Lemme watch that again. Ok so "our part of space", "cosmological realms" and two simplified versions of what the phrase "before the big bang" might even be considered to mean. Some tame speculation about dark energy and gravity. No universes. Are you sure you watched the video?

Assumption = a thing that is accepted as true without proof
Inference = a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning
Undergird = provide support or a firm basis for

"This is a classic example of a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning that provide support or a firm basis for much of modern cosmology". There, I fixed it for you.

They said they believe it is interstellar because of its improbable orbit. This is a classic example of the assumptions that undergird much of modern cosmology

We're pure intelligence, you're not. You're the biological product of a
cosmological universe. You're molecular matter, I constructed you, fuck you.
I made you up, you didn't make me up, you got it backwards.

You know who
you are? You're fuckin' semantic blockage, that's what made you up. You're
a fuckin' programmer named Christine Gontara.

Favorite song off this album is "Steppin' Razor": https://youtu.be/73ZprL_ZKxI

My problem with the cosmological argument is that it takes something we know nothing about, specifically how things may have worked before the universe came into exists, and massively leverages them. We know about as much about what happened before (if the concept of time or before could mean anything without space and mass) as we do about what happens after death.

Anyone making absolutely claims from such shaky ground should have their motivations analyzed, because it seems suspect to me.

Short version: Cosmology, particle physics, theoretical physics, etc... are elucidating fantastically complex aspects of our universe's beginning that we don't and probably won't ever fully understand. Some interpretations may indicate that there is some eternal process giving rise to the complexity we can observe. Therefore it's the Jewish war-diety from 3000 years ago that did it, definitely not Allah or Vishnu - that would just be crazy.

Hey robbersdog49, thanks for the level headed reply. I'll address your comments in a few pieces here:

The origin of life and Darwinian evolution are two entirely different things. Regardless of how you believe the first life came about we do know from the fossil record and evidence about the way the environment and climate changed on earth in those early millennia that the first life was simple single cell organisms.

In my study of the evidence from the fossil record, I found more evidence that contradicted the assertions of Darwinian evolution than confirmed it. The Cambrian explosion for example, where basically every type of animal body plan comes into existence at around the same time, contradicts the idea that these things happened gradually over long periods of time. In fact, a new theory was invented called "punctuated equilibrium" which says that the reason we aren't finding the transitional fossils is that the changes happen too quickly to be found in the fossil record. Instead of a theory based on the evidence, we have a theory to explain away the lack of evidence.

Evolution is the process which turned these very simple life forms into the complex forms you see all around you today. It's an ongoing process and the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

The evidence for micro evolution is overwhelming. The reason we have hundreds of different breeds of dogs is because of micro evolution. Darwin discovered this and all the credit should go to him, but where the leap of faith took place was when he supposed that because we see changes within species, that therefore all life evolved from a common ancestor. This claim is not substantiated scientifically. You cannot see macro evolution taking place anywhere in the world, and you cannot find the transitional fossils to say it ever took place. You cannot test it in a laboratory, it is a historical claim based on weak circumstantial evidence.

Science doesn't know exactly how life first came about. It doesn't claim to. We know that it did because we're here, but how? Not sure. But that's not a problem, science doesn't claim to know everything. Science is a process we use to find out about the world around us. It's not a book with all the answers.

Science is all about what we don't know. It's a process of discovery, and you can't discover something you already know. Religious people like to show any gap in the knowledge of scientists as showing they are frauds, or know nothing and that this means their own views must be true. That's just a stupid logical fallacy. Just because no one else has the answer doesn't mean you can just claim your version must be correct.

Science not being able to tell us how life started has no effect on the validity of the statement 'God did it'.

The God of the gaps fallacy is simply a red herring in these conversations. I don't purport to say that because science can't explain something, that means God did it. Science is all about the principle of parsimony; what theory has the best explanatory power. I purport to say that the idea of a Creator has better explanatory power for what we see than the current scientific theories for origins, not because of what science cannot explain, but for what science has explained. I think the evidence we do understand, in physics, biology, cosmology and information theory overwhelmingly points to design for many good reasons that have nothing to do with the God of the gaps fallacy.

There is also it seems a point of pride for those who think the best position is to say "I don't know", and accusing anyone who thinks they do know as being wrong headed, arrogant, or whatever. It's a very curious position to take because there are plenty of things we can know. No one is going to take the position that if you say the answer to 2 + 2 is 4 and you deny that any other answer is valid, you are arrogant or using fallacious reasoning. Yet, it is arrogrant and fallacious to those who think that science is the sole arbitor of truth when someone who believes in God points to a Creator as the best explanation. They think that because they believe no one else could know the answer except through scientific discovery. You have to realize that is a faith based claim and not an evidence based claim. You think that way when you place your faith in science as what is going to give you the correct answers about how and why you are here. I like these quotes for Robert Jastrow, who was an Astronomer and physicist:

"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."

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law."

As for the age of the earth, there's a huge amount of evidence which says it's about 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years old. That's plenty of time for evolution to take us from simple single cell life to the complex animals we've become today.

Have you ever studied the scientific proofs for both sides? There are some "clocks" which point that way, and there are other clocks that point the other way. The clocks that point to the old Earth have many flaws, and there are simply more evidences that point to a young Earth. That video I provided shows the evidences I am talking about.

It is simplified.

Some of the concepts are actually pretty hard to put into words and just are how they are. And for each cosmologist you speak to you will encounter a different opinion of the standard cosmological model or parts of its construction.

There are parts of it i don't like because i can't follow and feel comfortable with each step. The maths makes sense, but there's nothing logical and connected in my understanding. At first i didn't like that, but then i realised that we all accept quantum mechanics where charged particles accelerate without radiating, and "instantaneously" move between distinct energy levels.......

In other words, every physical law we've got is just our primitive way of understanding the signals sent from our senses to our brain. Things seem to make sense to us the more experience we have with it happening. We don't understand why matter moves towards other matter via "gravity" - a word which we accept and go 'ahhh gravity - i understand now' but why the hell should it and/or why should it exist in the first place merely to move towards one another?!

So gravity attracts things (why?!) and time only runs in one direction (why!?) and energy is quantized according to the planck constant (WHY!?) and ... the universe is more or less like it's shown in the video! But why why why!? Well, that's a question for a philosopher.

It's probably a really good idea to open up the endlessly raging Bombadil controversy. Well so what, Tolkienian cosmology is fascinating. To some extent he's a deliberate enigma. Personally I favour the idea, if he's explicable at all, that he's the spirit of Arda itself or at least the foremost of a number of more provincial spirits. There are competing theories, but it's not really possible that he's a Maia.

Certainly there were any number of Maiar still knocking around at the time of the Fellowship: Gandalf, Saruman, et al; Sauron; Durin's Bane; Gwaihir; arguably Shelob (half-Maia at best); and depending on how widely you want to define 'in Middle Earth', Arien & Tilion (the bearers of the sun & moon), presumably Osse & Uinen, etc.

Bombadil calls himself, and the elves agree, 'eldest', and he claims to have been around before Melkor, who was definitively the first of the Ainur to descend into the circles of the world. He's unaffected by, and not really interested in, the Ring, unlike the Maiar who come into contact with it in the course of the story.

Ilúvatar set the Secret Fire, which gives sentient creatures their fëar or souls, burning at the heart of the world. I can't see an origin for Tom that doesn't derive directly from that, given that at the point he appears in the chronology there's very little else in existence.

I don't know what all this makes Goldberry.

He means the origin of life on earth. That is one of the most hotly debated and unsolved questions in science. It could also be something we can never know for sure, because it only had to happen once.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Anyway, I do think it's cool that they're making some high-budget cosmology lessons for the masses. If you want something less focused on entertainment and flashy presentation, you've got lots of options.

Not defending religion here, but a lot of high horsing going on.

So, did you guys know that a recent discovery has called into question one of the 2 main assumptions underlying the big bang? The cosmological principle to be exact, which means that we have to revisit that assumption and the big bang theory again to account for this.

Now, if after hearing this ur "belief" in the current existing big bang model was not refuted or shaken, IE if u still believe 100% that the big bang created the universe...then technically ur a baby step closer to being like everyone who believes in a religion.

"Well thats a bit of a leap!" you might say, however if when faced with scientific evidence contradicting an assumption needed for the big bang theory u don't adjust or modify ur belief system, ur no different than ANYONE who believes a partial truth or outright falsehood in the face of contradicting evidence.

So the next time ur explaining how much better science is at explaining the world with a religious zealot, before looking down your nose at them remember that sciences current golden child theory for the creation of the universe is being challenged and so maybe YOU shouldn't be so certain about your beliefs.

FYI I'm still fairly certain that a big bang type event created the observable universe.

Looks like the Hindu cosmology of the universe and yugas could be somewhere in the neighborhood of spot-on....Some religions are better than others

Hopefully, by this point, you've typed his name into YouTube and spent at least an hour soaking up cosmology and astrophysics. If not, then you should! The man is a great storyteller and teacher. And now, add cutting a rug to his resume.

No, they are not the same thing, and they are not creationist terms.

Yes, they are in fact the same thing, and yes, I know creationists didnt come up with the terms, predictably, since they have never come up with a single useful term or idea in the history of everything. They can be useful terms to describe the short-term and long-term effect of evolution, but creationist use the term to shield themselves from admitting that they deny reality. Lets just take one example: genetic variation, according to creationists then, genetic variation is real and actually happens, your genes are slightly different from other human genes, ie: there is variations within a species.

But this is the same kind of variation there is BETWEEN species, its the SAME FREAKING THING, but when the difference is large enough, individual organism can no longer breed to produce fertile offspring. That is in fact the definition of "species". Conceptually, there is no difference between the genetic difference between you and me and the genetic difference between you and a tomato, its just MORE difference.

I honestly dont know how to respond to this time=miracle nonsense, the point is that because there is variation and mutations, speciation will happen over long stretches of time, now you might say "biologists sure needs lots of time for evolution to work" but the thing is that other, unrelated fields of study, like chemistry, physics and cosmology have independently reached conclusions about how old the universe is, and its billions of years old. We KNOW that, not from inventing a number large enough to allow evolution to work its "miracles", but because its the only logical conclusion based the available evidence.

The correlating data you are looking at is a hall of mirrors. Radiometric data is based on uniformitarian assumptions. The light travel time is based on similar assumptions. Embedded in all of the estimations of an old age are unprovable assumptions that have no empirical evidence to prove they are true. They are in fact unknowable.

Everything in that paragraph is wrong. These things are NOT based on assumptions, but empirical evidence, calculations and experiments. In fact, the knowledge has not only been confirmed by experiments and evidence, and as I tried to explain earlier, YOU ARE RELYING ON TECHNOLOGY BASED ON THAT KNOWLEGDE TO READ THIS SENTENCE. It is literally being proved right in front of your eyes.

Scientific disciplines that young earth creationism contradicts (from Wiki, which has citations):

Physics and chemistry (including absolute dating methods), geology, astronomy, cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, genomics, linguistics, anthropology, archaeology, climatology and dendrochronology among others.

Damn, this scientific conspiracy goes deep!