From Big Bang to Man

From Big Bang to ManThis is the story of the universe and our place within it. And if that's not enough, we will describe how every atom in existence today came into being, how galaxies formed, how our own solar system began.

We will trace the progress of life on Earth from its humble beginnings to the emergence of mitochondrial Eve. And from Eve until now, we will follow the progress as humankind spread around the globe.

This documentary covers several topics: The Baby Universe, The Present Universe, Origin And Evolution Of Life, The First Humans and Evolution Of Modern Humans.

Watch the full documentary now (playlist - 43 minutes)

200
7.50
12345678910
Ratings: 7.50/10 from 12 users.
  • blaxparx

    This guy can't even pronounce nuclear. He says nucular.

  • mm24

    this one isn't that great.. I didn't realize how important it is to have a good narrator voice. The person narrating this one sounds too young.

    David Attenborough's nature docs have ruined everything by setting the bar so high!

  • filly

    It's an American thing a lot of Americans say Nucular even though it's phonetically correct

    new - clee - ar

  • Rip

    Thx for posting, but I agree with above. It also shows just how awesome Carl Sagans' Cosmos Series is for being..idk, over 25 years old at least....any way.

    I can't get enough astronomy and quantum physics. Peace.

    Thx Vladko. You still the man.

  • Rip

    Actually, I got used to his voice and it didn't bother me after the doc inthrawled me. Peace.

  • wake uppeople

    This is pure trash, and some of the most ridiculous junk put out on the internet. If you people really believe this stuff, I feel sorry for you on judgement day. Jesus created everything, and you can take it to the bank! Wake up before it's too late, God's judgement is coming soon to this world for rejecting his son JESUS CHRIST!

  • Dark well

    @ wake uppeaple: This is at least more believable than your unicorns and fairies. Plus, not to mention the mass amounts of proof to back us up.

  • Ben

    Its sooo much more logical to believe that an omnipotent god impregnated a virgin on earth, to give birth to himself, then sacrificed himself to save humanity, which he made with the "original sin" in the first place.

    I'll stick to science, since it works.

  • Chris

    @ Wake uppeople

    You need to hear my words, young man.

    Your posts have the opposite effect as you would hope. No one is going to read what you wrote, fall down to there knees and pray in tears and repentance. The only thing you accomplish by your judgement is a hardening of hearts and a displaying of the gospel to mockery.

    Seriously, think about it. The ONLY harsh words Jesus ever had for anyone while He walked the earth was for those in the religious establishment. For everyone else, he fed, healed and comforted them. He met people where they were. He spoke to their own situations. People were attracted to Him by the words He spoke. And He desires that NONE would be lost, not even those who crucified Him. "Forgive them, Father. They don't know what they are doing."

    If you cannot display the humanity of Jesus to these same unbelievers for whom Christ died, at least keep your bigoted negativity to yourself. Learn humility and tread carefully in the future.

  • Breadthing

    @ Chis....STFU lol your post is equally redundant

  • John Seals

    @ Breadthing
    Do you know what redundant means? Let me help you, it means that you are repeating the same idea over and over only changing the jargon used to express said idea. The above post is not redundant in any fashion, and don't curse people it makes you look small.
    @ Chris
    It doesn't matter how you try and support a falsehood, it is still worthless and dangerouse. I am sorry- I know you want to believe, I even understand why, but it is not true. Christianity is merely the extention of old pagan sun worship. Mithra has been replaced by a man called Jesus but this is about the only difference between the two. Both born on the same day dec. 25 and have twelve desciples, both are born to a virgin and perform the same exact miracles- walking on water, healing the sick. Both are crucified and rise again after three days. Both are baptized at thiry and begin thier ministry. And one more thing they both have in common- they are made up man. Based on the movements of the sun through the houses of the zodiac all this mythology was created by the ancients. Then we expanded it more and more through the years trying to make it relevant to our times.Through the years the sun god has been called by many names Ra, Horus, Mithra, Jesus and many more. A lot of religions use these same archetypes as they resonate with man on a basic level. I appreciate your gentleness and applaude what you told mr. fire and brimstone about being humble and considerate, but I am afraid that i can not support your beliefs. I am sorry that someone cursed you though, you seem like a really nice guy.

  • Ron

    @wake uppeople

    I will take my chances. A book of fairy tales is your guide and the science of the past 100 years has shown us theory and proof into how it all actually has happened. From evolution to the big bang. Fossils should be enough to make you question creation as per the bible.

    religion = war

  • Inb4

    So much for my "inb4 religious nut talks smack and attacks everything science" comment. Time to watch and see and if the comments here are right or wrong.

  • http://www.facebook.com/AlexandreOrion Alexandre Orion

    We have come quite far away from commenting on the documentary and have gone into debunking Christianity. As for the documentary, I find it apt for a sixth grade class. I would show it to young pupils just getting a grasp of science.

    As for the rest, I basically see a lot of picking nits here, with regard to beliefs. In essence, I agree with the theme of what Chris was telling Wake Uppeople. Whether Christ was a real person or not matters no more than whether Lao Tzu (or Mithra, or Ra, or Sarek of Vulcan, &c.) was a real person or not ... For this reason, John, I'm not sure if paraphrasing Part I of Zeitgeist (not being convinced of all of their 'facts' concerning mythology either, mind you), certain of its validity, is not something like people paraphrasing biblical dogma, certain of its validity. On the other hand, it is a trend that quantum physicists, astrophysicists and do get back around to believing in something 'divine', whether it is a god or a wave-fonction or chicken soupe.

    We are here, for now anyway, and are manifestations just like the rest of the Big Bang residue that are galaxies and quarks that make up our universe. If, during this experience, someone wishes to encourage love, compassion, mercy and acceptance, does it really matter if the message gets through by fact or fiction, as long as it gets through ? The key is to believe the message, not necessarily the messenger or the story he tells.

    Thus, I wish you all well, happy documentary viewing !
    A/O

  • http://www.facebook.com/AlexandreOrion Alexandre Orion

    Postscriptum : Excuse the spelling errors therein, my English is influenced by French. ~ A/O

  • Enzo

    was expecting more to be honest but still an interesting watch, helped pass the time before work. why complain about the guys voice? LISTEN TO WHAT HE HAS TO SAY

  • Enzo

    @ John Seals
    nice quoting of Zeitgeist mate, I think Christianity is far more complex than that. Do your own research and you'll see. I personally don't believe in the Christian interpretation of what God is, Id rather come to the truth on my own rather than accepting someone else's views and following blindly.

  • Epicurus

    how about people start pointing out what about this they disagreed with and explain why they disagree with it. and dont say "because the bible says so". try using science like you do with most everything else in your life.

  • John Seals

    Wow, I gave you guys more credit than this. Zietgiest doesn't have exclusive rights to ancient history- I have done my own research- it was kind of part of the theology degree that i hold. What was said on zietgiest is absolutedly true and a part of ancient history, therefore anyone should feel free to include those facts in a arguement to debunk christianity. I have been saying this long before zietgiest came out and so have many other theologians. That's alright though I realize I am now dealing with the T.V. generation so no matter what I say someone is going to think, "he got that form so and so." No I went to school got an education and learned to think for my self, I know that's a novelty to most of yall but it still happens believe it or not.
    That said I have plenty of ammo for debate that has not been included in zietgiest so if that makes you guys more comfortable let's go thier. By the way Enzo, how do you propose to learn about this God if not through an established religion? I am not being smart I just do not understand when people tell me that they believe in god but not in the Bible. If thier is no tradition or liturature to research how would you know what this god expects from you? How would you know the proper steps to salvation? How would you know that you have sinned or that you have blasphemed? How would you know that the god you are attempting to follow was even thier? Or are you saying that you DO believe in the Bible but not the establishment that has built itself up around it, christianity? That is odd indeed if it is the case as christianity is at it's core spelled out in the Bible. In my opinion this means nothing as the Bible is just another book, well actually a really poorly edited book that continually contradicts itself. What do you expect though when it was concieved hundreds of years after the events it attempts to touch on in a time when thier was very little that was written down. Mostly it is a collection of stories that have been passed by word of mouth for hundreds of years, changing dramtically everytime a new person passed it on. Finally it was written down but then it was translated by hand into several differenet languages. Finally the Catholic church decided to take this part and leave out that part and we got the version we have now. Now if this constitutes literature we can trust- I must be really out of it. By the way if you guys would like to clarify the facts that I have touched on try reading Western Civilizations by Robert C. Stacey and Perspectives from the Past by James M. Brophy- Yes some of the stuff in the books is also in Zietgiest, sorry. I know yall have some aversion to facts that where used in documentaries. Funny,I thought that was what this site is for- discussing the facts or misconceptions in documentaries.

  • John Seals

    @ Alexandre Orion

    Are you seriouse, it doesn't matter if we teach our children and believe ourselves in lies? You must be one of those people who is under the sad misconception that humans need religion to be moral or ethical. Funny, I am extremely moral and ethical but, I completely disagree with anything suposedly supernatural. I am all for the incouragement of love and tolerance, but saying religion does this is absoluteldy not true. I wonder how much love the crusades incouraged, or the mistreatment of homosexuals due to religion, or the inquisition, or Islamic terrorism, honor killings- the list could go on for days. So to sit and say religion incourages love is absolutedly not true. Religion incourages love for others that are like you- anyone different must die or be converted. If you have not been living under a rock for the last ten years you know what I am saying is true. You want to incourage love and peace- Do away with anything that premotes segregation, especially religion. Teach people to listen to thier hearts, your conscience knows right from wrong. Teach people that they must respect the earth we live on and that we are responcible for our own well being- (The bible says it was put here for mans disposal basically) Tell people that thier is no eternal reward for wasting the dawn. Then you might get somewhere. Teaching religion will only teach hatred and murder.

  • Chris

    @ John Seals

    I read through your posts. Interesting reading. I can see your opinion on religion. I hold similar views and have a similar educational background, though I came to a different conclusion.

    You say, "I completely disagree with anything suposedly supernatural." Are you espousing a naturalistic origin/source for the universe? If so, how do you account for the non existence of infinite regress and absolute infinities? All naturalistic origin theories have these two concepts as their lynch pins.

    Thanks

  • http://www.facebook.com/AlexandreOrion Alexandre Orion

    Good morning !

    Just to clear things up some, not once did I use the term religion in my post. I should agree with John that religion does not go very far in promoting love and acceptance. It remains as it has always been, a political tool -- much like consumer goods have become since the end of WWII. Politics and greed are responsible for all of those atrocities, whether done in the name of God, a god, the gods or not ...

    Moreover, no, I am not advocating teaching our childred (or anyone else, for that matter) to believe in lies. On the contrary, one should recognise a story told for its moral/ethical significance as such, not as a factual account of an event. We all understand and accept the role of fables, proverbes and paraboles therein. Why not certain spiritual iconography as well ?

    On a separate note, I would not promote tolerance at all. Tolerance is a poisoned apple ; it appears to be a virtue, yet permits one to set himself/herself in a position to judge another. One does not 'accept' the difference as well as the similarity, one 'tolerates' the difference. There is still that division of self/other which is the most brutal enemy of 'we' (solidarity).

    Lastly, John, I have some degrees, though admittedly not in Theology. My foci were philosophy, history and linguistics. These on both sides of the Atlantic. I did however take comparative mythology, so I'm not so novice to the subject. As I said, I remain unconvinced (as still) of what Zeitgeist says in Part I, and that having looked up these references. Nowhere was it stated that you, nor Zeitgeist, nor anyone was catagorically wrong. Catagorically wrong does not exist for me.

    Besides, arguing about divinities is like arguing over whose shopping list is right. It makes no sense ...

    Have a beautiful Monday, everyone !

  • John Seals

    Hey Chris,

    Nice to hear from you again. To answer your question I am espousing a naturalistic origin for the universe. That being said if I where to be able to answer the questions you asked I would not be sitting here right now, I would be accepting the nobel prize. I have no idea what started the big bang-I assume this is the theoretical infinite regress you are reffering to. Infinite regress being a causal relationship transmitted through an indefinite number of terms in a series, with no term that begins the causal chain. I do believe that soon we will discover the Higgs Boson particle does exist. This will help to shine some light on this causal chain- however it still can not be the beginning so infinite regression is still present. I also think the answer may lie in Quantum Theory, specifically quantum fluctuation. This theory says thier need not be a cause, as causality breaks down in the quantum world. To buy this though you have to think that befor our universe another quantum universe existed.
    As for absolute infinity this was a concept preposed by a mathmatician named Georg Cantor . It is impossible for us as logical humans to truly concieve absolute infinity as it surpasses our finite numbers. But we also can not concieve of being at more than one place at one time, yet we know that at the quantum level this happens all the time. It has been proved by shooting electrons through small slits in a piece of metal and then seeing where they collect on a material behind the metal. We see that when we do not look at the electron it goes through both slits at the same time. Now if this can happen in the quantum world then we have to throw out all we have experienced in the world of general relativity that we live in every day, including the concept of finite systems.
    Don't get me wrong I do not claim to be any kind of an expert when it comes to the quantum world, wierd stuff man. I hope this answered your questions some what any way, thanks for engaging in real debate with me. I seldom get real debate here, mostly people just slinging derogatory comments and making no real points. Well, I shouldn't say that- Lately it has just seemed that way cause I ran into some real rude people I guess. You seem a very intelligent, articulate, and kind person. I have a question for you now- To me to say that God exist sets up an infinite regression as someone had to create God and so on and so forth. How do you deal with this issue and retain faith? The bible also sets up an absolute infinity when it says you will have eternal life- Again how do you retain faith in light of the fact that infinite regression and absolute infinity does not exist, at the general relativity scale any way?

  • John Seals

    @ Alexandre Orion

    I am sorry man, I was in a really bad mood last night and I think I was a little sharp when I posted. And trust me argueing over dieties is pointless- as none exist. And I'm sorry but I can not let the statement that it is a trend that quantum physicists and astrophysicists get around to believing in divinity go. Can you back that up with some verifiable data? I just do not believe it, I know thier has been a few but a trend, I doubt that very much. That being said I did not mean to imply that you where not educated, for that i am sorry. I can be a real pecker sometimes when I am mad.

  • Chris

    @ John Seals

    Pardon the quick, abbreviated responses. It's almost 3AM and I need some sleep.

    Re: The possible breakdown of causality on the quantum level. I discussed this with my friend, Dr. Raymond Chiu, UC Berkeley physicist and leading researcher. The breakdown of causality and the observation of particles being in two places obviously signal the breakdown of theory at extremes. While phenomena may be observed, its interpretation comes out of the theory. In essence, we need a revised theory that provides proper explanations and predictions. Causality is quite safe for the moment. We just don't understand what is going on at that level.

    Re: Who created God. The terms "infinity" and "forever" are words used to describe something that does not exist within our physical universe. To say, "Where did God come from?" is an attempt to take something that does not originate within our universe, and pull it into our universe so we can understand it within the context of our own existence. But we are not going to have an accurate understanding of something taken out of original context.

    Let's try this question: What is the difference between God existing outside of our universe, and the multiverse existing outside of our universe? Couldn't you ask the same thing? Where did the multiverse come from? You still end up with infinite regression. Therefore, the multiverse cannot exist and is no answer.

    Okay, so how does God not do the same thing? Because the multiverse is physicality spawning physicality. The multiverse only pushes the causal chain back one link, but fails to solve the problem of infinite regression because it is physical. But God is not physical. Since He is not physical, His origin cannot be found in physicality, IE: the physical universe or multiverse.

    Infinite regression is impossible because it attempts to solve a problem that is DEFINED within Time. Time is a part of SpaceTime (re Einstein), which began 13.73 billion years ago. Time did not exist until 13.73 billion years ago. Therefore, the problem of infinite regression, with regards to anything that exists outside of SpaceTime is like asking what is north of the North Pole. You may be able to frame the question, but it is still non applicable.

    The Cosmological Argument, when properly presented and defended, is a powerful persuasive argument for the existence of God. Yet, it has two problems. First, I have rarely heard it properly presented and defended, leading to much confusion. Second, it DOES not present positive proof for the existence of God. But it does a superb job of eliminating any other option.

    I cannot pull God out of a hat for you. But I can show you that the other hats have no rabbits.

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  • http://www.facebook.com/AlexandreOrion Alexandre Orion

    There was no offense taken, John, though your apology can be accepted in grace. I have been known to get my knickers in a twist from time to time too ...

    The only thing in your response that I'll address this time is with regard to my trend. This was not mentionned as a statistic, it is just that I have known some rather sharp heads all over the planet, and yet very few (if any) are what one could call 'atheist'. Of course there are no staunch catholics or other bible thumpers either.

    For a long time now we have accepted spirituality as divorced from religion. Sometimes one just has to say that it doesn't matter ... otherwise one ends up going peculiar as did our old friend Cantor.

    Good day !

  • Enzo

    once again people suppose that to reach god, or the divine one must follow the texts and established doctrines which, at the end of the day, are just someone's interpretation of what the nature of the divine is. People have the capacity to think for themselves, yet ultimately its hard to break your mind free from thousands of years of accepted doctrine and teaching and come to your own conclusions.

  • Will

    Aaaahahaha, religious fundamentalists are ALWAYS entertaining.

    I love nothing better than when Vlatko posts another evolution/big-bang documentary, I LOVE the shrieking, shrill religious types screaming about how science is hogwash and that we're all going to hell.

    I love it... It's so frequent and so bizarre and so off the wall that I find myself wondering if Vlatko actually PAYS these people to post this stuff just for poops and giggles. I'm starting to think that's not a bad idea, to be honest...

  • John Seals

    @ Chris

    I'm sorry man but that seems like a cop out to me. To say that my opinion requires proof that you can understand but yours doesn't. I know you will say that God is not physical and the universe is but that is really not an answer in that it supposes the existance of God to explain the existance of God. Quantum theory makes the best predictions at the quantum level, and causality does break down- this has been proven by the experiment that I mentioned earlier. To say, Oh, no they just need to revise thier theory is ludacris. Many scientist have tried to debunk quantum theory and it is still standing. In fact I do not like the theory as it gives us results that go against all I know to be logical but, if it makes the best predictions and is supported by many scientist much smarter than you are me then it has to be the truth- or at least as close as we can get right now.
    To say that God is out of the physical realm and therefore requires no explanation amounts to saying he exist because I believe he exists. For once you have set this type of arguement up it is senceless to continue. How could I possibly debunk something that exist beyond my capacity to comprehend and how could you prove it. You can't and I can't. So let's just agree to disagree I guess and be glad we had this opportunity to meet one another. Have a great week man.

  • John Seals

    @ Enzo

    O.K. you have made that point very clear, now answer the questions please. All you say is people can think for themselves= I agree and never said they couldn't. What I want to know is how will you structure your religion and what will be the basis for believing in this religion? Is it the same as christianity- to believe God's son died on the cross and rose after three days in order to redeem man kind? Or do you want to worship a head of lettuce named Ralph or something. Don't get mad I am not trying to poke fun, I am curiouse thats all. Once you have established your religion will you create a text sort of like the Bible or will it all be word of mouth? Sounds sorta fun to me, I'd like to help you create it. I'm a good writer that knows theology very well- Just offering my services.

  • Enzo

    haha who said anything about creating an organised religion though the prospect does sound like a fun project. I'm against structured religion, when it becomes doctrine there is no need for individual input. My own spiritual philosophy goes a little something like this: Our lives ultimately are fleeting. Compared to the general time span of the cosmos our existence is but a blip. How then are we to best use the little time afforded to us because the majority will simply be forgotten to history, another statistic, those special folk are the ones who will be remembered, either with fear and apprehension or love, but they will be remembered. What then for the majority of us who go through life simply carrying out the processes? We were not known before our births and we will ultimately be forgotten after our deaths what hope is there? That is why religion is such a powerful human construction; it gives hope and meaning to an otherwise meaningless life. The curse of man is his intelligence, it makes heavy of an ultimately simple situation, life. For me we are all part of this world, this galaxy this universe, we are of the earth and the stars and one day we will return. God or the divine is, for me, within every wonder of nature, every act of love, every act of spite, every kind remark, and every bad word. The divine is a manifestation of the human imagination and spirit, a reflection of both our best and worst qualities. Religion in its structured form is an idealised image and representation of what the divine is, whether it is a deity who sacrificed himself for humanity, or the trickster god seeking to lead us astray. That is why many religions share similarities, at their heart they mirror what is within all of us. @John: I have a great interest in theology, maybe you could share some of your ideas on the different religions and their different themes, would be good to hear

  • John Seals

    Cool I'd love to do that. I'll put something together and post it soon. I see no detriment with your type of religion so if it helps you- go for it. I just do not like the religions out thier like Christianity and Islam that cause hatred, death, lack of progress, genocide, and keep some from being truly educated. They are also used to control people and keep them busy with something that has nothing to do with your every day life. To me religion means you believe in a specific diety that supposedly makes judgements over our lifes in the end, an after life with actuall conscience (meaning you beleive you will still be you and know it)- all that jive that is religion in it's defined state. You guys seem to want to redefine religion and then subscribe to that redefinition. I do not believe that that makes said religion true but depending on how it is redefined it may not be detrimental to anyone.

  • BJ

    @ John Seals and Enzo

    I read all the posts above but I was intrigued with your last two posts.

    Enzo I still have trouble wrapping my head around what it is you actually do/practice to be actively involved in your spiritual philosophy. I only say that because of your post a few back. When you stated:

    "once again people suppose that to reach god, or the divine one must follow the texts and established doctrines which, at the end of the day, are just someone’s interpretation of what the nature of the divine is."

    Is this to say you believe in an afterlife a particular religion depicts? But choose interpret the teachings of said religion in your own way? So in fact you are just guessing like the rest of the world?
    If this is way off I'm sorry. I'm just curious when people say things like this and 9 times out of 10 I don't quite follow. Whether this is my fault I am not yet sure

    Thanks to everyone for the great posts.

  • John Seals

    @ BJ

    What's up man, thanks for entering the discussion. I think that what could be confusing you is that Enzos religion seems more like a way of life insted of religion. Religiion immplies belief in a diety that will pass judgement on your life at some point, usually after death. It also suggest belief in after life, salvation, reciprocity, and many other things Enzo doesn't touch on. I see no harm in enzos beliefs, he basically said we live short lives and are usually not remembered- that the balance of life is beautiful and he sees divinity in it- and that organized religions exclude personal interpretations. Now as long as this does not make him ignore fact or segregate himself or others, cool. I personally don't see the supernatural in nature or any where else for that matter. Enzo does- I am not sure of the nature of this divinity as he did not say but, he did say he did not want to organize this into a religion and therefore I see it as harmless. I know I offered to write the text for it and all but I was joking around. It would be fun but the last thing we need is another religion out thier.

  • Enzo

    sorry if the words I'm using don't convey my meaning clearly. What I'm getting at is indeed a way of looking at life rather than a religious doctrine. I'm not one to tell people how they should practice their beliefs all I'm saying is that you can appreciate so many aspects of our existence and find something magic within our lives. Basically I disagree with the monotheist view of what god is, call me agnostic if you will. However the beauty within nature and the order of its laws, the way everything fits together, this for me suggest that there is a creative force behind the universe. The human spirit and imagination bares witness and aims to capture the wonder and mystery of creation. We express it through our myths, legends, and religions. Sorry people if I go all poetic :)

  • John Seals

    Again I see this as harmless but, I still have to disagree. We have nothing to compare our world to so we can not call it perfect or say that it fits together flawlessly. We only know "this" so it will seem perfect but it may not be. We may one day discover a whole different demension that fits together much better than ours. Or we may disocver said demension and indeed have the better universe in our opinion but what of the opinion of the other universe's inhabitants, will they not think thier world is more perfect for them. We can definetly see beauty in our natural world but we can not call it perfect, after all it created humans. ( the most flawed and out of touch being in the universe.)

  • Chris

    @ John Seals

    You have carried our discussion thread over to this doc after saying that we would just have to agree to disagree. Very well, I'll pick it up again. It could be that part of the problem you are having with my statements is that you have never met anyone like me. I'll try to address your main points:

    "MY biggest issue with your arguement Chris is that it takes religion out of the context that it has been taught in for thounsands of years in order to try and validate a fantastic claim."

    John, you really need to read my posts from 'Big Bang to Man'. It explains my view on organized religion that it is an evil thing. I don't want to copy and paste it here. In brief, the context provided by organized traditional religious Christianity is irrelevant and distorts the truth. Just because religion claims to represent God does not make it so. Just because religion hijacked God does not mean that He has developed Stockholm Syndrome.

    "Let me explain what I mean, the Bible does not say that God created the laws of physics and then the universe kicked off from this starting point and then evolved.- Which seems to be the way you want to look at it."

    Sorry. I don't recall making this statement.

    "It says he created the Earth and all the universe in six days and some how made life from bones and dirt."

    Again, sorry. I never said that the earth was created in six days, and (surprize!) the bible does not make this claim, either (although religion does make it). And does not evolutionary science teach that life originated from inanimate material (or dirt)?

    "That God sent his son in the flesh to be killed so he could rise again and there by redeem all man kind- some how. It then goes on to be one of the most violent, racist , contradictive books in existance. These same basic principles are the corner stones of Christianity."

    I'm not going to respond to this because it is way off-topic to the subject of whether God created the universe. Going off in all directions is no way to have a reasoned discussion (not that I would not address each point on another forum or thread at another time).

    "It seems you want to change that to say that God just kicked everything off and then science is right about the rest. That would suggest that it doesn’t matter what we believe as thier (sic) is no reward or punishment for your actions, no right or wrong way to worship (in fact why worship at all) I mean who’s to say that this God that you describe is not go on and left us long ago? "

    We could call this the Abandonment Argument. God's involvement in the universe was to get the initial process going, and then has no further involvement. It's a deist viewpoint. Again, this is off-topic to whether God created the universe. But if there is a God, then it is not illogical or unreasonable to assume that He invented the underlying science that makes it all work.

    "You certainly do not subscribe to the biblical account or Christianity..."

    I most certainly do subscribe to both! However, I DO NOT subscribe to the organized religious traditional teachings, which are based upon (to various degrees) myth, paganism, the politics of the day, a desire to control the masses, the lust for money and power, poor translations, even poorer interpretations, shallow understandings, lack of knowledge of history, wishful thinking, day dreaming and lies. I don't subscribe to the err of 6 days of creation, which is due to a biased poorly educated western interpretation of the original language and understanding of the cultural environment of the writers. I don't subscribe to a 6k year old earth, which due to mistaking the genealogies for chronologies, which was not the intent. I don't believe that people go to a happy land in the sky called heaven to spend eternity after death because this is NOT found in the bible, and is a pagan thought adopted by religion. There is so much that the traditional religious church establishment teaches that has zero scriptural support. Likewise, there is so much that could be taught in the churches that would ELIMINATE most of the supposed discrepancies between scripture and science.

    "...so what are your thoughts on after life, miracles, virgin birth, all the stuff that is religion."

    Despite my above tirade, it's still off-topic. Let's stick to the subject at hand.

    "It sounds to me like you are a scientist (no, I was first a seminary student that then left seminary because I came to believe that organized religion did not hold the truth, although I eventually obtained a scientific education) that believes that it all had to start due to some divinity. If this is your stance why did science and logic not matter and then all the sudden it does. Once again to prove a divine being you had to strip it of all sugnifficance, at least in the present- a common thread among those who attempt to believe in science and religion."

    John, I have to defend only my own statements. I don't have to, nor do I wish to, defend the entire sorry history of the established traditional religious church. Please read my posts from the "Big Bang to Man" documentary.

    It seems that you are trying to make the following argument:

    - Argument of Guilt through Association -
    1. Religion has taught utter nonsense down throughout the ages. Therefore Religion is wrong.
    2. Even though Chris' argument can be logically defended, I don't trust it because he used the word 'God' Therefore, Chris is wrong. I'm not sure how or where but he must be.
    3. Therefore, there is no God.

    I cannot address every little thing you find wrong with the 2000 year history of Christianity. Rather than starting a session of, Oh yeah? Well, what about this? What about that?", how about dealing with one thing at a time, starting with the topic at hand: The Origin of the Universe.

    Can we just do that for now? How about poking some scientific and logical holes in that? In your "cop out" response above, you didn't actually address my post. Here I have real conversations with a real working senior university physicist who says that Q, while good, is not complete, and your response is that he opinion is ludicrous? Where is the Ph.d after your name?

    John, I am willing to discuss anything you like, but not 'liking' what I have to say (which is indeed your right), is not the same as offering a counter based in logic or supported by legitimate mainstream science.

  • Enzo

    @ John Seals

    i didnt say anything about perfection, just that the laws of nature come together in such a way and such a place to produce our world which we call home. There may be another place in the vast universe which can harbour life, we have yet to find one, but for now our earth remains more than adequate.

  • oliarguello

    Kinda funny. That "wake uppeople" was making a joke I think. And everyone took it seriously. That person posted once and I think he wrote his nonsense just to see the cascade of debates that has nothing to do with the doc.

    I mean it had to be a joke right? I mean he said Jesus created everything....not even Christians believe that.

  • Rip

    WOw, you guys still at it? Lol, time to join a forum. But really, its kind of comical. Total stangers bitching their own ideals and beleifs on each other, which will never change the other dudes mind, and when its over (hopefully soon, lol) each will think he has won....Peace.

  • John Seals

    @ Chris

    Wow, you got all pissed didn't you. I thought we where having a friendly debate- My point was merely that you can't say that your arguement proves anything and niether can I. I was and am well aware of the fact that many Phd's disagree with Quantum theory but thier are more that do subscribe to it because it makes the best predictions. You have truly disappointed me Chris and I will now end all conversation with you as you have reverted to getting angry- Like it or not what i said earlier still stands and it is what i believe, why- because thier are at least some facts to support it. You have exluded a couple of alternatives, in your own mind any way, and then said what is left is right. Well thier are tons of ideas to go my friend, don't count your eggs yet. Oh, and exuse me for interrupting you on a different thread- I see that bothered you as well. Infact I think this is the last time I come to this site at all, too many people here get mad and offended when i truly mean no harm. If you guys are trying to convience people of Gods existance you could start with being a little nicer.

  • John Seals

    @ Chris
    By the way you really shouldn't try and belittle other peoples opinions the way you did mine by telling me how I arrived at it. I made no such assumptions, I examined your point and found it lacking- Get over it.

  • John Seals

    @ chris

    Also, I have met plenty of people like you Chris. You take a arguement that someone else came up with that you barely comprehend and you use like it is yours. The Cosmological arguement has been around for many years and has proven nothing. This is a trick and a sham, trying to use science to validate religion. You first spit out an arguement that can't truley be refuted as it is centered around something science has yet to solve- what kicked off the Big Bang. Then you throw in some really fancy words like Infinite regression and you hope this makes you sound really smart. The truth is this arguement was tried and died- find another one. Try coming up with one yourself, or at least find one that is up to date. 'First cause arguments' were set forth by Plato and Aristotle in the 4th and 3rd centuries BC. These arguments maintain that everything that exists or occurs must have had a cause. So if one would go back in time far enough, one would discover a first cause. Aristotle, a deist, posited that this first cause was the creator of the universe. Thomas Aquinas, a Christian, then expanded on Aristotle's ideas in the 13th century AD and molded the first cause-concept into a framework in which the cause of the universe itself is uncaused: the First Cause is God. Founded on similar reasoning, the Kalam Cosmological Argument was developed by Muslim philosophers in the Middle Ages. Don't assume you are so special Chris, anyone who has debated believers long has run into you. But the question is still thier now isn't it, you guys have not proven anything exept you do not let go of a particular arguement easy.

  • Achems Razor

    Forgot to get notification.

    Seems like some good blogs on here.

  • Epicurean_Logic

    Hey Achems and John. Hows it going? It's a beautiful evening in London but I just cant seem to get a good conversation going with anyone. Am i a conversation killer or something? Datings going terible. I get hits but once i open my mouth things just seem to go a bit pete tong (wrong).

  • Achems Razor

    @ Epicurean_Logic:

    Ha,Ha, I think we scared all the religee's away. How are you getting dates? On the internet?

    Women like to do all the talking anyway, all you have to do is just attentively listen to them. Be the strong and silent type.(LOL)

    Don't give anything away, let them try to figure out what makes you tick, drives them crazy. (LOL)

  • Epicurean_Logic

    @Achems. lol. Thats not a bad idea buddy. Yes internet. The only thing is it's hard to be strong and silent over the net! How are the Canadian beauties? Actually that might be a fun experiment. to change location to Canada and see what the action is saying.

    Religee's. lol. they are like the heads of the Hydra, chop one down and another two spring up in their place. (lol)

  • Achems Razor

    @ Epicurean_Logic:

    Over the internet you say? then don't use anything resembling logic, whatever you do.

    How to talk to women? think of a man, but take away all reason and accountability. Lie a bit even. Not big lies though, something you can easily get out of. (LOL) Canadian beauties, yes, but there are beauties everywhere.

  • John Seals

    @ Achem

    What part of Canada? I have always wanted to come visit. Every one in the U.S. got all excited about Canada after the Micheal Moore movie, including me. He made it seem like the coolest place ever.-No crime, friendly people, not much poverty, free health care, etc., etc. Is it all true?

  • John Seals

    @ Enzo
    Sorry man, didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I thought that was the sentiment you where expressing. May I ask why you do believe in the supernatural? I am just curiouse. I like to try and understand why poelpe think they way they do.

  • Achems Razor

    @ John Seals:

    Right now live in Manitoba, but lived in most provinces, Kelowna B.C. my favorite, big 90 mile glacier lake there, home of Ogopogo, lake monster.

    Yes, free medical care, everything Moore says is true. You get to keep all fingers here, do not have to sew up your own kneecaps, etc: Wide open spaces, no big brother watching anybody here.

  • Epicurean_Logic

    @ Achems. I get it. woman = man - responsibility - reason.

    What about,

    men: dating = k(effort) + exp(alchohol) - money

    women: dating = m(i dont do this often) + n(get your hand off my thigh) + p(you talk garbage but i might just shag you 'cause i'm bored)

    Sigh. What an effort.

  • Achems Razor

    @ Epicurean_Logic:

    You sound like an English man, talk to women with superlatives, flowery speech, you should know what they want to hear, how beautiful they are, how by there words alone you can tell that they are the right person for you, and you would like to get to know them better, etc: etc:
    It does not matter if you have not even seen them or not.

    Tell them that you would move hell and high water for them, just to have a chance to win a bit of their love. And so on, and so on. Lay it on thick and see what happens.

    And talk about yourself at a minimum. (LOL) just some advice.

  • John Seals

    @ Achem

    I knew it, I'm coming to visit- Better lock the doors. No, i'm just kidding, I'll leave my American sence of entitlement at home. All kiddding aside i would love to get up thier sometime. I am an outdoors man and love to fish so Canada would be heaven from what i hear. I love mountains too where are the good places to go fish in the Mountains? I've seen the Canadian Rockies on film but I would love to actually get to go thier.

  • Epicurean_Logic

    Yes. I see the value of the Achemzian approach.

  • Epicurean_Logic

    @Achems Razor. What is the postal code of a nice area in Candada? and which city?

  • Achems Razor

    @ Epicurean_logic:

    Your best bet would be my favorite city, Kelowna B.C.

    To many postal codes to list, Just Google..."Kelowna B C Canada Singles free online dating.

    In Kelowna B C... there are more women per capita then men.

  • Achems Razor

    @ John Seals:

    Good fishing everywhere, Manitoba alone, is called the land of 100,000 lakes.

  • Epicurean_Logic

    Thanks. I'm in Toronto at the moment. Dropping some lyrics of lurve of the unsuspecting female population. This is fun.

    Kelowna BC! Booya.

  • John Seals

    @ Achem
    I noticed, I just looked at on google earth. I feel kind of stupid i thought that was just a nick name- but thier is literally about a hundred lakes in the area- i wonder what geological processes built that land scape? Did the Glaciers gauge that out when retreating?

  • Chris

    @ John Seals

    I was never angry at you in the least, but I seem to have upset your little emotional applecart with your rapid-fire posts. I hope you got it all out of your system.

    I thought we were having a discussion. You shut it down, I moved to another thread, and you followed me there and reengaged. I presented some sound arguments, which you dismissed out of hand. I take no offense because you are not my judge. Your opinion means nothing to me. We post on this site and participate in conversations only as long as they hold our interest.

    You seem to be taking all this personally, never a good sign. I'd say I struck a nerve, but you will only get angry, again.

  • Gabby

    they could've used better graphics...

  • John Seals

    I had an intermittent connnection that kept dropping so I posted as I went. If you want to redefine christianity and then say that your are christian, that's your business. People have been doing it for years. I mean we have walked on the moon now, seen earth from outer space, proven the existance of other solar systems and galaxies- I'm sure it's hard to buy the old religiouse ideas. So you'll make up some new ones and maybe one day they will be teaching those insted- I hope they are more prone to understanding and acceptance than the current paridigms. But they will be no more true, just a further adaptation of a long held lie. I believe man is coming to time when he will no longer need this false comfort. I argue against the christian doctrine because i see it as detrimental to society and man in general, a falsity, and the biggest form of control I know of. It would take a lot more than just repeating an arguement i have defended against countless times to what was it "upset my little apple cart" I thought you where mad because you definetly took a tone with me- In reality we all know you where it doesn't take a geniuse to see you where trying to insult me in your post or make me seem inadequate to debate you on this issue. The truth is your arguement is not sound, at least not to any one else. The cosmological arguement basically says since you can't prove your right I am. Well it doesn't work that way. Just because we can't tell you what started the big bang or that a absolute infinity can definetly exist does not mean God must have done it. This is the leap that the faithful make. You say I haven't atacked the premise of your arguement, yes I have. You may not choose to deem the criticism valid but i did adress it. I said I felt religion sets up the same questions and I advanced quantum fluctuation as a possible scientific explanation. To which you basically replied that you knew one Phd. that believes the quantum theory needs to be revised so that can't be it and god is not physical so he needs not conform to physical reality as we know it. Sorry bud but I hardly think you should call it one for your side- but i tell you what. If it helps YOUR Little apple cart just keep on truckin. When you get this new christian denomination worked out let us know. I am always ready to hear the latest take on the oldest story in the world. Now I am running out of ways to be all sarcastic and witty so unless you have something to say about my reply- other than God is etheral and need not conform to logical cause and effect which I see as a cop out- I'll turn it over to you. I get enough of this at work, why do i subject myself to it here. I mean believers are so warped that when you adress thier questions they don't even hear it or they devalue it- why debate someone if you do not value thier input. Just say your right and thier wrong and let it go at that.

    "It could be that part of the problem you are having with my statements is that you have never met anyone like me." You shouldv'e stuck with seminary man you got the ego of a minister that's for sure. I mean this is not even your arguement it was established centuries ago. What is so special about you repeating it?

  • John Seals

    @ Gabby

    I agree. I thought it looked a little under produced.

  • Epicurean_Logic

    @Achems Razor. Some of your advice was really good. others not so:)))

  • John Seals

    @ Epicurean

    Uh-oh, tell it brother. What happened?

  • Epicurean_Logic

    @ John Seals. I have travelled the U.S and Canada all night long applying Achems razor to dating.lol. American women are funny:)) They want everything and then have the cheek to say that they cant guarantee the same in return. LMAO. Flowery words and superlatives don't work for me. The rest was good advice. Rarely talk about yourself. Women love to talk.

    What a blast. I cannot divulge much more as a gentleman never kisses and tells. lol.

  • John Seals

    Cool, we are talking on two threads at once right now. I just answered one of your other posts about taking care of your parents. i hope all works out for you man. Is your dad doing ok after the stroke? I mean is able to talk and get around and all? I'll check back tommorrow man, I don't mean to cut it off but it is like three in the morning here- I have to sleep.

  • Epicurean_Logic

    Sure man. later.

  • John Seals

    @ Chris

    here is a piece from another thread I am envolved in right now. sound falmiliar to you?

    420 Vision: "As for Gods : to clarify, based upon what I have witnessed, my brain believes there is a yet unqualified and unquantified force in nature that is responsible for the origins of this universe. One’s God does not necessarily have to be a biblical God. So I believe in the unseen forces of nature, and seek enlightenment from further observations. My God cannot be personified with human attributes."

    John seals: Does this god have a conscience, I mean does it know it exists? How does it know itself? Did it create this universe with a purpose in mind? Will this god one day pass judgement on humans or does he or she offer some type of afterlife? It seems every one believes in thier own personal god lately. everyone I meet that is religiouse says- " I don't buy the bible or believe in organized religion but I believe in a god." Most of them will go no further in explaining this new personal religion just that it does not conform to old christianity, judaism, Islam or anything like that. Some want to keep the bible and just say it was mistranslated but they know what parts not to believe in, some want to throw the bible out along with established dogma. We are reaching a time when the standard religiouse dogmas are no longer resonating with people. Soon established religion will redefine itself in order to survive. It has done it many times in the past, I wonder what it will turn out to be this time.

    Looks like you have some competition Chris. This guy is creating his own psuedo religion as well. Once again we see a break form traditional belief but not the willingness to say God simply doesn't exist. We are evolving man, this is the death cry of religion. Every one is scurrying to get off the sinking boat and at the same time making excuses for having ever been on board. Its not enough to recognize the short comings of the beaurocracy that built itself up around the belief that thier is a God, we must extinguish belief in anything other than the scientific method all together or suffer under more tyranny we surely will.

  • BJ

    Well said john. When people choose that approach, the "new religion approach" there is absolutely no rebuttal. To me it's simply agnostic and nothing more. Okay, you can believe that a supreme being created the Earth but not follow or be a member of an "organized" religion, but then what? What you get out of it is purely personal and speculative. I don't think you can say 'I have chosen to believe in a god but I don't subscribe to any religion'. Ah let me just say, you can but again you can not then attach other elements to that. That is just 100% personal speculation(I repeat myself in order to comprehend these peoples notion). It has no factual element attached at all. On the other hand if this approach some how helps you in your life and you don't have negative element attached to your way of thinking that would harm others than of course there is nothing wrong with that.

    Alas for me I can not fool my brain like that. I will never accept anything until the day I die. Unless something is proven to the fullest, be it religion, evolution etc etc, I am not going to subscribe to anything. Science is my preferred devotion and to me is the only logical one. It moves with time, as we all do, as everything does(even somehow religion). That alone is the answer for me and I take heart in knowing that I don't know anything/the answer. That the universe is so complex that NO human could know for sure, but to attach a supreme being to OUR functioning reality is certainly not a monumental leap I am willing to take.

  • John Seals

    @ Bj

    Yeah, I agree. Science says o.k. believe this for now but, someone is trying to prove it wrong so don't lock on. That is what I like about it, it doesn't claim to know anything to the point that it can't be questioned. The only thing that it says for sure is that you can not know anything for sure. If you use the scientific method you can bet your theory will stand for at least awhile, but usually better instruments come along or unique oppurtunities for insight and boom- everything changes. Some of us are able to operate in that type of changing dynamic environment and some of us need the static lie of religion. If they would just keep the religion out of politics, stop corrupting and damaging our society with thier beliefs, and above all stop indoctrinating children with the virus of faith- I wouldn't care.

  • BJ

    Yeah, what you said in your last sentence is what it's all about for me too! As it is for so many people.

  • Enzo

    @ John Seals

    Sorry for the late reply man. There are some things which simply cant be explained. All I do know is the human mind is powerful and at times very suggestive. It can make 'a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven'. The mind chooses what it wants to believe. Personally I wouldn't say I believe whole heartedly in supernatural phenomena but there are a lot of things in this life which I simply cannot comprehend, for example miracles. I remain a man of reason yet I cannot completely disregard what I do not understand and perhaps will never come to understand. To put it simply I cant give you a definitive yes/no answer as I'm unsure myself

  • hi there

    aint the big bang just a theory,im not a havard graduate or anything im just sum1 who needs to see some facts to back up a statment b4 i believe in a theory dat we all came to were we r now by accident cause by some explosion billions of years ago,maybe its just me im not 1 who believes in sumthin just because im told to it took me too long to get over santa ;)

  • John Seals

    @ Allan

    Come on man, read the above posts and you will see why. It's obviouse you are just posting without even reading the thread, well- I hope that's it any way.Other wise you have a reading comprehension issue.

    @ hi There

    Welcome to the discussion, no worries none of us are einstiens so you'll do just fine. Wow that sounded condecending- i just meant no qualifications neccessary. to answer your question Yes the big bang theory is a theory- that said you have to understand what a theory is in science. It is what is accepted for the truth until someone proves otherwise. That is the nature of science. nothing is unquestionable- within reason- common sence should have a say so the supernatural is usually not seriousely investigated by the main stream. Now we have certain theories that have stood the test of time and these theories are the basis for almost every thing else. Evolution is one of these and so is the big bang. We have the back ground radiation also, which is most likely physical prooof of the big bang. Also Hubble identified the expansion of our universe, common sence says if it is expanding it must have come from a single point. To get the pressures and temperatures needed then to start forming hydrogen and helium you need an explosion- for the uniformity of temperatures to lock in we need expansion. it all makes sence together and it allows for great predictions. It is simply the best most logical model we have presently. maybe it will change some day but you can bet what ever it is, it will not be Hokus pokus. No juju at the bottom of the sea was involved in my opinion, just sound physics and chemistry playing out in the mind numbing beauty of mathmatics. The nuclear symphony would have been a site to see.

  • John Seals

    @ Enzo

    Cool. Thanks for the insight. I love to know what makes people believe what they believe. If we ever can truly know that- even about our selves.

  • Eff

    It's combined knowledge: Biblical Science: God lit a match...then farted! BIG BANG! No theory involved.
    The outcome was: GAS-TRONOMICAL ENLIGHTENMENT!

  • lol

    This doc's explanation of how life started: 'somehow after the smoke cleared something was different' WOW

  • Ephes612

    Wow, far out! So, let me get this straight. Something that doesn't exist has properties by which to bring itself into existence? Spontaneous generation (life from non-life) really does occur? This is absolutely ridiculously stupid! Just probability-speaking, intelligent design is FAR more likely.

  • Roan

    @ Ephes612 I'm fairly sure no-one knows. All we know is that the world we live in is perpetuated by the one thing we admire so much, seemingly Intelligent evolution. Has it ever occurred to you that science and religion are talking about exactly the same thing? If some intelligent presence, or god, decided to build a universe. Wouldn't it be more "intelligent" to build a seed instead of a tree? We know energy can create matter, (why heaps of really smart people got excited about E=mc^2). We know matter as a simple element. Elements can't really contain their energy.. in fact, they are constantly losing, gaining and sharing it. When elements share this energy they form molecules. Molecules create compounds. life is a is a rather large elemental chain reaction getting ever more complex. It has now become so incredibly complex that now it want to know were it came from.

  • Andrew

    Jesus may have been kind to everyone but the religious establishment.. but you on the other hand. Aren't you supposed to be Christ like? I don't remember Jesus giving anyone a lecture about cosmology. LOL could you imagine Jesus telling the Jews back then about the Big Bang? You think if he did they would have a religion based on him? Probably not they would have called him a crackpot. I think the 7 days story is there for people that can't comprehend anything else, once we know the truth we still see there is in fact a beginning. And some people still are not happy because somebody said it happened differently 3000 years ago and wrote it down in a book that somehow people associate with divinity even though it was written by mortal men... anyway.. I have a sandwich for sale with sister mary's image on it!

  • iesika

    Guys. Guys. You're feeding the trolls.

  • Ben

    Its beautiful seeing the opinions people have, I love this site, its getting bigger and BETTER.

  • AGKrisko33

    I must say that the special effects used for Dinosaur part are fantastic!!!! LMAO!!!

  • smugg

    those dinosaur sounds ....

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3XNJ2TV2UXBKZK4O5VLU7UBRBY Bob Kayya

    the mother of all man kind looks cute, and more obvious is her obsession with her hair.lls

  • spikef

    live life love y dose every have to hate all of the thing that things that they do not agree with. the universe is to big infinity and a atom is to infinity small to for everything to b to be defined by the a human word .

  • gsjikwblao

    yes, their is so much complexity in the universe that it seems that to reach the end of it is impossible. Perhaps we can make progress by asking questions like "what is complexity?" What is the individual perspective of our intellectual reasoning anchored in the midst of our physical bodies through we engage this complexity? How does this relate to the unifying perspective of our convicting consciences? Why do we experience a "guilty" feeling when we use our powerful intellects (our engagement of individual perspective) to oppress another whose intellect is not so powerful. Why does this "guilty feeling originate in our convicting consciences which is our engagement of a unifying perspective? Is there a reason for this "internal opposition"?
    As we place so much importance on the capacity of intellect to sort out complexity are we being told something very fundamental by our convicting consciences? Could intellectual reasoning, independent of convicting conscience be deceptive in it's engagement of complexity and individual perspective? Inasmuch as our intellects are telling us of very complicated things,could our convicting consciences be telling us something very simple?

    In our attempt to develop a fundamental understanding of existence we may find that the steady march of intellect into complexity is a "bottomless pit" so to speak. Maybe we should just tag it "complexity" and ask how it relates to other aspects of our common experience in life. If looking afar off doesn't give us the fundamental understanding we seek, perhaps we should look right in front of us.

    I agree with you that the universe is too complicated for human intellect to sort out but this does not mean we cannot understand it.

  • the555hit

    just a wee note to the producers. this would be funny if it didn't represent an obscene waste of cash. you're working in a v i s u a l medium, hell-o ------- if you wanted pathetic animations why didn't you tell me --- i would have furnished you at half the price --- i have virtually no computer animation skills and would have done a correspondingly cr*p job exceeding even the demands of your ludicrously unambitious brief. So what is it with half the docs i'm finding here and when did this bargain basement of B movie documentaries begin, and fkkn WHY?? It's like a bleddy theme park pub -- all plasticated reps of 'authentic' content and then "oh sh*t, we're not clever enough for entertainment, i know, let's do a doc" . Uh excuse my lack of adjustment but i thought the documentary was where the clever knobs did hang out.

  • Giac Belli

    do you understand the difference between education effects and hollywood effects?

  • Giac Belli

    explain to me "intelligent design" ,and then prove it with repeatable proof ...
    burden of proof lies with you.

  • Giac Belli

    here this may help wtf everyone is talking about..:)

    A HYPOTHESIS is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.
    A scientific THEORY summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
    A LAW generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

    Clear? don't want to hear :its "just" a theory" alright?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joe-Mud/100001973144217 Joe Mud

    I am a scientist, and this is correct.

    Common language uses the word "Theory" incorrectly. They use it in place of the word hypothesis, and end up misunderstanding the concepts.

  • mudshark23

    Same goes for the word... 'anxious'.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andreas-MemoriesofAether/616068184 Andreas Memories'ofAether

    just watched this, its amazing how much is covered within such a small time frame, can even go into anthropology! would've loved some more early-days space stuff tho, but i guess thats what the hubble documentarys for hehe ;p

    bit off topic, but does ANYONE know who the soundtrack for this was by, or when i can get it!? or something similar, cause that was a really nice soundtrack! my email's andreasioannou@hotmail.co.uk if you do

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VEQSGXV4PGCDVDL2QY4QMP2M6A Anthony Pirtle

    Intelligent design is far more likely...why? Instead of solving the mystery you've just used the word 'god' as a stopgap. If nothing can come from nothing, where did this god come from? Skip a step, as Carl Sagan would say.

  • saint_elmo

    intelligent design? (inschmelligent design), who gives a schit? Maybe the Mormons are the ones who've got it right! after all, a religion that markets it's own protective underwear has got to have something goin on...
    If there is a God, I hope it does have a plan, and that science figures it out, not some 3000 yr old grampa that talks to burning bushes.

  • Artelj

    Is it just me or is this so incredibly enlightening? Like the enlightening Buddha was talking about.

  • Aerie_tigre

    I thought it took longer for the initial expansion to cool down enough for things like atoms to form. Like, a lot longer. Like, millions of years. The baby universe's temperature was somewhere around 1 billion Kelvin, if I remember correctly... should I even keep watching this...? Where's the release date on this thing.... urg, I can't find one. -___-;;

  • Aerie_tigre

    Ah, there we are. :3 It doesn't qualify the nuclei as atoms until they're joined with electrons. Also googled it, and it wasn't millions of years but hundreds of thousands. I feel silly. ^^;;

  • M Broomer

    too stupid for science, try religion!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jon-Robinson/100000200888988 Jon Robinson

    Does thus thow have a mug of frosty Brew for thee and thy mate?

  • avny82

    if you are serious about this comment, thats what most people think and never say. And yes you are stupid, but at least theres dumb people TV for people like you.

  • Patrick Karnes

    Its actually called a "Quantum Shift" where a lower form of energy phases into a higher form of energy. Which they do tell you in the documentary but they do not go into detail on how it works, because unless you have a good grasp on mathematics and physics you will not understand it. They did not say that nothing existed at the beginning of our universe. They said nothing in our universe existed. When the "Quantum Shift" happened it caused the Big Bang. Space expanded and the energy that was involved in the big bang *Which is actually a misnomer since nothing actually banged* was so large that it expanded faster than light, going from nothing to millions of light years across in seconds. A quantum shift is very capable of happening today, although if it did, you would not know it, cause you would be dead in a matter of miliseconds and the laws of physics would be completely different than they are now. There is a theory that when a black hole is created by a supernova, that is the "Big Bang" for another universe. So if you could make it through a black hole alive, you may come out in a completely different universe than the one you live in now. Even so, who knows if when you got there the laws of physics would allow for your atoms to stay bound to one another. Do some physics and mathematics research, than you might understand.

  • coryn

    Hardly a minute into his opening narrative I hear: ".... but back then space was so small, that...." Is that what he said? What could that mean? Has someone discovered the 'edge' of the universe and I didn't hear about it. Hmm...... and what could be beyond the 'edge', that isn't already part of the universe? I've always considered the 'Universe' to mean all that exists, suggestive of an infinity of universes.

    Why has it been generally thought that initially there was 'nothing' until 'something' was 'created', created by (Fill in the blank). But couldn't it simply be that it's all 'universe' out there, and zero amount of nothing?