I’m going to respond to your last comment in two parts. The first part regards the god argument in which you have mischaracterized me as being closed minded and of having a bias. I can easily show that I am neither and this is my view on the whole god thing so you can at least understand my view if for nothing else. The second part I will address my primary contention against your methods of argument.

I admit that I don’t believe in a god or gods, or even advanced aliens. I just don’t see any reason to believe any of it. This doesn’t mean that I am saying that god doesn’t exist; I’m saying “I don’t know, but I highly doubt it and I don’t buy it.” What do you find confusing about that?

We have no real reason to suppose from direct evidence that a god, or gods, exist. Do all effects have a cause? Do all causes have an effect? If yes, why do you suppose it’s a god who caused all of the effects that you attribute him to such as the “fine tuning” or “the appearance of design”, why can’t it be something else? By resting on a god hypothesis as the answer to mysterious phenomenon, you are precluding all other answers that are just as good as a god, that have the same amount of direct evidence.

Does the god that you believe in have a cause? If not, how so? By what mechanisms does your god exist but without having had a cause? How can your belief be proven and why should anyone believe it based on rational information? What evidence is there that compels you to believe that your god indeed doesn’t have a cause? These are the kinds of questions that I think you should be asking for yourself. If you resort to “just needing to have faith” as an answer then you are actively avoiding exercising critical thinking faculties.

Unlike you, I don’t see the appearance of design in the complexity of biological systems or in anything found in nature. I study evolutionary biology, astrophysics, and chemistry for myself because I find it the mechanisms fascinating, not because I’m trying to disprove god. There is inherent beauty in all of it and it’s a shame that most people are ignorant of what we do actually know. While I’m open to the idea that a god designed the system then put it in motion, there just isn’t direct phenomenological evidence that suggest that’s what happened. There is enough information that we do know about speciation to suggest that evolution through natural selection does happen, is happening, and will continue to happen. The genetic code is enough to suggest common ancestry between all living things in a tree like family lineage. Certainly, we do not know yet exactly how the whole process of DNA or RNA reproduction started, but if we postulate that a god started the process without sufficient evidence, only on the basis that there is no better answer, then we can also postulate that it was an advanced inter-dimensional race of ancients who populate planets with the seed of genetic mechanisms. If we don’t have the answer to how the mechanism got the whole thing started, what’s the difference between those two different origin hypotheses?

Also unlike you, I don’t see what you call “fine tuning” and I also study all sorts of physics, my favorite being astrophysics personally. The term “fine tuning” implies that something above the system changed some dials to a perfect goldilocks range to support what we have right now. This is an interesting idea however I find it to be more prudent to see it the other way around; that what has formed, has only formed because the conditions allow for it, that the environment dictates what can exist. Wherever you look at an environment and find life, you find life that fits into that environment and we also see that when environments change, so to do species change to adapt to the new conditions. We never see an environment change to fit the species.

You claim that we haven’t seen macro-evolution taking place? Are you sure about that, how exactly do you know this is true, where did you read this? How do you know that what you are calling macro-evolution is the same thing as what evolutionary biologists call macro-evolution? The fact of the matter is that the fossil record has nothing to say about the most recent research on macro-evolution. It’s a fascinating material and I would suggest that you get out there and find it for yourself. Talk Origins has as list of the studies done on macro-evolution, you can start there if you like.

The question becomes, if there was/is a designer, what was designed first, the creature or the environment? To me, you are suggesting that humans were designed first in the mind of god, and then the environment was finely tuned in order to sustain the idea that god already had for us. Don’t you think this is a little bit too egotistical of a view? If that’s true, what makes everything else necessary? I don’t know if you study astrophysics or astronomy at all but there is a massive amount of stuff out there that has nothing to do with us and if we’re a part of god’s plan, he sure did create a lot of waste. To me, if the Christian beliefs are the most accurate representation of reality, god isn’t a very good designer. There millions of ways that he could have done a better job if he is all powerful. Of course, you can revert back to, “we can’t know the mind of god”, or “god works in mysterious ways”, but those aren’t answers, they are just ways of maintaining a pre-existing belief by silencing further inquisition.

“Unless you can demonstrate a purely naturalistic origin of the Universe, you have no case against Agency.“

Agency needs to prove itself and so far it isn’t doing a very good job. Science as a whole isn’t making a case against agency and neither am I by suggesting that there are likely to be naturalistic causes. Agency simply isn’t necessary. That is what I think that you don’t understand. It’s that I don’t accept the case for agency until agency can be proven. A suspended judgment is better than an accepted unverifiable and untestable claim.

If you are in any way the kind of person who culturally relates to Christianity then there is nothing that anyone can do for you. It is very difficult to have an intellectually honest conversation with someone whose basis for belief is deeply tied to a sense of culture or social belonging. Challenging your beliefs is synonymous to asking you to become someone else if your beliefs are tightly woven into your identity. The only thing I can ask of you is to ask yourself if what you believe determines how you will process new information that comes to you.

At the very least, you can see now that I am not diametrically opposed to the idea of a creator or agency behind everything. The notion is interesting but I don’t believe that there is enough real credible information to suggest that it’s true. There are enough logical arguments against the idea of a god or gods existing that the whole notion is worth dismissing. If there is as god or gods, they aren’t doing a very good job of making themselves known or knowable. The simple fact is that naturalistic explanations are more useful ideas than any god concept because they provide both predictions that we can verify and help us make decisions about where to study next. No god hypothesis has ever provided either, therefore, in the pursuit of knowledge; the idea of god is useless. Now you see why naturalistic explanations are predominate in science as the default standard.


>> ^shinyblurry:

I think its nice finding potentaily inhabitable planets with life , but its a bit of a cock tease no chance in hell will we ever go to one of these places not in the next 1,500 - 3000 years I doubt we will get a visual light spectrum view of them for at least 300-500 years , and maybe some detailed direct radio observation for 150-200 years.

Its actually prity meaningless/useless finding these planets other than confirming that the universe has many planets and high probability of many earth like planets , but I think we knew that prity much for certain maby 20-30 years ago.

Don't get me wrong I Think of Astrophysics of massive importance and a scientific imperative to persure as it will have tangible ramifications on earth evan if unpredictable ones.

Seems to me that you can learn so much more about space and the universe with exsperments on earth such as being done with the LHC , or observations of how mater is spred out in general and those kind of observations.

still would rather have kepler doing its shit than spending money on wars , and i bet kepler probably only costs a small % of all the communications and media satalites we launch so for the relative cost its probably worth it just for shits and gigles.

>> ^direpickle:

Yes. That three year old that can play piano by ear is absolutely the result of 10,000 hours of practice.
Are people really trying to argue that natural aptitudes don't exist? Rage.


More like them alone don't solely define your success. And most of those child stars have done their skill for thousands of hours, people with a natural aptitude tend to indulge that aptitude. But a person who is a natural born genius, but doesn't get alone well with others, or isn't in the right time or place doesn't always get ahead. Georges Lemaître, father of the big bang theory, isn't really remembered by any lay person...even though his theory shapes the entire field of astrophysics, much like Einstein, but everyone remembers him. Kurt Gödel, who's that, oh, a genius who ramifications in thought still haven't been fully explored 80 years later...but no one knows his name. Or even the famous composers and artists that we all love today, many died poor and unrecognized. Timing/luck seems AS fundamental for success as being a genius. The book isn't talking about actually producing the "best" but being recognized and reaping the rewards of being the best. It is a good read, I recommend it.

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by chicchorea.

*isdupe>> ^kulpims:

sorry, dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Extreme-Astrophysics

sorry, *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Extreme-Astrophysics

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by kulpims. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

>> ^luxury_pie:

But nonetheless he IS drawing a very intimidating picture there. I for one never realized so clearly the "place" we as a human race have in the universe. Besides the fact that he uses outdated or non-accurate scientific references as it seems. Please keep in my mind that this man is a historian and as I see it he doesn't base his whole argument on the laws of thermodynamics rather then his own abstraction of complexity and development.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't many if not all of the facts he mentions about the first "steps" of the universe currently accepted facts/ assumptions of astrophysics, if one could say so?
His train of thought seems pretty straight to the point and his conclusion is absolutely true. We are indeed destroying the "goldi-locks-conditions" that led to our existence.


I agree. Yet I wish he would also point out that in the last ten years we've found extreme life in places you'd NEVER expect. This might throw the "goldi-locks-conditions" partially out the window. This year we found life not based on carbon, but phosphorous (this is by rote memory, it may have been sulfur) and even arsenic! We may actually have quite a bit of extra-terrestrial life in our own solar system. Just not sentient (or lacking ways to create incredible machinations of the mind), yet.

What humans need to learn is that we will kill ourselves as WE need that, "goldi-locks-conditions", to live. Almost all current life except the kind I mentioned would be devastated by our actions. We WILL die, and be replaced for a good 4-5 billion years. If we get to one million I'd be surprised.

If you're talking grey-goo stuff though, then I'll give you that...as the most hilarious way to screw ourselves over... I'm just thinking of alien telescopes looking at our planet and wondering WTF is that!?!

/The last bit is my sarcastic bastard side showing through.

But nonetheless he IS drawing a very intimidating picture there. I for one never realized so clearly the "place" we as a human race have in the universe. Besides the fact that he uses outdated or non-accurate scientific references as it seems. Please keep in my mind that this man is a historian and as I see it he doesn't base his whole argument on the laws of thermodynamics rather then his own abstraction of complexity and development.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't many if not all of the facts he mentions about the first "steps" of the universe currently accepted facts/ assumptions of astrophysics, if one could say so?

His train of thought seems pretty straight to the point and his conclusion is absolutely true. We are indeed destroying the "goldi-locks-conditions" that led to our existence.

I appreciate a lot of things Neil has done; I love physics and astrophysics (hell, I love all the fields; I like to know how things work as it gives you insights into otherwise unknowable situations). He has always been a good speech/talker. That coupled with his intelligence and insights makes him a powerful force to be reckoned with and makes him something YOU MUST acknowledge.

/Props to Neil.

The difference is actually a bit more, the traditional view is 2%, but I've heard Craig Venter say its probably a bit more than that, maybe as much as 5%. But anyway, like other commenters have suggested, this is a bit psuedo-biologistic by Tyson. He still has a point, but I think hes best when he sticks to astronomoy and astrophysics. Difference in genetic makeup is not the same thing as difference in phenotype. For example, only relatively few genes control the development of the entire brain, but even if we identify them all and understand them all, we are still far from understanding the brain itself, because the brain is more than just a product of genes, its a product of development and lots of complex interactions.

But his point does pretty much stand, we could all look like blabbering morons to more intelligent creatures. Atleast Tyson is not anyware near as idiotic as Michio Kaku on evolution, that was just embarrassing

WTF? I didn't hear any of those students say anything about a highly elliptical orbit. What they said was that the seasons are caused by the earth being closer or further away from the sun during the seasons. Which is basically right. The northern hemisphere is closer to the sun during the summer, and is further away from the sun during the winter. F--k me, but I didn't see the Jeopardy set behind them requiring a specific phrase for the answer.

(Yes, I'm aware that the angle of incidence of sunlight is more relevant, but ffs, these are art students, according to the video's first few moments. I would not expect them to have solid mathematical understanding of astrophysical concepts.)

I like these videos. I'm doing an astrophysics degree right now, and i'd love to have these guys on hand for the next few years.

So how does a degree in astrophysics qualify him in any way for deep sea drilling inquirers. Sure, he is a smart guy, but I think he is way outside the realm of expertise. Even so, years could suck.