Neil deGrasse Tyson vs. Young Earth Creationism
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 10. 2013
- A fan reports that the Creation Museum cites an old, pre-Hubble discrepancy about the age of the oldest stars (18 billion years old) and the age of the universe (15 billion years old) as evidence against science and for the Young Earth Creationism belief that the universe is just thousands of years old. Watch astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson and Eugene Mirman debunk their claim, discussing why creationism shouldn't be considered real science, and also how we can sometimes end up with mistakes in scientific data that lead to blunders like "fast tachyons."
Don't miss out on any StarTalk news. Sign up for our free newsletter: www.startalkradio.net/newslett...
Catch up with StarTalk Radio around the web:
iTunes - bit.ly/SOHDg6
SoundCloud - / startalk
Stitcher - www.stitcher.com/podcast/startalk
Twitter - #!/StarTalkRadio
Facebook - / startalkradio
Google+ - goo.gl/ZP59S
Pinterest - / startalk
Tumblr - / startalkradio
Instagram - / startalkradio - Věda a technologie
“If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.”
― Richard P. Feynman
@justspazzin 64 no, because using science to verify science would just be circular. there is only levels of certainty, which can be subjective
@@keithforbes4544 so we are using books to verify things from now on? Well in that case I'm Harry Potter
Right
Feynman is the real deal not this clown and Feynman is smart enough to know he doesn’t understand God and his ways.
@@bluwng "not this clown?" Tyson is an excellent science communicator, also a very good astrophysicist, too, and a great author, as well. I don't recall Feynman being able to do all of those things. 🤔🤨😏
How do you skip "oh cool the universe is older than we thought" to "scientists are wrong about everything!!"
*****
A beautiful summary. I applaud you.
***** I want to know who the bald guys are?
There are a lot of things that they are doing right. How do the rockets make it to so far and back again? They don't always fail, so you are wrong.? Who worked out how to make a computer (so you could make such a mindless creationists supposition)? Your computer works, but your brain doesn't cos it's full creationists senseless clap-trap.
Science is a method for investigating and expanding knowledge so information always changes but it doesn't necessarily mean a fact is wrong, just incomplete. We seek the best explanation based on the best verifiable data available. But learning that something is completely different than we thought is exciting. Why would anyone want to continue to believe something that new evidence shows is false? Being wrong is fine. Refusing to accept that it's wrong is not fine. That's why science progresses so rapidly. We discard mistakes. That is something religion can't do and why you can't really learn anything factual from it.
Religious dogmatists twisting everything to justify what they should accept on faith.
“Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance.” - Confucius
czcams.com/video/Hll1mY0OK8E/video.html
The person that created evolution lied about it. Its even in his own journal he wrote about.
@@jesuscaresaboutyou100 Evolutionists don't know how much they don't know about this.
And they think appealing to their lack of knowledge somehow entails they're smarter. Lol
I was suprised when I found out 38% of adult Americans believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Then I remembered the Evangelical population is about 35% of the population. 🤦♂️🤣🤣
No say earth Is 4.6 billion years old
Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be SAVED! Jesus loves you! czcams.com/video/shyI-aQaXD0/video.html
Ashamed that 62% think otherwise.
@@GodzillaFreak you DO realize the people that created the technology that allowed you to share your comment are among that 62% right?
🤦♂️🤣🤣
@@davidsotomayor8713 And you realize that the foundations of science were laid down by the now 38%, former ~90% of past generations right?
Best qoute by Neil deGrasse Tyson: " Dont accept. Dont deny. Figure it out for yourself"
Freethinking is pretty delusional in my book. Dont think so hard your brain falls out.
Some people cant “figure it out themselves” and are incapable.
Creationist: "Ok, i'll just believe every single thing in this one book."
Excatly my way of thinking.
Uh huh. Now name a single issue where Neil goes against the mainstream narrative. Now consider how often the mainstream narrative is wrong. Uh...he's the opposite of a free thinker. At least he's paid quite handsomely for it.
those mics are such poor quality
We are using science as evidence against science?
Like Senpai no he is stating the contradictions within science to disprove it
They are using bad science and misinformation to discredit what science they need to to justify their beliefs to those who may be unconvinced.
czcams.com/video/d-ZtBc0RUHk/video.html
In science newly discovered evidence is not ignored even if contradicts previous theories. Science doesnt have a script to stick to like religion does, it's always changing as we discover new things.
There is a old say iron cuts iron.
I'm a Christian who agnowledges that evolution happened and I hate the 6000 year old earth hypothesis
@John J oh shut up. Science isn't a master it's a fact. It's you young earth creationists and atheists who try to divide Christianity and say that evolution contradicts it.
@John J it's like saying that you can't be a globe earther and Christian like how retarted is that?
@John J lol u don't need to pray for me in that area. Ironically you are the ignorant one.
@John J There is no contradiction. People who believe that tends to be the ones not informed enough.
Hey don't believe in these scentis and government they lie . Earth is 6000 years
Great Rao I'm nerd... when he said "you can't be older then your mother" I thought "well actually if you had a really fast rocket..."
+Aibohphobe No its a simple application of the twin paradox. Send your mother on a round trip at relativistic but sublight speeds and less time will pass for her then for you. Lets say you're 25 and she is 50. She takes a quick tour of neighboring star systems that takes 3 years of time for her but 30 years pass here on earth. She'll be 53 when she gets back and you'll be 55.
To get to that 10 to 1 time dilation it looks like you just need to get to 99% light speed.
+Aibohphobe Correct, but that was never what I was suggesting, Time is moving forward for both you and your mother its just that thanks to time dilation less time passes for your mother.
Right dude 😂
No interstellar that hurt my brain enough
And here's our second most popular video of the year: Neil deGrasse Tyson vs. Young Earth Creationism Neil deGrasse Tyson vs. Young Earth Creationism
I sometimes get tired of this debate. "Creationism" verses "Evolution" I mean... We all want "truth". In a way, the search for the truth defines us as a species... Science is a self correcting method to discover the truth; the best system yet devised by mankind. The creation myth is just that, a "myth". It is a beautiful story, but it is still just a story, written long ago by people who did not have science. I'm sure that if we were living in any other culture, we would be debating a different religious tenant. Why do we sometimes choose to "believe" a contradictory story, when we have certain facts at hand? If this whole argument was presented in a rational court of law, creation would be thrown out. Science would rightfully prevail.
Jeffrey Powell
Creation actually did lose in a court of law already.
Jeffrey Powell David was referring to the Dover School trial in 2005, where the Creationists lost. At the Scopes trial, in 1925, they won. We do have some progress.
Eric14492
Sounds like the right direction to me. :)
hecanet
Much like how a murderer in the 1940's would get away clean, while the same murderer in the 2000's would be found guilty. Advancing technology, and the recession of ignorance. So no, I never wonder about that. Christianity is slowly, but surely, dieing.
Hey StarTalk Radio, How do we submit question for the show?
There's nothing mentioned about the young earth theories, just how there were conflicting estimates of the age of the universe versus stars as measured in billions of years.
Normal people get tired of playing “creationist whack-a-mole.” Do you have a specific question? If you are a YEC and have questions, just take a class at your local community college.
What problem? The fact that a creation museum even exists in the first place? AWESOME. He's just saying what we're all thinking.
The fact that this "creation museum" dishonor the gods. This "museum" made no mention of lord prometheus, who loved humans, unlike the false abrahamic God who placed a dangerous tree within reach of humans
Your thinking that alternative views should be repressed? Remember repression is a very totalitarian idea.
@@JasonConradHuntley certain batshit crazy ideas should be repressed like the flat earth and young earth model
@what
and how do you know it never happened dear friend?? where you a personal eye witness at the dawn of creation??
please share with us your personal first hand testimony since you are so sure
I dream of a world where all people know the difference between a hypothesis and a scientific theory. Some day it would be nice to be able to not run into the asinine argument, "It is just a theory and so is no stronger than my belief that has no evidence that supports it over any other idea."
The neat thing about that is that we know when they're flawed and when they cause problems and we know how to avoid those flaws and problems. Doesn't invalidate the dating methods at all, just means that you need to use the right tool for the job and take care you don't screw it up.
Heres a video- czcams.com/video/Hll1mY0OK8E/video.html
@@jesuscaresaboutyou100 You know that there's a commandment that says not to lie right?
But to sidestep the claims in that video... None of that matters. Lyell and Darwin could be drunk lying morons who made it up, but that doesn't change the fact that an unbelievably overwhelming body of evidence confirms the world is over 4 billion years old, the universe is 13 billion years old and we evolved from ancient apes.
Evolution is true. Young earth creationism is a lie.
Heres the video.
czcams.com/video/hRoQL7W5jg8/video.html
Carbon dating (which is what they used to estimate the age of rocks to be 4.5 billion) can only be used on organic matter. It is not how you date rocks.
my biggest question is: how come you guys are still having this "science vs creationism" discussion? Anywhere else in the world creationism is being laughed at and not even considered topic matter for a serious debate.
Because we live in America, the land where you're free to be as ignorant as you like, and many people proudly exercise that freedom >_< .
Actually there are many places in the world where this is still an issue.
Travis Frazier I know. But America still ranks #1 in belief of religious ideas that contradict science. So while it's a problem everywhere, it's at its worst here.
Travis Frazier yes, but then we are talking mostly in 3rd world countries. Not in the western Hemisphere.
MrLleuwelyn You clearly said "Anywhere else in the world" not "the western Hemisphere."
Not to mention that belief in creationism is about as high in many other western countries
New Video: It’s science vs. creationism! Watch astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson and comic co-host Eugene Mirman debunk the Creation Museum claims that science is wrong about the age of the universe: Neil deGrasse Tyson vs. Young Earth Creationism
What definition of "science" are you using, and why do you associate it with a particular theory? I thought science was supposed to be a way of testing theories.
It's impossible to find absolute factual evidence, science's job is to find the closest thing to what we can currently find with technology.
I've never understood how people can take that to mean "therefore religion is right". The premise doesn't follow the conclusion.
Because the only way they can push their belief is to make a claim and not back it up by evidence but by their scriptures since they don't understand what empirical evidence is
Great video, but I have a technical question. Are those mics hot for another feed and why are they not feeding the video? They are both miced up, but it sounds as if the camera (or another room mic) is recording the audio for the video here. Why?
Could you please elaborate on the Coelacanth bit? I don't quite understand the "explain it away" part.
There is a difference between what we measure and what we believe. Prior to my last operation I was told to count backwards from ten to zero. When I woke up from the fog I finished the countdown but no one was in the room. My belief system concluded the operation was interrupted and that I was put back in the waiting room. Perhaps a major accident occurred and things had to be postponed. Then my friend walked in and said, "Hey man. What took you so long to wake? It has been four hours!"
In physics we always give a measure as an interval. For instance, I may time an object falling and say it took 12.16±2.35 seconds to fall. The first number (12.16) is the average of multiple measures, and the second number (2.35) is the error. The problem is that "normal" people don't use/understand this, so when it is translated to the general public, usually they drop the second part and say it's 12.16 seconds.
That is SO interesting!
Sooo just say it fall at X seconds on average. Not rocket science.
how come the audio from the mics weren't used? I can tell they aren't using the mic audio, it sounds like the camera itself is picking up their voices. Just was wondering why they didn't use the other audio.
The cosmic microwave background, the expansion of the universe and the life cycles of stars says different..
Type Ia supernovae can be used as 'standard candles'.. By comparing the distances to these exploding stars with the redshift of their host galaxies, we noticed that the redshift is greater for more distant objects.. Putting the times and distances together, you can calculate how fast the universe was expanding at different times and even estimate the age (14.8bill).. Hope that helps.
So you have him debate the idea but not anyone who's actually respected in the field. I'll say this is just an echo chamber instead of the less polite term of a circle....
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." Robert Jastrow Astronomer and physicist
That depends.. which theory do you think disputes it the best..?
you should've taken the audiou from those nice looking microphones instead of the inbuilt camera mic :( Im can only imagine how nice the sound quality could have been
"Stars older than the universe" shows the strength of science because instead of disproving all cosmology the scientists said "well, that can't be so" and looked for an explanation. As Richard Feynman said "It doesn't matter how elegant your theory is, if it doesn't match the facts it's wrong".
Jesus loves you! czcams.com/video/shyI-aQaXD0/video.html
Comment didn't age well huh?
It boggles my mind that people believe in young earth and creationism
+It's Jake it's a symptom called "crank magnetism"
equally boggling is they demand everybody else believe the same crap. Worse they expect to knock science out of school so they can peddle the idiocy to children.
CJ99 I recently came out of young earth creationism. It isnt even consistent with the Bible is you study the original words and their meaning but even more, it doesnt even match any scientific facts. You guys probably disagree with my belief in Jesus, but I need some help. Soon at my school (its Christian) we will go over evolution for 2 week and I KNOW there will be anti evolution thrown in my face. Im the only one in my class or at the school who accepts Evolution. Could you guys help give me the best evidence for evolution?
DarkX your best bets are Neil deGrasse Tyson, and a youtube cannel called Aron Ra who does a whole series of videos. I haven't seen all of them but he's gotta lot of material that leaves n rocks for the people pushing BS to hide under. I too came out of similar stuff to what you endured. It's not consistant with anything factual at all. As you've probably heard its all based on a geneology in the buybull that lists a whole string of ancestors dating back to adam along with their ages, all of which were 900+ years which clearly impossible for human life on this planet at any time. As for you being the only 1 in your class who accepts the facts, that sounds like you need a new school pronto. Any school teaching such bs isn't gonna give you a diploma worth more than its weight in toilet paper.
As for belief in Jesus go ahead n keep believing, not being sarcastic about that either as it sounds like your not forcing the idiotic bullshit on others as too many christians do. What I do know is that he's not as described in the bible for the most part. What is attributed to him is so far beyond MPD its unlikely to be describing the same person n certainly not all real. I can't prove he even existed (nor do I have to) either way. 1 thing I've realized n I think you have too is theres too much in religion (not just christianity) thats completely false, blatant lies n much of that can only be described as psychotic (though some parts do make sense those are rare indeed).
1 last thing: kinda funny you replied today when theres another yec video today when several of the more fascist minded religious lunatics have gone on the attack. 1 in perticular resorting to hate speech. I miss the days when blocking the iroc's on youtube meant their bullshit was rendered invisible site wide.
CJ99 Ok thanks! Ive heard of Aron Ra. And yes I dont like forcing my beliefs of others. its just plain wrong. And Ya maybe there are lies in my Belief but the Christian religion is not accurate though. They go against the Bible on many thing. 1 is there is no such thing as Hell. its mistranslation and misinterpreted. So Ya, I will keep studying and maybe I'll find errors that disprove my belief. I dont consider me a Christian bcuz that name has been used for other people like young earth creationists and stuff. But I appreciate your kind comment. Ive been receiving many rude comment from people especually Christians. So I now tend to move away from them a lot more. So ya, as a believer in Jesus, I do not intend to force my belief on you. I respect your opinion. So again thanks for your help. Another reason why I do not follow the Christian/Catholic Church is bcuz many early church members right after Constantine "converted" to christianity is that many pagan ideas and practices were assimilated into the religion. Such as Sunday worship. It was originally worship of the Sun. Hence the name "Sun" day. And many others.
Sorry for the long post. Just thought I'd share this. Again, thanks for the help.
I would sincerely like to know how you can get a measurement that's not precise, then state that as fact. Are the equations we're using to describe our observations not correct? Or is it because of only working with what we have, then trying to make reasonable guesses to dynamic variables?
I believe neil answered that question. The group that published their data never stated their measurement as fact.
They stated their measurement of the age of the universe but also stated the accuracy of their measurement.
It's media that took this information out of context.
is that according to Hoyle?
Believing in something that is consistent with everything else we know about the universe through science is different than believing in something completely off the wall.
I've met people in Africa who didn't believe in microorganisms. I was about 10 then and I showed them saliva under a toy microscope, they believed that there where microorganisms . I would rather have those people in America, than people who are creationists, and believe in microorganisms. They have an excuse, not the people in America who still abide by creationism.
Because you see light in the sky this proves that God doesn't exist, just like looking under a microscope proves microorganisms? Ugh, what? That's completely illogical. How do lights in the sky disprove creationism?
I know this from 7 years ago. Interesting to note that they have now nearly (or completely?) stopped light and have also sped it up. The speed of light is not a constant.
The speed of light _photons_ is not a constant. The "speed of light" is a misnomer which simply refers to the maximum speed limit in the universe, not necessarily to the speed that photons of light travel.
I made that assumption. My question more directly is why are they not patching the audio from the board into the video so it sounds the way it should? There should be one stereo out available. These vids would be more enjoyable and much easier to listen to with quality audio.
When certain special pairs of molecules combined to form a larger compound, they sometimes came out with protections that neither had alone. Amino acids did not magically become life, their was a chemical reaction involved. They have already created self replicating RNA in a lab and computer simulations show how RNA can evole into DNA.
Okay what's ur point? They obviously reached a limit of some sort. Ur comment supports Intelligent Design rather than debunks it.
Listening for evidence or measurement formulas...nothing but pride.
🤦 Did you skip High School?
These debates just astonish me. Its like having a flat earth vs round earth "debate".
Ya I know! There are actually people out there who think life created itself naturally and the earth is flat. It's insanity.
Probably a future one, I don't know when was the last time Eugene went solo with Tyson (if ever) but I don't remember them talking about that topic
creationism is like jumping off a cliff hoping there is a net it may be there but science is looking first and knowing if its there
also what if science is true and there is still a god the scence we are finding out is just how he did it #godstartedevolution
+daniel rodney finally a person who believes in science and religion they can peacefully coexist
Marcus Machado At what pointing time did God then decide that Humans were his favourite toy?
We walk by faith, not by sight.
@@ericmago4110 the only beings who say were gods favorite toy is humans quite the example of pride/hubris(which is a sin if I remember correctly
i always come to listen to Dr. Tyson, then i always inevitably look at comments and im sucked into a theist tard vacuum. geez
What methods ?
Is the Dean from Community in the booth?
Our version of light is expanded so we see it taking time when it actually takes almost no time to arrive.
Expanded time and expanded space is the appearance of billions of years.
"a few billion here and there"
Did the light color spectrum and the physical laws exist before or after the big bang?
It existed after, for sure. But before, we don't knowz
Which version? The ancient Hebrew, The king james, or the dead sea scrolls?
and it what language? Greek, Arabic, Aramaic, English? Which release? The original, the catholic, the Lutheran, the .....can you see the pattern? Each one can be read and come away with completely different translations. So before I know how to respond, I'd like to know which of these versions your referring to.
Creatards won't listen to evidence if it goes against their _revealed truth_.
If you shove a watermelon up their ass they will.
Richard Dawkins said in a interview that a group of astrophysicists are trying to come up with the answer of how the universe came into existence! So, what does that tell you Mr. Huso?
Big Mike2014
It tells me absolutely nothing I didn't already know. What does it tell you?
It tells me Mr. Huso that this world didn't come into existence through the big bang theory!
Big Mike2014
The big bang theory is the explanatory model for the expansion of space-time. It doesn't address the earliest part of the expansion of the singularity before less than a fraction of a second. Therefore Richard Dawkins is correct to say we're still looking for the answers. The big bang theory predicted things like the microwave background radiation, which we've seen. We're using the polarization of this background radiation now to learn even more about the earliest part of the expansion.
However, it's a false dichotomy to say that if science doesn't yet have an answer to something then your personal sky-daddy must be the responsible party. That's answering a real problem with nothing. Saying goddidit is not finding out anything about the universe itself. It's akin to closing your eyes to an Ansel Adams photograph or closing your ears to a Mozart symphony. You may choose to live your life with blinders on, but we won't.
"So now everything makes perfect sense, alright!" lol Eugene cracks me up..
Why dont they use the mics in front of them? Sounds like it was recorded with a phone just laying somewhere in the room.
Great talk but the sound quality is terrible
I love how every time a creationist post a video about proving that their ideas are right they never leave the comment section open.
I love how that isnt true and only exposes you've probably only watched a few videos and think you have a handle on the subject.
@@JuanMendoza-qd5lm Can’t argue with that
Watch Kent Hovind for a few weeks. He leaves them open. Matt Powell. Don Patton doesn't have one but his lectures are great too.
Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be SAVED! Jesus loves you! czcams.com/video/shyI-aQaXD0/video.html
If only people still lived to be 900 years old like they did in the bible, we could ask their opinion.
But they never did.
+Theron Guard exactly.
There is hardly any character in the Bible which existed for real including the central character of Christian Mythology.
Impossible to believe that people in the bible actually lived up to 900 years, and that is like saying cancer did not exist back then, and other major illnesses. I would say any where between their 30s to 50s if they were lucky.
@@favinjae6255 There is no evidence that those two existed, just fictional characters from the Bible.
I really love that they did that experiment. It isn't the answer on the question of : Where did live come from? But it's a good hint on where we might start looking. Science still hasn't an answer on that age old question, but we have goodhope we'll eventually find it.
Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be SAVED! Jesus loves you!
@@MichaelAChristian1 Sounds like you have just given up on the the hard life long questions and just settled with "Jesus did it".
Don't ever become a teacher and set an exam, because all your answers would be " Jesus did it".
Everyone in your class would pass and still wouldn't have a clue about anything.
@@theresawilliams4296 Evolution is not science but your false religion. Wake up! Science is falsifiable. They say evolution no matter what evidence is. How would you show animal UNRELATED in evolution? They say you related to ORANGE. Again science is falsifiable, evolution is NOT science but your blind faith.
"darwin" died and stayed dead.
Jesus Christ defeated death! Jesus loves you! Whosoever calls upon the Lord Jesus Christ shall be SAVED!
czcams.com/video/aqoGUKFYqTw/video.html
@@MichaelAChristian1 keep your garbage religious ideology to yourself
WATER!!!!
Science is a name on us learning FACTS...we are always correcting our selfish.. amazing.shout out to my fellow humans who have done things for us now..
You know, if in primary school, kids were taught the importants of the scientific method along with the importance to reason, logic and evidence, we'd have a lot less nutters in the world going on about gods, and conspiracies etc. I'm sure the only nutters left would be the severely intellectually challenged.
Why cant religon and science coexist peacefully
@@markm.9188 Because religion refuses to accept the findings of science. The worlds religions insist their gods of the east and the gods of the west are the only source of knowledge, and thus we have factional wars each claiming their view of the sun is correct, and in the middle, is logic, reason and science shaking it's head in disbelief! Science has no beef with either side.
Don’t forget about the lessoned groups of group think sheepols who follow/believe whatever they are told. I have a feeling that if kids where taught to look with logic and an un objective attude. We would have a much different future. As of now our future is bleak from all the bleat bleat bleaters and their group ignorance.
Wake up! There is a reason evolutionists don't want to teach the scientific method or critical thinking because they are wrong and have ZERO observations and ZERO testimony. Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be SAVED! Jesus loves you! czcams.com/video/shyI-aQaXD0/video.html
Scientist: "The rings of this 40 foot oak tree tell me that it's 300 years old. Ooops. The ring theory is not valid and the tree may actually be younger than that."
Creationist: "See? I told you! This means the tree might only be six months old! YOU CAN'T PROVE IT'S NOT!"
No, the way to frame the argument in a scientific way is "we can tell how old this tree (the control) is by its rings. Creationists: "but the tree doesn't grow exactly at 1 ring per year, in fact weather modification and vast changes in temperature would be one reason trees may grow faster or slower". So actually, a scientific experiment must contain a control and a variable. The tree isn't a control. It's just another variable
Im also new here. Is that Eugene Mirman?
This comment is to Daniel Irving and his comment on the coelacanth. That particular fish had been 'thought' to be extinct, because no one had actually seen one in a few hundred years. That is different then 'based on facts and scientific evidence'. Given the fact that humans could not explore the oceans the way we can now, you can see why people 'thought' the coelacanth was 'thought' to be extinct. So, when one was found in the late 1960's, scientists were surprised.
You never get scientists telling us evolution didn't happen. So many well-funded creationists, and still they can't find a flaw in evolution that can be solved by creationism.
That's just a lie. Jesus loves you! czcams.com/video/shyI-aQaXD0/video.html
@@MichaelAChristian1 OMG! Another Hovind minion. czcams.com/play/PLXJ4dsU0oGMLoyAV1oa_wjPWFHGpzF618.html
First, biblical scholars actually have narrowed it down (according to them).
Second, i was being sarcastic. The entire story is riddled with logical holes:
1) If god is omniscient, why did he create us with faults which will lead to eve eating the apple?
2) If he made us faulty by default , why screw with us? Kinda cruel.
3) if he didnt expect us to eat the apple, isnt he omniscient?
4) if it wasnt us but the devil, then he isnt very ominpotent is he?
Reached youtube comment limit. got more.
Noam Mendelssohn you just don't understand the bible. (this is sarcasm)
W Gaston is right.
Gods omnipotents or allknowingness is not in question. He made everything perfect. Even the angels an humans.
But He didn't want beings that would love and obey automatically, so God built in the ability to choose.
Man chose to wanting to be like God, but instead he died; meaning, his spirit died. His spirit was no longer in contact with Gods spirit. And thats how he came to be corrupt. Jesus came to pay for all of our sins. And whoever believes in Jesus, will be saved. Gods Spirit makes their spirit alive again, to live forever.
Those who don't believe stay dead forever. This death is not a state of unconsciousness, but it means eternal pain and suffering in a lake burning with fire.
Jesus came to save us from that inevitable fait. The devil and his deamons will not be saved from this same fait. That punishment was meant for them, not for humans. The humans that do end up there, are there by choice.
@W Gaston But the thing is if they weren't born with a fault or any mistakes then they would be perfectly moral like Jesus. So if they are perfectly moral like Jesus then the moral thing to do would be to honour your parent, which in this case being God by obeying God. Therefore why did Adam and Eve eat the apple?
And even if Adam and Eve weren't morally perfect why make the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Because if the knowledge of good and evil is obtained through eating a fruit from a tree wouldn't this have implied that Adam/Eve didn't know what good or evil was before they ate the fruit? Wouldn't that mean God punished people who were ignorant that it was wrong to disobey him? After all why would they think it's wrong when they didn't know what good or evil was? Why is it that later on in exdous God killed every first born CHILD in Egypt? And even if you use the "old testament doesn't count excuse" God is omniscient meaning he knows everything, therefore he can't change his mind on morals due to knowing them already, because that would imply he changed his mind from a mistake. That's impossible, because his perfect. None of this make sense. Unless the sad truth is this is a fictional book not a holy book. And that a lot of people were lied to like many other religions. After all either one religion is right or none are right.
Even the way we measure time may be flawed.
How do you know these ages?
science.
I'm a young earth creationist. I came here to maybe talk about my beliefs and how I understand the world. My faith helps me in my life and I love God. So that being said, we need to have a dialogue about this stuff because there's a lot of misunderstanding on both sides. So feel free to AMA... UPDATE: I have to stop because people got upset and wrote out these long posts which I did read out of respect but you all need to know I was doing this to see what kinds of responses I could get. I'm not trolling. I just wanted to see what would happen. In reality I'm not religious.
+Vic Vinegar What's AMA?
Frabbledabble ask me anything
To me it boils down to one question: Is man allowed real freedom from whatever god there may or may not be?
You either consider humanity inescapably bound by some devine contract, or you dont...
Either we are someone elses play things, or we are our own masters...
There are only those 2 camps.
+Vic Vinegar You seem nice but I have no questions because the issue has been settled. The Earth is not 6,000 years old. It is much older. We have evidence that it is and none that can really support the idea that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Hell, we now know that Humanity is older than that.
Your faith means nothing in science.
Dr. Neil ROCKS!
Paul Dickens nope. his actual name is " Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson".
A head full of rocks.
True any other source for amino acids would indeed give rise to many questions. But I have to play devils laywer here, and say that it's still quiet a stretch from amino acids to actual live. Then again I'm not a biologist, I don't know at which scale live begins.
yeah the definition doesn't say erased then wrote over. it says erased then rewritten. and to save anyone else the time:
Palimpsest: a manuscript or piece of writing material on which the original writing has been effaced to make room for later writing but of which traces remain.
its you literal expression that was incorrect
183k subscribers and most watched video has 200k viewers. There is something wrong here. I've never seen this on youtube. Top video always has far more viewers than number of subs. And the average video has far less viewers, than number of subs.
+Mozdk1 Not that it's a good thing, but our average video gets less viewers than we have subscribers. We're open to your thoughts on how to get more viewers!
+StarTalk Radio do more stuff with you playing games. That seems to be a thing.
Or even better. Sing about how your heart was broken, but now you are stronger than before. That gets a lot of hype too :)
Stay strong!
+StarTalk Radio Perhaps advertise better because I only found startalk through watching cinemasins.
+StarTalk Radio you could add animation and make videos on more popular topics like this to gain more views
I subscribe to the channel but mostly listen to the podcast.
Science: 1 Religion: 0
More like science: 142442478326790 religion: 0
Science: 1 Cults: 0
More like Science and Religion: 1 cause i believe in both
It's the Lloyd Christmas logic.
"So your saying there's a chance."
George Constanza: Velvet?
"which problem?the problem that the creation museum exists at all" rofl.
TYSON/NYE for 2020
*Hi, is 2020 now.*
@@AzNightmare yes but it's not election time, nitwit.
@@StaticBlaster *That's what you'd like to think.*
Tyson is the definition of "Science falsely so called"
These chumps sold out for the money. Unsubscribed from them a couple years ago
I think creationists know that science is probably correct in explaining the universe. But they have invested too much time and energy to ever admit they were naive. Its easier to live in fantasy
Sunk costs, confirmation bias, sampling bias, emotional appeal....the list of cognitive biases that support one's belief in creationism goes on and on. Same is true of ANY belief that hasn't been scientifically supported.
Jesus Christ is the Resurrection and the Life! Neither is there salvation in any other! Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be SAVED! Get a king james bible and believe. Read Matthew. Read 1 John 4.
or we just believe in god but are not tied to just what the hundreds of year old book says
@@rinkerchris2474 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life."- John chapter 5 verse 24.
“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” - John chapter 14 verse 6.
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."- 1 Peter chapter 1 verses 23 to 25.
Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be SAVED! Jesus loves you!
@@MichaelAChristian1 stop spewing religious garbage
In the original Batman movie, that reporter dude calls Bruce Wayne "Bruce Vane" to Vicky Vale while they are in the armor room of the Wayne Manor. Is this why you cal yourself that? A reference to it?
And you should be happy to hear the apparent age "theory". When these folk start arguing that idea, they are essentially acknowledging that science does not support them. It seems to me that this is the first step in taking their arguments where they belong - out of our science classrooms.
Look up "fine tuning" of physics. With the incredible positioning of the physical laws that alow for life in the universe, is more than enough proof required in a court of law. Like saying a gun with someone's fingerprints weren't because he shot the gun but because oil in the air just happened to condense on it own in that pattern.
Or how about the big bang theory that implies a creator and how since then many atheist physicists have been trying to come up with theories where the universe wouldn't have a beginning but to no avail.
The fact is atheist scientists have had their backs against the wall trying to defend their position in the recent state of science. Which is the reason they still use Haeckel's Embryos in science books which have long been shown to be false and deceptive, along with many other evolution icons..
Consider all the conditions required for those fingerprints to be on that gun. Iron working starting 4000 years ago in Mesopotamia, followed by an understanding of steel production that spread around the Mediterranean 2800 years ago, the advent of gunpowder in 9th century AD China, artillery used by the Turks starting in the 14th century, the proto-capitalism that formed in Renaissance that produced early corporations and guilds that could furnish guns better and faster. Industrialization, mass production, refinement, research, and development, an incredible amount of variables, the odds of which happening at all and in the right order are basically impossible.
That entire chain of events, including those in this guy's life, must have been intelligently designed to lead him to acquire a gun and fire it at that exact moment, at that exact time, to leave those exact fingerprints.
Can you prove to me that the universe was "fine tuned" specifically for us? Life as we know it exists BECAUSE of how the universe is, we are a natural byproduct of the natural Laws of the universe.... to disregard known facts for a belief that a "god" specifically made this universe for us & us alone is either staggeringly ignorant & or dishonest.
you have a very loose grip on facts..... the universe and it's physical laws are not fine tuned for humans, humans are fine tuned BY them. When an organism loses it's ability to tune into the conditions in the environment, the environment eliminates, modifies or replaces that organism.
Organise the first manned mission to Mars. When you arrive, take off your space suit. In your final moments, consider whether Mars was "fine tuned" for you to live there.
I agree with you 100%. Great comment! :D
can you imagine all the stars in the universe with about 10000000000000000000000000 suns in the visible universe alone and all being less than 6000 light years from earth.
If that was the case , we would all fry to death, the universe could not sustain life. Go to a time 100,000 years after the Big Bang when the cosmic temperature was similar to that of the Sun's surface, about 10832 °F. Now imagine a sky with not just one noon-day sun, but fully covered in suns - almost a million of them - everywhere radiating with the Sun's brilliance. No shade in which to hide. It's like walking into a blast furnace set to the same temperature - the light alone would kill you instantly.These religious people are ignorant to reality.
Young earth creationists don't believe everything is less than 6000 years away. They believe current distances are attributable to the expansion of spacetime or variable light speed.
I thought the explanation of stars being older than the age of the universe was due to acceleration of expansion, supported by the Lambda CDM Model.
The dude behind the window on the left looked like an alien for a second there
Imagine thinking that the earth is 6k years😂
LOL THERE IS LIVING ORGANISMS OLDER THEN THAT.
Yeah there are certain species that can literally live eternally😂
You know I was on the fence but now I’m 100% certain the earth is at least 16 years old
why should we be allowed to listen or believe in either argument?
Of course, and that's a problem with just about any theory or experiment we can postulate. Our knowledge is fundamentally limited due to the nature of the universe. That said, when you have certain evidence that would require a significant find to prove otherwise, the faith required is equally limited.
I imagined Eugene Mirman a bit sexier. This is why I don't listen on CZcams. On podcasts everyone is a 10 in my imagination. :) That's why imaginations are so fucking awesome.
Jake Day Williams what are you saying man. He is super sexy.
Everyone's a 10 with the lights off ;)
I feel as if I've made a fairly decent point in saying this.
Don't bother to try to contest it by replying, I won't even read it.
Here it is:
Atheism vs. religion is becoming very redundant, and more asinine with each passing day.
Let me make this simple.
You should not make generalizations about religious people.
Just because one bad apple comes in here and says "you will all burn for not believing!" does not mean that Christians as a whole think that way. It certainly does not represent religion in general.
The part does not represent the whole.
The only reason I mention atheism is because most of the comments below are stabs at religion, clearly made by atheist people.
Not to mention, if you believe in evolution, obviously you cannot technically claim you are Christian.
So that's why I use the term atheist.
With that being said...
The moment that atheists stop trying to insinuate that religion is a state of ignorance, is the moment when we stop and actually get something done in this world. There are other, much more pressing matters than arguing about who's more uneducated and stupid for believing, or not believing in something. The time that people spend bickering in the comments stroking their epeens and superiority complexes hints to how incredibly immature and arrogant they are... You could be using that time to further your own education, at the very least.
Just to be blunt, whether or not you believe in evolution does not determine if you're intelligent or unintelligent.
I've read the comments below. There are some supporters of evolution that clearly have not made it past college, or even high school. It shows in your attitude and disposition towards others that have a different point of view.
A note to those that this applies to:
You are not anywhere NEAR as smart, or well versed in academia as you think you are. Trust me. There's a reason that Dr. Tyson is up there educating and lecturing tenured professors of astrophysics. You have a long way to go before you can consider yourself "smart".
Personally, I don't give a fuck what you believe.
Don't attempt to call me stupid for believing or not believing something.
Do not think that because I might believe in something, it means that it makes me ignorant to some "higher understanding or knowledge" because believe me...
I know. Heard all about it.
Have you ever wondered if someone is gay, lesbian, atheist, or a crossfitter?
Oh, don't you worry.
They'll tell you all about it, no questions asked.
Like I said, I don't give a rat's ass about what you believe.
Don't try to shove it in someone else's ear.
There's a term for that, it's called indoctrination and it's happening in many schools.
Sadly, it's mostly self-absorbed professors and high school teachers trying to force politically correct ideas into kid's heads. Especially matters of race and other things that pop up on liberal news sources.
That is all.
+Effectious
In the Sherlock Holmes novels, Sherlock Holmes - the main character and mighty fine detective did not know or care whether the earth went around the sun or vice-versa. The details of planetary motion had no effect on his detective work so he consciously chose to ignore it. Despite lacking that 'basic' knowledge he was a great detective.
Scientific acumen is not the only marker of intelligence - and even among scientists, there are many whose works don't bring them anywhere close to evolution, so it's only a minority of the scientific community that would/should have excessively strong views on evolution. However, in a topic that one isn't specialising on, the only meaningful public stance to take is that of the established experts. That view however, may change with new discoveries and one's public stance would also have to be rethought.
What I am trying to say is that it's fair enough to hold a private belief that evolution is BS or regard it as a black box that one isn't concerned about, but when taking a public stand on the debate, the only people who can discredit the idea of evolution are specialists in that field.
+Effectious fuck you
yodaisgod2
I suppose you're not accustomed to getting blasted.
yodaisgod2
If you think a fifty-one year old woman would have anything to do with a prepubescent child such as yourself, go right ahead... It's a free society. You can dream of my mother all you want. Though it's rather creepy, and quite childish if that's the best retort you can offer.
Effectious How do you like that view from that high horse you sit upon?
Not a fan of Occam's Razor I see.
“That God should’ve watched the species suffering, dying in childbirth, Life expectancy of 20 years, swept with plague, Famine, misery, shame, mystery. Dying in Brazil, dying in China, dying in Australia, countries not known to the writers of these Testaments, and to decide only a few thousand years ago, maybe it’s time to intervene. Have a son of mine, torn to shreds in a remote part of Bronze Age Palestine. Let the Chinese wait a thousand years to find out what happened, that’ll make them love each other”
-Hitchens
The Creation Museum should be renamed to something more truthful, like "Mecca of Ignorance".
JosephM1750 and you should rename your name to "JosephM Dumbass" because you believe everything came from a firecracker
Carl Sagan and Neil Tyson, so different, both great. Looking forward to the new cosmos series. Chris. South Africa
your half right Carl Sagan humble scientist who sought to bring differing views together through true science, neil tyson, arrogant egotist who thinks science is the hammer of truth about everything. Not one humble bone in his body. just another opportunist cashing in on Carl's legacy. he should be ashamed.
Jonathan Hoy You do know Sagan was an atheist, right?
Tyson is arrogant? On what planet? haha such anger.
Yes, and one of the comes in color.
Uuuuhhhgggg I do not understand this, what was he said. I don't get it
where can we ask neil questions? I really want to know what Neil has to say about Bill Nye and Ken Ham's debate, i'm not saying if i lean one way or another but i'm really curious as to what he has to say about the whole thing
I have a question concerning the process of carbon dating. Given that the process itself is relatively young in human history, and that the studies themselves are not long-term, at least not long-term compared to the lengths of time they attempt to measure, how can we know that the atoms we are studying are not effected by unseen, microscopic forces which have yet to be discovered?
In other words, how do we know that the same atoms if studied the same way 400,000 years ago, might indicate different half-lives than they do today, because of the influence of “not-yet-discovered microscopic things”?
Let me clue you in a bit about fossil dating, many times relative dating is used in conjunction with radiometric dating and carbon dating isn't really used for older fossils as carbon-14 (the radioactive isotope of carbon) has a half-life of 5730 years so it can only be used on fossils younger then 75000 years, that is why they rely on other radioactive isotopes with a longer half life such as potassium-40 for most of the older fossils.
Isotope decay is quite consistent a dead animal also doesn't really take in any new carbon and the dated isotopes are quite safe underground and inside the fossil from cosmic radiation that could increase the number of radioactive isotopes that could make the fossil appear younger.
Carbon dating has been confirmed to work as you'd expect countless times with other dating methods, heck in general that's often part of the dating process.
but hey here's an interesting side note, when radiocarbon dating marine animals you need to correct for the reservoir effect since the carbon consumed by marine life is older than that consumed by organisms on land, so marine life and organisms that consume sea based food do appear (on average 400 years) older than they actually are, so you need to correct for that, so here's a fault in radiocarbon dating.
If you really doubt something than you should properly look into so that you actually understand the basics of it, first id start with how radioactive isotopes form and then i'd look up radioactive decay so that you have a better understanding of what can affect the number of radioactive isotopes so that you don't talk about some random mysterious unseen forces, radioactive isotopes have been studied for a century now, people understand how they form and how they decay very well.
Silent33091 I appreciate your feedback, and I asked the question hoping that someone with more knowledge about the subject would answer my specific question, which seems to have worked out.
However my mentioning of microscopic undiscovered elements is not a sign of ignorance regarding the subject, but rather the factoring in of the vastest realm of all science: the unknown.
Given all the knowable knowledge of the universe, it would be outrageously exorbitant to assume that our species has an accurate understanding of even 1% of it. Therefore it is more than reasonable to assume that elements beyond the scope of our awareness have an impact on that which we study.
i would just like to make a comment about the audio. they appear to have good mics in front of them, however the audio sounds like it was recorded on a laptop in an echoy room. Bad Audio! especially for a "Radio" channel! Come on, guys!!!
StarTalk Radio is the only radio I listen to. Neil is top notch as always and I really like his co-hosts. Very good job picking them!
So the word "day" is sort of nebulous and can mean almost anything.
Kind of like the word "god", don't you think?
(No hate, just an observation).
Search wikipedia (Age_of_the_universe) and you will find "the best measurement of the age of the universe is 13.798±0.037 billion years".
They use the scientific format for measurements, but when they talk about it they say "about 13.8 billion years". But, since the current error is bellow 0.1 billion year, you can safely use 13.8.
Yes, animals have small adaptations. Therefor, they have adapted their way from water, to all the animals we have today. Talk about fairy tale... "Billions of years ago, in a land far far away..."
No theory, but the law of conservation of angular momentum sure puts a wrench in the whole thing.
That is the guy who voices Gene of Bob's Burgers right. Or maybe I'm crazy.
You are correct, sir