Tags for this video have been changed from 'Sience, amazing, ice' to 'Science, amazing, ice' - edited by bareboards2

Sience?

Sience is great.

Hey, this is an important one for me because it moves me so much too. I was just wondering if you understood exactly what he was saying and still found it uninteresting.

He's not saying in the clip that you're JUST made of the same stuff. It's not like he's just saying: "cars are made of metal, and toasters are made of metal".

What he's saying is that (statistically speaking) the actual, individual atoms that make up your body WERE at one point, part of a star. They were also any number of other things. Your actual body is made of stardust. And not just that. You've also been flowers and rocks and trees and water and (less-romantically) you've probably been poop for most of the time since Earth began.

Take a look at your hand... what you're looking at right now has at one point been several-hundred-thousand-degrees.

Sorry to drone on. I just find that completely fascinating. I could ponder it for much, much longer. I know you probably understood the clip. Just making sure.

In reply to this comment by westy:
I dont realy understand hwo what he is saying is that philasophical.


We are part of the universe and we are made of the same matter that makes that universe .

I guess that might be mind blowing to sumone that belive sin mystical shit but to annyone else its such a inane and obvouse statment its hardly of philasophical merrit (asuming your educated and over the age of say 10).

Allso its quite bezar to be so emotive about it.

Part of me likes it when scentists try to make sience emotive as it can atract people to science but ultimetly its disingneouse to claim anny 1 thing is more amazing than another in an ultimate sense or to be realy emotive over 1 scentific fact and not so about another.

I dont realy understand hwo what he is saying is that philasophical.


We are part of the universe and we are made of the same matter that makes that universe .

I guess that might be mind blowing to sumone that belive sin mystical shit but to annyone else its such a inane and obvouse statment its hardly of philasophical merrit (asuming your educated and over the age of say 10).

Allso its quite bezar to be so emotive about it.

Part of me likes it when scentists try to make sience emotive as it can atract people to science but ultimetly its disingneouse to claim anny 1 thing is more amazing than another in an ultimate sense or to be realy emotive over 1 scentific fact and not so about another.

>> ^Arg:
I'd be amazed if this man is capable of tying his own shoelaces.


I meet him and he is an intelligent, funny and likable guy. Of course you can mock and spout something about a person that you don't know instead of dealing with what he says.
Ben Stein was considered one of the smart guys before he decided to make his movie about Evolution. Now (even though he is not a Christian) he is mocked in similar fashion.
I was under the impression that this is a country where people can speak their mind and challenge thought?! Isn't that, an open discusion and reasoning, what makes sience worthwhile and lead to something?
Funny how nobody wants to talk about the things that Darwin said would have to fall into place to prove his theory. Funny how many of the “proof” comes out forged or plain false? If it is so clear and logigal… why the need to forge things? Funny how these known forgeries are still used in school text books today?!

Just to name a few:

Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!


Nebraska Man from the Illustrated London NewsNebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.


Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link"). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)


Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: "Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)


Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)

The theory of embryonic recapitulation asserts that the human fetus goes through various stages of its evolutionary history as it develops. Ernst Haeckel proposed this theory in the late 1860’s, promoting Darwin’s theory of evolution in Germany. He made detailed drawings of the embryonic development of eight different embryos in three stages of development, to bolster his claim. His work was hailed as a great development in the understanding of human evolution. A few years later his drawings were shown to have been fabricated, and the data manufactured. He blamed the artist for the discrepancies, without admitting that he was the artist. (source: Russell Grigg, "Fraud Rediscovered", Creation, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.49-51)