk hand in hand with religious belief.
Religious people are so stupid they cannot fathom that they are stupid. Too dumb to recognize stupidity.
But he did, tho...😮😮
@@BartAlderIf the science wasn't so flawed and full of gaps, we wouldn't be so confident!
I miss Carl Sagan's clarity of thought and his gentle but progressive style of argument. What a lovely man with an expressive voice....!
Well, Carl... Carl! Llamas with hats... sorry.
Actually, one thing worth keeping in mind, which Sagan might not have been aware of while he was alive would be the efficiency in genetic recombination and gene editing we have today in various forms, to CRISPR, and on. With such technology, and a little understand, we can go ahead and create gaps in the evolutionary record. For example, I've already made organisms with a blue phenotype that is not found in nature, nor is there any natural, or selective breeding process which would yield the offspring I created with blue flesh. But that was a college project for a genetics class.
Generally, given the equipment and materials, it wouldn't be at all difficult for me to make things, like cosmopolitan ice-cream style breadfruit. That is, we have tomatoes with fish genes, which again, nature has no real purpose in creating over a million years -- even though it would be an evolutionary advantage for that species. And to come up with that concept, and have a finished product took less than 10 years.
Evolution, as a mean of change is 100% fine, however, to know even the slightest amount about genetic manipulations available to mankind, and even more so after Sagan's death, creates a situation where man can essentially intelligently design creatures of all kinds. But, we already know that based on our understanding of the age of the universe, and the age of the earth in comparison, as well as the period we believe life came to exist on this planet based on carbon dating that any given galaxy closer to the center of the universe already has a great advantage in time -- presuming similar events took place on that planet to "spark" life. Thus, if say, a species were to develop much closer to the center of the universe and propagate to just our level of understanding today in as many years as it took humanity, then given the distance from our own planet alone, they would potentially have millions of years to further develop everything from genetic engineering to far faster space travel.
It is also worth keeping in mind the petri-dish concept, or a petri-dish is without life or resources until a scientist fills it. A garden is empty, or alternatively overrun by weeds prior to the gardener's visit. In the petri-dish, we drop a small amount of potential life from which all things form and grow. How different then might the universe be from a petri-dish of incomprehensible magnitude? In such a case, it would be not at all impossible to come to any number of conclusion from the inside about what is outside (in our more limited cases, on the earth), but there are few things which escape a petri-dish in a good lab (all of which are desired by the scientists).
Sagan is certainly no moron, but even the most intelligent people, or those with the pen-ultimate amount of potential are limited still by the people and resources around them.. Carl Sagan in the stone age, with his understanding of today, would likely not even be able to start a iron-age -- and certainly not on his own. Still, fascinating guy. Science.
He was a condescending, ill mannered mouthpiece paid to stifle all discussion that exposed his religion of evolution as a fraud. He owes his fame to nothing else except that he was willing to lie for money.
@@DavidParker-cf2km You obviously a sick man. Please see a doctor. Show them what you have written. Show them the photo you have next to your name. Pointing a gun at two females is very disturbing. If you feel that it is normal you can talk to someone about that. Please I am serious.
@@borisbash Nah he's just an asshole...
@@MrZooganopolos Sagan was a shill for evolution and nothing more. He contributed nothing beneficial to mankind.
Carl has been a major influence in my life since watching Cosmos in the early 80's as a young teen, it through this series I spent 3 years back in the mid 90's traveling overland through Asia, middle East and most of Africa, he installed within me a love of culture, anthropology, evolution, philosophy and of course astronomy.
You're 53?
you need better idols to worship..
@@mrstanskaggs1 You're one of the biggest!
@@mrstanskaggs1 I guarantee u haven’t done anything hes done in his life u just wanna seem superior by sayin he needs better idols 😂 you are a nobody telling the OP something...seems like that man lived a beautiful life
@@6ick6ick6ity5 right... thank you.
BOOM!!! In his ignorant face!!! How to destroy bigotry, ignorance and arrogance with knowledge and reason
Vicente Unicorn He didn't really destroy anything. Those who are open to fact and reason already agreed with him. Those who believe in grandiose fairy tales walked away from this tête à tête believing they won the day. "I got him with that transitional species rhetoric" That's what they think because the reasonable reply given wasn't understood. The second someone goes over the head of a theist, they turn their ears off.
tenacious645 I agree
Typical creationist tactic. Throw out a debunked claim as if its never been addressed then scamper off whilst claiming victory before the opponent has had time to set them straight. No matter how many times these old challenges are put to rest the religionists continue to re-introduce them. This is patently dishonest.
Is your username supposed to be a joke??? You do realize that conservatives are largely the "religionists that continue to re-introduce" these challenges and fallacies??? You are being very inconsistent. I take it you are not aware of this fact???
ThinkTank255 that's actually not true. I am a republican and an atheist. I don't believe in abortion after a certain week because of science not god(viability of the fetus). There are plenty of liberals who are "god fearing". Every party has zealots ours just happen to be fucking batshit crazy and on fox news a lot.
ThinkTank255
No its not a joke. Liberalism is a dangerous mental illness. I'm an Atheist Libertarian.
Michael Brown I don't understand why people keep calling atheism a religion. The idea of atheism is that we do not believe in gods lol the absence of religion. We seek truth. When we read the bible it is nonsensical with the evidence. Where would you put a whale(World wide flood would dilute the salt water killing salt water fish/mammals) Surely you can't be telling me that those gigantic dinosaurs we have found could fit on Noah's arc can you?
Death To Liberalism,
That depends upon how you define "liberalism." Personally, I don't believe that state socialists deserve to call themselves "liberals," since real liberals have historically been opposed to state power. I would recommend the book Liberalism by Ludwig von Mises.
Respectfully yours,
Alex Peak
What a measured tone and un offending voice to convey the message.
@@rusted8157 For sure. But I would still have been interested in the answer to the original question.
The calmness in his voice as he answers so confidently tells you that this is a man that KNOWS what hes talking about.
I lol'd at the "But where are the fossils--" "EXCUSE me, excuse me... Not just..."
Carl Sagan was a sassy bad-ass.
Carl Sagan will always be missed for his contribution to our society. Many great man have walked on this world. Carl was one of them.
Carl Sagan ( 9 November, 1934 - 20 November, 1996 ) American Astronomer, Astrophysicist, Cosmologist, Author, Science Populariser, and Science Communicator in Astronomy and Other Natural Sciences. A Very Mature and Nice Person as well!
It’s funny how people come at Carl Sagan by telling him there is a gaping hole in the theory of evolution because they don’t understand it nor want to.
@@keithmarlowe5569 They turn everything into a belief in order to give their's some "credence." In fact of course, it's achieves the opposite, as reality is something. A False equivalence.
You should help them understand. Explain it to them once more. Give them an example of true evolution which is no way being confused with adaptation.
@@keithmarlowe5569 What is Sagan's definition of evolution?
I have tried numerous times to explain evolution to creationists. It is impossible 1) because even when they "ask" for an explanation, their minds are already made up against it; and 2) yeah, interrupting is their first line of attack, comparable to sticking their fingers in their ears and going "la-la-la-la-la!" Really? How are you supposed to have an "intelligent" adult conversation with someone who insists on living in childhood?
It does seem that way. Though, probably the reason why it is "asked" is because of the search for holes in science in order to exploit their own agendas.
fight fire with fire bro. to beat a creationist, act like a creationist
Christians don't want to understand atheism, science or logic. All they want is confirmation of their bias and to uphold their bullshit dogma. If you even begin to scratch the surface of their nonsense you will see the fangs come out, and you will see the true face of blind faith.
Michael Brown You are clearly deluded! No has ever claimed that 'land mammals magically evolved into sea mammals', you're replacing the world 'magically' with literally billions of years of evolution. A tadpole can grow legs and become a frog in as little as 6-9 weeks. Obviously that isn't evolution but if a tadpole can do it I'm sure billions of years of evolution can do it.
The most unbelievably asinine part of your argument is that your mind somehow can't grasp sea animals evolving into land animals yet your theory is that two naked people and a snake created humanity, god created everything in one work week and an old man brought the entire animal kingdom off a wooden boat.
Bouchon211
And that is part of the crux of the problem, these myths and legends have been around for much longer than what we know of as modern science. Compare a few thousand years of creation myths, legends and stories trying to explain the natural world against the last, hmmm, I suppose 500 years of scientific advancement.
Our caller is too ready to do battle rather than to listen. Perfectly put. That's all creationists ever want to do is 'win the argument'. They couldn't care less about reaching the truth
It's called a soldier mentality, whereas smart people usually have a scout mentality. They observe, listen, ponder, and base their beliefs on evidence and logical reasoning. Instead of sticking with one set of beliefs, vehemently defending it and attacking anyone who thinks differently.
Unfortunelly acting this way is the norm, not the exception. A good scientific mind is rare, and we all have blindspots.
Of course, ONLY evolutionists have or know the truth. It is extremely stupid to believe in evolution. There is absolutely no proof! No matter how much of a gentleman this guy is, he is completely wrong.
Ed Gomez Hey little Eddie, put it back in your short pants, wipe the drool off your receding chin and go back under your rock to Mommy Lizard. This thread is for humans who actually think.
Bang on the money - they really *DON'T* want to face up to the truth. That's probably because without the 'insurance' of a fluffy-bunny Afterlife, the dreaded fear of their own mortality suddenly creeps in.
same as always, as soon as one query is being addressed the caller jumps off to another subject. These people make me cringe so hard.
Tap dancers one and all ! Try to pin one down on proof of god, good luck if you can .
That technique has been named the "Gish Gallup" after Wayne Gish, a prominent Creationist debater who employed it consistently. I think it was Richard Wiseman that coined the term, but I'm not sure of that. The only way to combat it is to do exactly what Sagan did, and just stop him from introducing new material until you have fully answered the previous question. Man, he was the greatest!
@@pickleballer1729 I never knew that TY
Because the caller was Kent Hovind.
If you can't chew gum & talk, don't bother debating smarter people! 😂😂
Interesting how this could be recorded in today's world. All the tropes are here: interrupting the scientist's answer because it is not the answer you expect, bombarding the scientist with more questions than you let him finish, so you give the impression that you're "winning", purposedly closing your eyes and ears for the facts that the scientist is giving you...
How I miss Carl Sagan in this contemporary world of ours.
Kind of like the term "Alternative facts" in today's society, huh...
There are plenty of people with demeanors like his around. The problem is that the only thing promoted on media/social media now is sensationalist garbage only meant to capture attention to get more money from advertisers.
Scientists were too scared to question a Va c c i n e that had all of 6 months trials before being unleashed on the public for real world testing. They also were nowhere to be seen when the pharmaceutical companies requested their "trial data" be hidden from the public for 75 years. Gene therapy is no joke and to quote emperor fauci himself. "in 10 to 12 years all hell could break loose". I'm paraphrasing what he said about experimental hiv/aids vaccs many years ago.
FYI, I love science and the cosmos. Science should be done right, not rushed and open to criticism otherwise it's nothing more than a religion. Right?
Great analogy to explain the difference between natural selection and artificial selection. Carl Sagan, we miss you.
Carl can destroy creationism but people's stupidity will never end. How can anyone seriously question the fossil record:
Here are some strong evidences of Evolution. Much stronger than arguments for God or Religion
1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended. This doesn't contradict that god couldn't have started it all, but it certainly contradicts the biblical telling.
2 The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another. The more we search, the more this is proven. I guess some could think god has planted millions of fossils to fool scientists. One never finds dinosaur fossils with humans unless they were planted by someone as a goof or misleading "plant". When we find a particular dinosaur fossil, elephant, or a DeLorean car; it's always falls inside a certain historical time-line, and we know this by radiocarbon dating or radioactive decay of Isotopes verified repeatedly by scientist throughout the world.
3 Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we hared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to ow long ago our genetic lines diverged.
Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordate" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development.
In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.
4 Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.
When an antibiotic is applied, the initial inoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.?
5 We have seen Evolution occur during the Industrial Age in England where black-peppered moths can hide in trees more easy than white moths and so after a generation there were most black moths . But the evidence in favor of natural selection (evolution) on peppered moths continued to accumulate. England and other countries cleaned up their air in the late 1900s, and trees went from dark to light. Now natural selection’s balance shifted: black moths became a liability. And, as you’d predict, the dark moths went from common back to rare again.
Evolution has tons and tons of evidence supporting it. All different fields of science like: Anatomy, Chemistry, Zoology, Paleontology, Archaeology, Taxonomy, Embryology, Genetics, Molecular Biology, Geology, ERV's and the Fossil Record all cross-confirms the theory of evolution independently.
6 homologies . Evolutionary theory predicts that related organisms will share similarities that are derived from common ancestors. Similar characteristics due to relatedness are known as homologies. Homologies can be revealed by comparing the anatomies of different living things, looking at cellular similarities and differences, studying embryological development, and studying vestigial structures within individual organisms.
7 Vestigial Structures (This particular proof is not one of the strongest and there are flaws in the argument..) Vestigial organs (tonsils, third molars, appendix) have long been one of the classic arguments used as evidence for evolution. The argument goes like this: living organisms, including man, contain organs that were once functional in our evolutionary past, but that are now useless or have reduced function. More importantly, vestigial organs are considered by some evolutionists to be evidence against Creationism because they reason a perfect Creator would not make useless organs.
8 The incredible rate at which we're finding transitional fossils now that we're looking
9 the dating of the strata and the knowledge of mutation rates in species lead to conclusions that time after time, strongly correlate
10. Science using Radiocarbon dating works up to 50000 years and uranium lead Isotopes goes back much future to provide time and other radiometric isotopes the age of the earth and fossils and estimates the world began around 14 billion yrs ago, and the earth was formed from supernovas about 4.5 billion years ago. Radio dating and Isotopes are one of the strongest evidences that prove evolution because these tests are duplicated every waking hour by scientists
Son: Dad, why aren't there any christians on Star Trek?
Dad: Because Star Trek is in the future.
change CHRISTIAN to RELIGIOUS and you hit the nail on the head.
hahaha I love it! I use that line for many different things
@@volgawolfhounds741 - There are a number of religious races in Star Trek. The Bajorans for starters.
@@mobiusklein9140 the KLINGONS!!!! Their whole race and existence religion and superstition. The Klingons are I think one of the most "religious" races in Star Trek...... not that they sit for 100 years and meditate and ponder shit like the vulcans..... but the klingons are indeed "predictable"...... because OF their "religion". In fact even their death ritual is religion. You could compare Klingons with our own Viking Mythology and "religion" and way of life.
The Ferengi are also driven by "religion"..... Greed is their "God" and they worship it RELENTLESSLY and unlike most "holy books"..... theirs does not contain stories and shit to "teach" them the values and how to live....... but a entire book of "Commandments"...... nothing BUT "Commandments" to follow.
Star Trek is DRENCHED in religion all throughout the galaxy. Hell...... even Captain Picard was a GOD!!!! and a whole planet worshiped him as such.
Me after reading this meme
Oooooo
Thank you for keeping this available for anyone searching to find. I’ve always highly respected this man. After this he’s s a historical legend. Profound.
We had a guy at my works who is convinced that the earth is only around 6000 years old. We asked what his car ran on to get him to work.
It ran on faith???🤣
@@elilevine2410 Lmaoo, faith can only last so long before you need to recharge it
I could listen to him all day.
his voice is so soothing
Me forever
Be careful who you listen to, he is saying that God doesn't exist, meaning that we evolved from a rock and a everything popped into existence. Comment this comment, I would like to chat 🙂
@@godistrue5400 you clearly don't understand evolution. Go back to your fairy tales in the Bible.
God is True!!!
Huh...what?
Science is an ongoing process of discovery.
Creationism says "my god did it"
which explains nothing.
James Richard Wiley , why not?
@@johndoetoptek6505 No evidences at all
@@johndoetoptek6505 Just saying something doesn't prove anything, if you want an example, let's try.
In 3 seconds there will be a piano falling from the sky and hit your house.
It is true because I say it is true.
That's not how science works.:)
@@johndoetoptek6505 Life God did it, evil god did it. Buybull God did it the bible is provably wrong ! Thats the word of man SIGHS That is theist logic !
I can't imagine debating with someone who will answer every argument with "Magic"
If arguing from logic and reason with religious people worked then there would be no religious people.
This
@Tim Webb there were massive floods in the past yes, this is shown by Graham Hancock on Joe rogans podcast if you'd like to listen to it, however; this does not mean that Noah built an ark or that God sent down these floods. This is the reason you see the reference to massive floods in nearly every religion, and it does not prove yours correct. Massive floods can occur as the planet goes through states of major and rapid climate change, as it did about 15,000 years ago. Also as far as the grand canyon goes, there are clear sedimentary layers, which you would have been able to deduce if you had spent even ten seconds researching what the fuck you're talking about. But since you're too sure of yourself and lazy, I did it for you.
Introduction to Grand Canyon Geologic Principles
Stratigraphy is the study of the rock layering, and reveals a wealth of information about what Earth was like when each layer formed. In the Grand Canyon, there are clear horizontal layers of different rocks that provide information about where, when, and how they were deposited, long before the canyon was even carved. The Law of Superposition states that sediment is deposited in layers in a sequence, the oldest rocks are on the bottom and the youngest rocks are on the top, similar to the way that sand piles up in an hour glass. This principle is a key part of determining the relative age of a rock layer. The three main rock layer sets in the Grand Canyon are grouped based on position and common composition and 1) Metamorphic basement rocks, 2) The Precambrian Grand Canyon Supergroup, and 3) Paleozoic strata. These three main sets of rocks were first described by the explorer and scientist John Wesley Powell during his expeditions of the Grand Canyon in the late 1860s and early 1870s. To learn more about the Powell expeditions, visit www.usgs.gov/Powell150. A USGS geologic field photograph map of the Grand Canyon can be viewed or downloaded here.
If you believe in magic...
"...scripture directly states that faith is based on substance and evidence." How do you define faith, Tim?
Creationists come to the debate with no evidence, no facts, and no intentions of even trying to provide any but they want the other side to provide full evidence and facts
Ikr ?! 😂
And that other side has absolutely nothing of the sort to provide.
@Dave Miller Even if that were true, it says a lot that we do not kill people for disagreeing with us.
@@davemiller6055 Lol, what, there are far more scientifical evidence pointing towards evolution than anything your fairytale book has ever provided, the thing is it's pointless talking to people like you since even in the modern era we see people denying viruses and saying deaths are made up even when they see it in front of them, it's better talking to a wall
@@davemiller6055 so you didn’t listen to a single thing that Carl Sagan said?
The caller talks about gaps in science while believing in religion that has no proof whatsoever. Isn ‘t it ironic?
my favorite retort of Christians...but..but..the bible says. me: ummm yeah...didn't man create the bible? Christians: yes..but.. Me: don't people create imaginary characters and stories that are not real? Christians: yes..but...but...God told the people to write the bible. Me: ummm...how do you know that? Christians: cause the bible said that! Me: where does it says in the bible god had someone write the bible? Christians: well...its assumed cause this saint...that saint/apostle wrote this book...see it has his name on it. Me: So let me get this straight...no where in your fantasy/fiction book...does it actually say god told so and so to create this book...and your argument that God did...is this fiction book...cause a made up character in the book has a chapter named after him....right? Christian: *sighs with frustration* you just do not understand....its about belief and faith! Me: Well I like harry potter and LOTR books...I wish some of that stuff was real...but no matter how much I want or believe it could be real...that just makes me an insane person for believing in unreality. Christian: But...but...you just don't understand because the bible says. Me: You know what...I don't know understand you are right...cause I'm not insane. enjoy your fairytales all you want buddy. Me i'm stickin with reality. Christian: *starts foaming at the mouth and throwing obscenities at me.* Me: Yeah you have a good one too buddy. *smh* nutjobs!
Extreme Cognitive dissonance
czcams.com/video/1tVO0-zYAvE/video.html
@@tzgardner He was preaching to the choir. Making assumptions that we don't all agree on. Tiresome.
@@jackwest3282 Try getting a decent explanation as to why Jesus had to die for our sins, or what that even means. Absolute gobbledygook!
"Let's do them one at a time.." I wish politicians would tackle problems that way.
There was only one issue - that there are no fossils of transitional forms. Sagan was in evolutionist damage-control mode, quickly stifling that fact, then lying that "There are lots of intermediate forms", then denigrating the caller and condescendingly cutting him off. Sagan was a fraud, far from being an intellectual, he was an evolutionist fanboy, doing his best to perpetuate the hoax that is evolution, the religion of the atheist.
David Parker you’re obviously not the brightest bulb in the pack are you 🧐
@@lythalls Actually you excel in being dimwitted. Read the transcript of the call. Listen to the video. What part of what I wrote is in any way incorrect?
@@DavidParker-cf2km dumbass
@@DavidParker-cf2km Wisdom teeth numbers in different people is a modern day example of evolution.
Sagans patience when dealing with this absurdity amazing.
Yeah.. Dawkins would have ripped his head off and shit down his neck, which aint a bad thing.
Michael Brown I think you are referring to creationists when you use the word sorcerous describing the process.
Creationists are the ones who believe in magic. Literally.
That's what people who really have no fundamental understanding of evolution say. But whats really funny to hear creationists talk about "intelligent design", they often in their ignorance forget about STUPID DESIGN. Your apples and oranges comparison to airplanes is apples and oranges. A Boeing 747 doesn't have a DC-10 wing on it. Animals on the other hand do have clear transitional phases using existing parts, and vestigial limbs. You have one your ass, literally from when we had tails, you also have a useless organ known as an appendix. In fact, most of the problems humans have in mid to late life from slipped disks, lower back pain, hernias etc, come from the fact that we are evolved from a species who was "designed" to walk on 4 limbs and now walk upright on 2. Or wisdom teeth which generally have to be removed because they cause more problems than they help, ergo, if god was an "intelligent designer" hes rather stupid and inefficient, I could go on with more specific examples, but would it really make a difference? Your prefer a religion which you just happened to be born into a culture with the only correct religion, how remarkable. Meanwhile people born in India are just as convinced as you are that the one they were born into is the only correct one.
I did Google Appendix, WebMD says this "Surgical removal of the appendix causes no observable health problems." and "The function of the appendix is unknown. "
Carl Sagan knows perfectly well that caller will not be convinced, nor will a large part of the audience. He patiently tries to answer and explain it anyway, what a hero
Carl Sagan is sorely missed. He was truly brilliant. He was a gift to humanity.
i'm sure he would agree about being sorely missed...........cause he's in hell right now...........AND,,,,,,,,,,HE'S NOT BRILLIANT...........BUT HE WAS AND IS FOREVER,,,,,,,,,,,,,THE DEVIL''S FOOL........
Hateful idiot and a "compassionate" idiot enter a bar...
@epstein was killed Nobody alive today can say with any confidence what Jesus said or did not say. What he did or did not do. The only records we have of him are highly contradictory hearsay accounts written decades after his death by people who never met him.
he was a narcissistic windbag
@Dave Jesus was?
Nothing like a little Sagan for Easter.
Let's see, asexual reproduction is when creationists do it, and sexual reproduction is when everyone else does it.
Imagine the unfettered temerity of a creationist demanding ANY evidence at all.
Lots of people are going to be surprised at their ignorance or denial or both at their time of death! Better think a lot deeper while you have the time...
@@nickmecca2024 Read my comment again.
@@doncourtreporter Better, sometime AFTER their death.
Nick Mecca
an appeal to bullsh*t that's not
even within a contextual response.
fallacy!
@@selfademus Outstanding response. Thank you. The voice of logic.
You can't argue with a creationist. There's no intelligence there. It's like trying to talk to a house fly.
I agree, it's like trying to reason with a fish...
More like arguing with your coffee cup...a fish and a fly have some intelligence. At least an instinct of self preservation.
Chuck Schick Yeah, and they don't have a self fulfilling prophecy to end the world...
guys, you are insulting flies and fishes
Pradeep Somu
Brilliant, and 100% correct...
(sigh) Sagan had the patients of a Saint. I simply would not have had the ability to deal with those combatant nut jobs the way he did.
Bill Nye has that magnificent patience that Carl Sagan had, and it's inspiring!
Christa D he truly is the science guy.
me neither. lol
Yeah, hes a great doctor.
Do you mean "patience"? Because patients are the people a doctor tends to see. :P If that's what you meant, yeah, I don't know how people like him do it. I do think it has a little to do with their ever-expanding intelligence & ability to completely tear apart all the stupid little arguments people like this try to bring up. The rest of us have too much other shit going on & aren't physicists & shit, so it's much more of a pain in the ass trying to battle someone with facts, that refuses to listen & states things like bible passages as if they were truly fact & therefore proof of something. It takes pretty good wit, knowledge & skill. I'm sure it wasn't always so easy for him. It rarely is, even for the smartest of guys. I mean, when talking to someone like that, it's like you can watch your own intelligence quickly being sucked out of you like there's a vacuum nozzle attached to your brain. It's more infectious than fucking zombies, man. That's why we need to get control of the epidemic & either quarantine these fuckers or just kill them like we would zombies, since they pretty much already are anyways.
This, guys and gals, is how to handle baseless accusations, emotional butthurt, and overall intellectual dishonesty.
Zeusdammit I miss Sagan, Hitchens, Carlin, and Hicks.
"Zeusdammit?" I see what you did there. But why do you care about saying a name of the fictional character known as "God?"
I'm going to guess it's to illustrate the reality(or absurdity) of the phrase goddamnit. As you (imo) correctly pointed out, they are about the same concept.
Aeradill
Why is Zeus not equally hated? Gods don't exist. Why put one above the other?
Thousands of Gods have been dreamt up and many didn't survive as time and culture progressed. I agree that all are equally improbable, but a few pesky ones still have significant impact on today's society. Zeus is not one of those. If Zeus were relevant today I would value them the same.
Aeradill
Maybe it just annoys me more that he even chose to use the phrase at all as there are a plethora of other useable ones that are natural language.
Wow, back in the day this was considered to be a rude, disruptive caller. They hadn't seen anything yet!
_Cable TV has entered the chat_
@Electricshrock, right? Ha ha. Today you'd be lucky if you don't get shot after an argument.
So tragic that the world lost Carl so soon. He’s a true gentleman and we need him in this trying time in world history 😢
Every fossil is a transitional fossil, things just don't stop evolving.
Yes, that's exactly right. And indeed we humans are a transitional species, as are all species alive on the Earth today (as long as they don't become extinct).
Really? What proof have we that any fossil had progeny? And what do fossils prove anyway, Willy in your view? BTW, evolution has NOTHING to do with explaining CREATION ex nihilo. Sorry dear friends, evolution is a theory about how life changes. It has NOTHING to do with explaining how or why all time, matter and space came into existence in the finitude of the past. It has NOTHING to do with how "man was created from the dust of the earth" (life came from non life) nor the
origin and existence of all the abstracts laws on which science can be
done. Ergo, We are all creationists, even Krauss and hawking b/c of
the abundance of evidence for ex nihilo creation. The HOW EVERY thing came from
nothing in the FINITUDE of time, is an insurmountable problem for atheists who
for centuries maintained a static, eternal universe. I am amused if not
saddened, by all the gullible young YT skeptics who rejoice in the
erroneous belief that evolution somehow has disproved or negates the need for
Creation! Well sorry to spoil your delusion but it has nothing at all to
do with the birth of our finite, awe-inspiring, rationally intelligible
universe. "Why there is something rather than nothing" is not a
scientific question. • Oxford Nobel Prize scientist (& agnostic) sir Peter
Medawar,' That there is indeed a limit upon science is made very likely by the
existence of questions that science cannot answer & that no conceivable
advance of science would empower it to answer It is not to science, but to
metaphysics, intuitive literature or religion that we must turn for answers to
questions having to do with first and last things.' Which is why the deepest
desires of the human heart will never be reconciled with a purely materialistic
view of reality in which mindless matter is the only game in town.The HOW EVERY thing came from nothing in the FINITUDE
of time, is an insurmountable problem for atheists who for centuries maintained
a static, eternal universe. I am amused if not saddened, by all the gullible young
YT skeptics who rejoice in the erroneous belief that evolution somehow has
disproved or negates the need for Creation! Well sorry to spoil your
delusion but it has nothing at all to do with the birth of our finite,
awe-inspiring, rationally intelligible universe. "Why there is something
rather than nothing" is not a scientific question. • Oxford Nobel Prize
scientist (& agnostic) sir Peter Medawar,' That there is indeed a limit
upon science is made very likely by the existence of questions that science
cannot answer & that no conceivable advance of science would empower it to
answer It is not to science, but to metaphysics, intuitive literature or
religion that we must turn for answers to questions having to do with first and
last thingsWhen matter & energy is the only game in town,
metaphysics has to be illusory, rightFor centuries atheists denied Creation b/c of the
obvious Biblical implications, now that we have compelling evidence all time
matter and space had an absolute beginning. Recently we have the most
fanciful theories coming from atheists cosmologists like Hawking and Krauss.
If anyone is really interested in a naturalistic explanation for ex
nihilo CREATION read The NYTimes book
review of Krauss's new book. www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=1& For centuries atheists denied Creation b/c of the obvious Biblical implications, now we have compelling
evidence all time matter and space had an absolute beginning in the finitude of
the past. Recently we have the most fanciful theories coming from desperate
atheists cosmologists like Hawking and Krauss. If anyone is interested in
a naturalistic explanation for ex nihilo CREATION read The NY Times book
review of Krauss's new book “A Universe from Nothing”. www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=1&For centuries atheists denied Creation b/c of the
obvious Biblical implications, now we have compelling evidence all time matter
and space had an absolute beginning in the finitude of the past.
Recently we have the most fanciful theories coming from atheists
cosmologists like Hawking and Krauss. If
anyone is really interested in a naturalistic explanation for ex nihilo
CREATION read The NYTimes book review of Krauss's new book. www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-fromFor centuries atheists denied Creation b/c of the
obvious Biblical implications, now we have compelling evidence all time matter
and space had an absolute beginning in the finitude of the past.
Recently we have the most fanciful theories coming from atheists
cosmologists like Hawking and Krauss. If
anyone is really interested in a naturalistic explanation for ex nihilo
CREATION read The NYTimes book review of Krauss's new book. www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from
Augustino "Ergo, We are all creationists, even Krauss and hawking b/c of
the abundance of evidence for ex nihilo creation. "
lmao what? There is evidence that the universe come from "nothing", you are conflating that with "created from nothing" There is no evidence for creation.
"I am amused if not
saddened, by all the gullible young YT skeptics who rejoice in the
erroneous belief that evolution somehow has disproved or negates the need for
Creation!"
It doesn't negate the need for it, it just has no need for it, and there's no reason to believe it to be the case because there is no evidence for creation. As far as we can tell the universe is just adhering to the laws of nature.
"For centuries atheists denied Creation b/c of the obvious Biblical implications"
Wrong again. There just isn't any evidence of a creator. I'm pretty sure it's the other way around, to say; religious people deny science because of the biblical implications being false.
Don't really care to wade my way through the rest of your word salad. And I'm pretty sure Krauss would disagree with mostly everything you are saying. So using him to support your arguments doesn't really help you.
or begin
The fatal mistake you make is that even if we can't explain a physical process yet, or in fact ever, it doesn't mean that there has to be magical intervention.
It's even quite the opposite since there is no historical evidence anywhere in the observable universe that magic exists which rules it out altogether. What you are using is what even the frontier creationists have discarded, since it creates a circular argument and hence it completely flawed: the god of gaps.
First of all, there is no way to prove that Christianity is more true than let's say the gods of a tribe on Madagascar. It simply can't be done. All religions are based on hearsay (implied that no evidence exist) and belief (again implied that evidence is completely taken out of the equation). So, you can surely believe that Hinduism is better than the Norse religions (Odinism and Asatru) but never in a million years can you prove it. If for nothing else, it's existence is based on a subjective preference just as when we look at a painting or listen to music.
What can be done though is to disprove ALL religions. Not a single religion existing today, extinct or coming in the future, is based on facts or evidence. There is no more proof of any god from any religion than Santa. And, no, the Bible is no more proof than the Koran is. Get over it. At least the believers in alien life forms can use likelihood through statistical probability even if we don't have a shred of evidence. It makes their beliefs plausible as opposed to religions that can't fall back on any form of documentation that will hold up to scrutinisation.
Imagine living with a legal system that was based on the principles of religion. Imagine being accused of something without any evidence whatsoever. Not a single physical proof that you did what they claim you did. One morning you are pulled from your bed and home and thrown into jail accused of witchcraft. Firstly, how do you defend against that? The logical conclusion would be that you point to the fact of lacking evidence. Imagine that you would be convicted and executed anyway because someone saw you do it in a vision.
And that is proof enough for the judge.
No evidence required. What so ever.
Sounds scary? Of course. And even scarier is that this is how the legal systems in e.g. Europe used to work. People were burned on the stake because someone had a dream or found some obscure pattern in mushrooms that surely must point to that it was YOU that were a witch and caused the drought. Would you like to live in such a place?
I'm sure you wouldn't.
And still, you dedicate your life to something that can't be proven. It's all based on the face value of what someone told you.
Remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
It is no accident that every creationist posting comments is a science illiterate.
Wherever you find someone who rejects evolution, there too you find someone with a cartoon understanding of science and a grasp of evolution that amounts to barbershop gossip.
The Dunning-Kruger Effect ensures that those who are the most profoundly ignorant of science continue to reject evolution based on their cartoon understanding of science in general and evolution in particular.
Unfortunately , this is true . People who actually understand evolution accept the evidence as compelling . All you get from Creationists is froth which demonstrates their ineptitude . Same old boners over and over . "It`s only a Theory " "Darwin said the eye couldn`t have evolved" "Where are the transitional fossils? " Google the fucking answers to your misunderstandings. It isn`t that hard .
Actually, f friend, you're talking about yourself.
I clarified in another post, exactly why that's true by challenging you to produce empirical evidence rather than the combined opinions of an obviously, and in fact, terroristic biased secular, pseudo science agenda!
Read your own posts! You do not respect any other opinion!
But that's not because macro or abiogenesis or the big bang are factual, observed realities.
The only other reason you would submit your puny mind to such obviously unscientific nonsense is for personal reasons.
You hate God, therefore you mock everyone and everything that implicates Him.
The universe and everything in it, including yourself, in this case!
Now. If you actually had science to back you up, all you'd have to do is state the paper/s, the logged, documented, empirical science that proves I'm lying or stupid!
I have no fear of that.
Instead you'll simply avoid that issue altogether and defer to empty antagonistic rhetoric and, or insults. As usual.
lederereddy
You demonstrated you were intellectually inept and a science illiterate. No amount of science illiterate gibber refutes the actual science of evolution.
Fallible Fiend but god dunnit!
it says so in the biiiible!
One problem with what you stated. You stated it so well, now I'm going to steal it.
RIP Prof Sagan. Your intellect is missed.
When they buried Carl, he was buried deeper to accommodate his balls.
And wider to accommodate his ego.
Fuz Capp An ego envied by many.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Carl Sagan
That's correct. However, absence of evidence where evidence should be ample is a very good indication of evidence of absence.
Examples of amply missing evidence include: the Great Flood, Jewish slavery in ancient Egypt, the Exodus, the Roman Census on year 1.
***** see creation.com evidence abounds for the flood
sam mccross
"see creation.com evidence abounds for the flood" And ignore the mounts of evidence, ignore logic and reason in favor of your religious belief.
no
sam mccross
Than why should I bother, if I already accept the scientific evidence???
if only he was here now.
If only he was here always.
prltqdf9 in our hearts and memory.
Yeah, you mean the guy who is invisible? Or he's kinda shy right? Where is he by the way? Yeah the almighty.
Ironically, burning in hell
@@kentfink9509 With so many smart people there i'm sure it's air conditioned by now
You don't need to be a scientist to see through the foolish proposition of Christian/Jewish/Islamic lies of creationism. You just need a logical mind to dismiss these absurdities.
And evolution is still only a random theory. You're welcome. Btw, middle eastern influence is also only a dogma. No truth comes from human-kind...
I do not deny the science behind Evolution or the 4 billion year old earth, but I do love the way Sagan says "If you don't buy the 4 billion year old earth, you don't buy Evolution." He was a rational man who knew the power and limitations of science. This was a man who understood reality, far better than most of his modern "counterparts".
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
PWakeup. I don't think you understood my point. Science can be true, but it is inductive. Science is not necessarily true, and I mean that in the truest sense of the word necessary. Our current understanding of science is not automatically true.
That quote can be applied to anything that is true. It is redundant, because anything that is true is true whether or not you believe in it. The question is, is a particular part of science true? It might seem true to us at our present point, but quite often scientific "fact" merely comes from an appeal to novelty. That is not to say that all science is wrong, merely that it is not true simply because it is the current scientific development.
Icepick
"If you don't buy the 4 billion year old earth, you don't buy Evolution."
Meaning if you have a religious conviction, you're going to disregard all the evidence for evolution in favor of your religious conviction.
We know "science" is true because it works.
I don't think you understand "science" at all.
PWakeup. Oh, I understand his point. I was simply calling attention to his intentional use of words.
Also, keep in mind there are different types of science. There is empirical science, and there is observational science. Empirical science deals with experimentation. Most of the time, the conclusions gathered from empirical science remain respected in the scientific community for a long period of time. That is because they can be supported with concrete, causal evidence that shows a situation before, during, and after certain changes are imposed on a system. For example, when we add chemical x to chemical y, reaction z occurs. Even does not necessarily produce concrete conclusions, because as Humans it is impossible for us to measure every single possible variable within a system. However, in the vast majority of cases our conclusions are probably correct.
Observational science deals with retrospective and speculative theories. This involves taking what we know from experimentation and observation, and extrapolating it to broader truths. The best examples of this are the theories of evolution and the Big Bang. With evolution for example, we look at patterns in genomes, and conclude that species probably have common ancestors. However, until we can show evolutionary jumps in a controlled setting, the best we can get is a theory. The Big Bang is similar, in that we observe the patterns and movement in outer space, and conclude that there must be some specific type of root beginning. Neither of these involve controlled experimentation.
There is a clear ontological difference between these two types of science. The former is usually accepted as basic truth by most people. The latter is often disputed, even from within the scientific community. To believe that what we know or declare about science in modern times in absolute fact shows an ignorance of history. Science is constantly evolving. That doesn't mean that modern science is wrong, simply that it is not indisputable. The disputability of science is what allows science to progress.
Icepick
The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena"
The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas
Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
If we could preserve one person, it would be Carl Sagan
Why oh why couldn’t we bring carl back to debate trump...
Sagan died way too young.
***** Yeah, I'm sure God pulled him because he was posing too much of a threat spreading that paganism and what not. (I actually read that post somewhere.) God rolls like that.
+Christopher White then why god died ,he couldn't manage to escape his death i mean jesus, death is natural process nothing to worry,afraid about it.there no such thing called god(?).
Carl Sagan was my idol when i was in junior high school. Loved this handsome, brilliant man. He could explain the most complex questions in way the average layman gets it. A very rare quality in a genius. I followed his career and his work on the SETI project and have his book, 'COSMOS'. Plus i never missed any of his 23 episodes of the documentary 'COSMOS'. I was in awe of him, me being a science student at that time , that a scientist could be so intelligent, good looking and he made the study of astronomy interesting and simple to understand. He appeared in many talk shows and shied away from being quite a celebrity those days . Of course, my friends thought i was weird coz i was a girl who idolized him. Scientists were considered nerds back then and so were students who chose science subjects. i went on to get a degree in maths and became a professional in the IT field eventually. RIP Carl Sagan, truly missed but not forgotten and now you live among the stars that always intrigued you. No one comes close to explaining things his most simple way, not even Neal Tyson. Neal is a disappointment. i stopped watching Neal.
Sagan: a great representative of what human could be.
Sagan lied for money and fame. There is nothing great about a talking head liar.
@@DavidParker-cf2km where's your proof lmao
@@wefbm In the transcript of this video. Read it or listen to what he actually says and how he says it before you comment.
That's right my friend.
@@wefbm don't ask a foolish a proof of his nonsense 😉
Knock Knock
Who's there?
It's Jesus, let me in!
Why?
So that I can save you!
From what?
From what my daddy and I will do to you if you don't let me in.
Brammy007a i thank you so much for what you do sir/ madame
Michael Linn Just passing along the good word of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (pasta be upon Him)
Brammy007a R'Amen.
***** From the Flying Spaghetti Monster (pasta be upon Him)
In your collective mockery of God, can you post your BEST evidence for abiogenesis? Spaghetti sauce maybe?
One of Dr Sagan's book is excellent "The demon haunted world" where he debunks all of these phoney pseudo-science creationist myths. He is forever missed.
"you have to put aside your creationist primer"
@Donald Ring Hell is populated by people who use all capital letters...
@Donald Ring tone down the caps, it looks like you are shouting
@Donald Ring Oh , poor wittle Donald goes back to his hot button issue of abortion. Obsessed with protecting a mass of cells but after its born, fuck it, especially if its black or brown. Btw, there is no hell , Donnie. It's a made up place just like your god. ALL FAKE NEWS!!! Kinda too bad there isn't a fiery hell, Donny, because you and your wanne be King, Donald Trump, would split it wide open!!! Suck on that awhile, Donny!
"He rather reminds me of Pontius Pilate. He asks what is truth but does not stay for the answer." Beautiful!
"But where are the fossils in transition?" Oh for fuxake!
@Enjoy and Travel The World! exactly! fairy tales! children's stories!
What a wonderful class in the art of managing an unworthy opponent in what ought to be an intelligent debate.
“I don’t understand science, therefore it must not be true.”
"Sir, your going to have to put aside your creationist primer for a second"...polite yet devastating.
I like turtles
about the only sensible comment on this thread ...
You can't hug turtles with nuclear arms.
me too
Jesus Christ Schmooblydong
Schmooblydong?! That's easy for YOU to say!!!
''It is a horrible idea that there is somebody who made us, who owns us, who supervises us - waking and sleeping, who knows our thoughts, who can convict us of thought crime - just for what we think, who can create us faulty and sick and than order us to become well again, on pain of eternal torture if we fail to do so. To wish this to be true, is to wish to live as an abject slave. It is a wonderfull thing, a wonderfull thing indeed, that we have absolutely no evidence to support this ghastly proposition and I invite you to join me in celebrating that fact.''
-Christopher Hitchens.
Aron The biblical God Yahweh whom I worship in no way resembles a cosmic tyrant or a dictator or slave master. He is not a slave master and He does not control our actions. One of the main reasons we are in the mess that we are in with sin being ever so present in the world and why God seems distant is because He always offers us free will and a choice. If God did not then our relationship with him would be shallow and He would have no way of knowing whether or not we truly love Him. So He offered our first ancestors Adam & Eve two options. The tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve made the first choice to sin and that affected all of their descendants (all of us) and everyone since then has chosen at least once in their lives to sin. All have broken God’s laws. God has endured a lot of pain and suffering and has had to watch us make mistake after mistake and sin after sin because He wants to offer us a choice so that the few that do chose to follow Him and His Son chose Him over evil and will have a deep and enriching relationship with Him. Furthermore on the accusation of “thought crime” it would be a crime if any mere mortal or government agency made rules and regulations of free speech and freedom to think. That is because no human can govern you and tell you what to think. God can because He is God. His ways are above our ways and He is perfect. He is good and He is the origin and definition and standard of goodness in the universe. A perfect almighty being can judge us and convict us of our sin. He gives us our whole entire lives to turn from our sin and turn to Him so anyone who doesn’t by the time they die has missed their chance and had all the time in the world. Lastly it would be impossible for the universe to exist at all if not for God because we know the universe had a definite beginning and that before the universe began there was nothing. How can nothing explode into something? Never mind exploding into all of the matter in the universe, all the elements, all the stars, galaxies, planets, asteroids, etc. We know that space, time, and matter all came into existence at the same moment at the beginning of the universe. So the universe had to be created by an all powerful being who is outside of space, outside of time, and outside of matter. There simply is no better way to explain the existence of the universe. Also the fact of God’s existence and especially the knowledge of His glorious plan for salvation through Jesus Christ is a glorious thought that should be celebrated by everyone throughout the world. Why? Because God offered us and all our ancestors going back to Adam and Eve the choice to stay in His will and do good or to go our own way and do evil, we have all chosen to go our own way and to sin and there is no way we could suffer the consequences of our actions, which is eternal death, and make it into heaven. Once a person sins even once there is no way to earn your way back to heaven no matter what we do. You cannot even look to or rely upon another mere human to save you because we have all sinned and one sinner cannot save another. So God humbled Himself and became man through the person of Christ Jesus, the Son in the Godhead, and lived a perfect and pure life without sin and the does the most brutal painful and horrific death ever so that anyone who believes in Him and trusts in His sacrifice will be saved. God payed the price of our sin Himself so that all we have to do is accept Him as our Lord and Savior and walk in His righteousness. That is why the Gospel is called the “good news”! Because it is good news! There is no way we could of saved ourselves so God made a way Himself for us to be saved and all we have to do is trust in Him, our creator and savior. I really do not want to live in your world (which is physically impossible by the way) where there is no God and no way to be saved and no justice and no judgment after death for the wicked and no reward after death for the righteous and no afterlife at all. It’s nonsensical! If I have consciousness and a thinking mind here on earth why should I accept my consciousness and mind to fade into nonexistence after my body dies? Of course my soul is eternal and my consciousness survives into the next life. The question is where are you going? Heaven or hell? Did you trust in Jesus or not? Either way scientists have proved that the soul leaves the body upon death and that human consciousness is eternal. I hope I have done a good job explaining Christianity to you and the reality of creation and the need for a savior. You may not accept it but it is true and every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, that includes you. The only question is will you do it before the throne of God on judgement day before you are condemned to hell for your misdeeds, or will you do it now while you are alive and grab the hand of salvation that is Jesus Christ’s perfect sacrifice. Much love to you brother. I pray you accept Jesus and the reality of creation and that God softens your heart and takes the scales off of your eyes so that you can see the truth. Amen.
Aron well your biological parents come close, but God created all and so owns all, he should have the last say. Like a business owner is entitled to all the profits and can fire anyone at will.
Film Buff 92 - wow, that is an impressive word wall.
"He would have no way of knowing whether or not we truly love Him" - WRONG - God is omniscient, God knows everything that has ever happened, is happening, or will happen.
"He always offers us free will and a choice." - WRONG - No one has ever chosen to be created. No one chose to be alive and put to this test where failure becomes eternal torture.
"So He offered our first ancestors Adam & Eve two options. The tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." - This makes no sense, Adam and Eve were innocent and did not know the difference between right and wrong, how can they be so severely punished for an act of ignorance? They didn't even know they were naked. It's like blaming a 2 year old for playing with a loaded gun you left on the coffee table even though you told them not to.
"He is perfect. He is good and He is the origin and definition and standard of goodness in the universe." - Then why did God encourage slavery in the Old Testament instead of condemning it? Then Jesus didn't even address slavery in the New Testament. Not a very high standard. - (Israelite slaves were to be offered release after six to seven years of service, except when the male Israelite slave chose to remain with his wife; the male slave, the female slave and all children would consequently endure bond-slavery throughout their lives. A foreign slave could be bequeathed to the owner's family, and be made to serve for the life of the slave, except in the case of certain injuries.)
"Because God offered us and all our ancestors going back to Adam and Eve the choice to stay in His will and do good..." - What about the billions he drowned in Noah's flood? Didn't give those people any extra time to repent. Or did He know whether those people truly loved Him which contradicts your earlier claim.
"There simply is no better way to explain the existence of the universe." - This is a classic "Argument from Ignorance."
"Either way scientists have proved that the soul leaves the body upon death and that human consciousness is eternal." - Citation needed otherwise this can be dismissed as nonsense.
God created all things, evil is a thing, God created evil and punishes us for it. God created Satan, cast him out of heaven, gave him super powers, and then turned over Earth and Hell to him, then punishes us mortals for being tricked by an immortal super being with magical powers. Not exactly a fair fight. But since an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God doesn't know our true heart He would need an evil henchman to beguile us into revealing our true nature to Him
God ETERNALLY burns Buddhists and followers of Jainism because they don't know Christ. You can't get any more humble or peaceful than Jainism. I shudder to think of the millions of children writhing in eternal agony because they were born in a non-Christian culture.
Have you ever stopped to think of any of what you claim?
How ignorant a reply! You know nothing about the nature of Christianity. You really need to keep quiet and educate yourself in the meantime.
Anthony Behrends, luckily we no longer live in the dark ages when the church could tell people what to say or think. If you bothered to do even a little research you would find that most atheists have spent a lot of time researching different religions and generally know more about religion than people who are theists.
Carl Sagan's Cosmos was the first tv show that my friends and I would plan on watching together. I had every episode on VHS and have all his books.
Lol I love Carl's enthusiasm. "Sure, fire away!"
*Creationism* - The ignorant belief that Kirk 'Giggity' Cameron and Ray 'Banana' Comfort know more than Professor Stephen Hawking and Professor Richard Dawkins.
ShadeyBladey
The prison bride turd is looking at a life sentence right at this moment, fingers crossed.
Garish Belliferous Evolution: the unscientific belief that man, in his arrogance, knows more than God, when he barely knows anything at all.
Reve Kiehl God cannot know anything - he does not exist.
And Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of knowledge mankind has gathered so far.
Nice try btw - waiting a month to then have the last word. I'd say you failed. Try again next month.
Reve Kiehl
Yeah, biology isn't scientific, are you a born idiot?
ShadeyBladey
Faith is the glorification of wilful and voluntary ignorance. They use belief to justify what doesn't exist in reality, as Dan Dennet says, "they believe in belief", nothing more.
Carl Sagan changed my life when I was a kid back in the late 1970s.
He provided answers. My father was a great critical thinker who I dogged with endless questions. He eventually sat me down in front of a tv tuned to our local PBS affiliate. The was Carl Sagan on Cosmos.
I hope you realize how lucky you are to have such a great father.
To truly be open minded, is to understand but understand each other we must listen to both sides
I wish I could've had Carl Sagan as a teacher. The way he speaks and how he explains subjects keeps me fascinated, besides the fact is was brilliant.
Gosh we miss Carl. I love when someone argues and when you challenge that, he changes to another question before you have the opportunity to dispel his first point. Carl’s patience is wonderful.
hammer r that’s largely because they’re disguising talking points as questions so they can slip them into what would otherwise be an intelligent conversation.
Unless you are identical to your parents, you are transitional.
nope still the same type human
Give a clear definition of "same type human". "Anything that I see as human" is not a clear definition. Once you define it clearly Im sure the rest of us can point out the transitional cases.
don't be a dip there is only one animal on the planet called human.
i meant same type of animal or human
what you think of as human today would not be considered human if you go back in time or into the future. by the time youre old enough to reproduce you already have dozens of mutations that will carry over to your proginy. only way to stop evolving is if every human being has the exact same DNA and never mutates. every living being of every species on earth is transitional.
By dozens of mutations I am guessing you mean eye, hair and skin color. The shapes and sizes of numerous appendages on the human body. Markings or physical traits are not a sign of mutation into another kind of animal.
All humans carry the same basic genome the only differences are how the genes from each parent join to create a unique individual.
This is hardly a mutation but a trait if you will of human DNA. The information is always there just combined in different ways to create a unique individual.
The human genome will always be the human genome, seeing as DNA is self correcting unless otherwise manipulated by outside influences.
No two leopards have the same markings or color, each is distinct from the other much like human finger prints. They still belong to the same Genus.
The same way any breed of dog or house cat is of the same genus, yet their markings may differ. Look at the breed of dogs called jack russels. Still the same genus just different markings.
If all genus's evolve why have crocodiles, coelacanth, frogs, turtles, ants, bees and many other creatures exhibit the same physical traits.
How long does it take for one animal to mutate into another kind of animal. That is after all what you are proposing.
The earth is roughly 4 billion years old with mass extinctions happening roughly every 62 million years, that's roughly 64.5 mass extinctions, in the history of the earth.
Seems to me a mass extinction every 62 million years, would really throw a wrench in the time needed for micro evolution to produce macro evolution.
That was the most beautiful, a polite and kind way, to point out a illogical arguing style. I wish I had his poise and calm. It absolutely drives me crazy when, as you try to give someone a calm rational explanation as to why you believe they are wrong, they immediately jump to another point, completely ignoring or cutting off your explanation.
a creationist trying to tell Carl Sagan what science does and does not know...that's a good one
mark marsh - here's a good one. science doesn't know anything.people do. though very little. another good one, carl sagan is just one of great multitudes of scientists who are almost all believers. another good one , 99.9999999999999 % of everything that has ever been invented was invented by a believer. don't take my word for it. actually look something up yourself for a change !
Max Barker so all of the "smart" things developed by humans were developed by Christians?...that ridiculous...Carl Sagan had a lot to do with teaching me that Religion is nonsense so how the hell is he "almost a believer"---idiotic...read Cosmos and you'll grow out of your faith...what you've done here is illustrate the main problem with religious people---being already in a completely deluded state, willing to take nonsense assertions on "faith" you think it's okay to prop it up with more nonsense...I doubt very much that you have researched the topic more than I have--if you had, you would not be a Christian...but you Christians always begin with the assumption that your "revelations" from the invisible man in the sky have brought you some sort of superior enlightenment, when in fact, you've just switched off your brain and can't make sense of anything
Max Barker "99.9999999999999 % of everything that has ever been invented was invented by a believer."
Did you read this before your posted?
Charles Rode Max is not real long on making sense as you may have noticed
mark marsh you're so funny, you and carl.
wow, Sagan has a tremendous restraint. I would have dropped a billion F bombs in those 2 mins
According to google there are 20 million hits for "evolution Vs Creation- What a false dichotomy if ever there was one, deified by the intellectually bereft god-denier. What part of evolution is science which is testable, observable, falsifiable and makes predictions? What part of evolution explains ex nihilo creation or the finitude of past time? Just asking the openminded truth seeker, which I assume, we all are, right?? "some people believe whatever they want, not on the basis of evidence but what they find attractive" Blasé Pascal
Because of their belief a creationist could never be seen as open - minded and definitely could not be seen as a truth - seeker . When you begin from a position of " god did it " there is no reason to seek any other truth . With that belief all other investigation is pointless because whatever science proves and science has shown and continues to show that evolution is fact a creationist will continue to deny. It does not fit with their belief which is based entirely on an ancient , unsubstantiated book written by men and by their own delusionary " revelations " . Nothing in religion is testable , observable , falsifiable nor does it make predictions . To believe in a creator is to believe the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old , that should be enough to convince any thinking person ( whose mind is not warped by their belief ) that divine creation is impossible .
Tell me then why so many scientist, like micro biologist and astronomers have come to believe in a created universe?
I mean after all these are people who chose a scientific career thoroughly schooled in the scientific method, studied all the evidence, yet believe in a created universe.
Tell me why you do not believe in the Islamic version of god . Why do you not believe that the prophet Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse and that he split the moon in half ? No doubt you believe those who believe in such things to be insane . Why do you not believe in any of the other hundreds if not thousands of gods that have been worshipped in the past . All religion is seen that way by an atheist , there is no evidence to prove the existence of any god or that the world was created by a super-being . The scientists you talk of have a belief in something they have no evidence for , it proves nothing . Some of the greatest minds in history have held some form of faith . Isaac Newton was unable to answer a question despite spending years researching the answer so came to the conclusion that a higher form of intelligence must have been responsible . He had done all he could to find the answer but could not . A couple of hundred years later a French scientist did find the answer to that question so it wasn't a creationists design after all . Science works to find the answers because they have a desire to further mans knowledge of everything around them . Creationists simply say god did it .
OK - 93% of Nobel Prize winning scientists are declared atheists.
Bring forth the hundreds of credible theist-scientists...... waiting, waiting....zzzzzzzz
If our educational system was worth a damn, every schoolchild would be given the opportunity to see the original Cosmos series by Carl Sagan in it's entirety.
The problem is, our educational system today is controlled by people who want to teach our children WHAT think, not HOW to think. Our youth are viewed as cogs in a machine which serves the interest of a select group. This is having a major impact on our advancement as an intelligent species. I have serious doubts that the human species will ever colonize other worlds so long as these people are in control . They must be brushed aside if we are to survive.
Children with a grade 2 education can debunk Creationism
Carl went right over this guy's head when he uttered the words "the record in the nuclaeic acids". After that it was nothing but downhill for this guy. Logic and reason are lost on these people. The bible said it so that's it. Unbelievable.
you can't reason with these people! I don't know how Sagan stays so calm!
"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
-Carl Sagan
and Carl was not an atheist
"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.”
-Carl Sagan
Feeling a connection to the Universe =/= Theism
Carl was agnostic, not atheist, which some may interpret the first as, which is why I brought in the second quote. I was not saying that feeling a connection to the Universe=Theism.
“We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.” sounds as if there is some motive or spiritual connection to everything. It's profound. But not the words of an athiest.
Random I find it odd that you would paint with a wide brush, and imply that atheists would not use profound words and ideas. There is no indication that being an atheist means that you lack a connection with the reality around you.
Daniel Neves That "spiritual" feeling he is expressing is the same feeling the religious people feel when the try to imagine God. It's the same feeling, from a different angle. Every culture, religion and ethnicity feel it. The Japanese call it Yugen. You can call it whatever you want. Accepting that you are nothing in this vast Universe, is the same as accepting that you are nothing in the vast power of an omnipotent god.
I was simply saying i was surprised that he stated that quote as if the Universe is some entity with a motive to experience itself. There is no self. There is no motive or thought process.
Ugh, that caller was absolutely rude. Let the man talk before you fire off another question.
He’s rude bc his reality was shattered. He’s defensive.
Desperation.
@@rusted8157 right?
When a caller interrupts a request to stop interrupting, that's when you know there's no throughway.
I love how relaxed, rational and impersonal Sagan always remained in debates, regardless of how foolish the person he was engaging with. I still find it challenging to remain so at ease in face of such stupidity - especially, arrogant ignorance.
I know what you say. Carl Sagan was, is and will be always a genious, in the story of the science, and in our heart
The question "where are all the intermediate species in the fossil record?" completely misses the point of natural selection.
They're all intermediate species. Every single fossil is an intermediate, between its ancestors and its descendants.
Any fossil you choose can be seen as a "transition" between the first life that once was, to the life that is still yet to be.
It's like taking a single frame out of a 3 hour movie and then asking "where's the movement?". And you pick another frame out of the movie: "show me where the movement is! I don't see these individual still frames moving."
Well, of course not. They are still frames. You gain the appreciation of movement from playing back all the frames in order, then you can see how it all moves. And that's what the fossil record looks like when you "play it back".
This is the whole point of natural selection: EVERY SINGLE FOSSIL - ALL OF THEM - ARE INTERMEDIATES.
i felt it was like trying to find a number between 0 and 1. there should be some numbers during the transition from value 0 to 1.
So 0.5? ok whats between 0 to 0.5?
0.25?
and on it goes!
Do they expect us to dig out every dead animal to show a perfect chain? Cant do that but that is still way more evidence than what creationists has to offer!
I've been explaining evolution to non-science thinkers for nearly 30 years, and that is probably the best metaphor I've ever read, the 'still frames' of the movie :)
This is ultimately what scares someone invested in dogma, particularly a dogma that states that they are God’s perfect and favorite creation. Because WE are ALSO an intermediate to what’s to come. How can that be if we’re the perfect and favorite creation of God? This is why they think up this stuff and cling to it. They can’t handle the idea that we’re not so special after all.
Of course, there are now a ton of intermediate fossils found, including predicted ones, which couldn't have fit into the fossil record any more beautifully.
+Bill Meacham Ah, but what about the intermediates between the intermediates.... You now just have even more missing intermediate fossils :-)
+carpy1970 That was sarcasm BTW. Also, these idiots always fixate on the fossil record like that's the only evidence for evolution, when it's actually one of the weakest of a whole plethora of evidence for evolution.
Every fossil is an intermediate fossil.
We loved you Sagan!
RIP
That guy was more interested in rattling-off a list of talking points than having a discussion.