Carl Sagan Christmas Lectures 3: The History of Mars - 1977

[@chandrainsky]

The clarity of thought and presentation.. impeccable!

[@lucasbowering]

I couldn't imagine a kinder, more good natured and thoughtfully intelligent person. Rest in peace Carl Sagan.

[@KevinFrette]

Lucas Bowering I know someone like that: Asimov

[@FirstLast-fr4hb]

it makes me sad to lose that

[@ceciliateixeira5195]

ele esta descansado , espero

[@ceciliateixeira5195]

he has it all of perect man. maybe too much to be true

[@CeciliaAbreuTeixeira]

yes very correct there he is

[@abooswalehmosafeer173]

What a Genius.My God the explanation is so clear ,his brain just crush those facts into small easily digestible pieces of Mars bar.I really wish I had read of HIm in my childhood times.Thanks.

[@2fast2block]

@TheRenaissanceman65 that's it! That's why you're such a dingbat like Carl was.... "I watched it all when it was on TV in 1980 and still think it's worth seeing again." That's why you can never prove me wrong, you're so stuuuuu piddddd. I have to write like that because youtube bans me from certain words.

[@ditorhaliti6937]

Great lecture and lucky audience

[@2fast2block]

Horrible and stupid audience. Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the dumbass, "It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a vomit bag or trash can nearby for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, foolish person he was. Now, Carl the dumbass NEVER can get around these laws and what the lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet the buffoon thinks creation happened naturally, but the idiot says, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" as the crap-for-brains ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still the fool who ignores the laws farted out, "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as dumb as he is. So in his way of foolish thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan the dumbass will at some point face his Maker for his judgment of what he believed in this life. His extreme shame and regret was all his choice. He wanted to be a hypocritical dumbass. Then he'll be thrown into the lake of fire. It will be his 'The End' and be remembered no more. ALL his choice and for others who follow that fool.

[@MopGunZ93]

2fast2block wow chill out dude

[@zacharyhenson5376]

@@2fast2block damm triggered your religious ass aye? Good thing carl Sagan had sympathy for low minded creatures like yourself. Perhaps one day you'll stop believing in fairy tales

[@2fast2block]

@@zacharyhenson5376 B-itch, where did you prove what I wrote to be wrong? Please copy and paste it, you waste of life.

[@stanvanderbend8298]

Remarkable man

[@ceciliateixeira5195]

so much

[@ceciliateixeira5195]

not make then like this ennymore

[@DarylDawkins]

The effort they made in putting the props together for these lectures is spectacular considering the technology he had at his disposal at the time. The moons going around mars is pretty awesome.

[@2fast2block]

All for nothing. Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the dumbass, "It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a vomit bag or trash can nearby for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, foolish person he was. Now, Carl the dumbass NEVER can get around these laws and what the lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet the buffoon thinks creation happened naturally, but the idiot says, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" as the crap-for-brains ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still the fool who ignores the laws farted out, "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as dumb as he is. So in his way of foolish thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan the dumbass will at some point face his Maker for his judgment of what he believed in this life. His extreme shame and regret was all his choice. He wanted to be a hypocritical dumbass. Then he'll be thrown into the lake of fire. It will be his 'The End' and be remembered no more. ALL his choice and for others who follow that fool.

[@anthonyinzerillo3882]

Professor Sagan died to young. I remember the day he passed. He made science & space fun.

[@youbestbequiet]

So happy to see Twitch, a gaming platform, streaming Cosmos 24/7 exposing new generations to Carl's work.

[@2fast2block]

Carl was dumb. Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the dumbass, "It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a vomit bag or trash can nearby for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, foolish person he was. Now, Carl the dumbass NEVER can get around these laws and what the lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet the buffoon thinks creation happened naturally, but the idiot says, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" as the crap-for-brains ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still the fool who ignores the laws farted out, "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as dumb as he is. So in his way of foolish thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan the dumbass will at some point face his Maker for his judgment of what he believed in this life. His extreme shame and regret was all his choice. He wanted to be a hypocritical dumbass. Then he'll be thrown into the lake of fire. It will be his 'The End' and be remembered no more. ALL his choice and for others who follow that fool.

[@Telcontar1962]

@@2fast2block So if we take your view of the universe as being "gospel"... For Sagan's crime of using his God-given powers of reasoning he will be thrown into a lake of fire. God is not in for turning the other cheek as it commanded others to do in it's inexplicable guise as part of the trinity, but rather a sadistic infinite torturer to those daring to reason with the evidence God itself put before them. Yes I can see this religion thing is definitely a winner and not contradictory at all.

[@2fast2block]

@@Telcontar1962 rather than your blah-blah ignoring what I wrote, maybe next time actually address it and dare to prove me wrong. Oh, but you can't so you fill in blah-blah because you're empty.

[@MrBuzzin14]

@@2fast2block bruh u sound empty af :(

[@lastofmygeneration]

All that bullshit and you didn't say anything of value at all. Get bent, you dweeb.

[@MoreThanJustMusic]

Perseverance!! Brought me here!

[@cahivx]

Original TED Talk...

[@thegreatreverendx]

The girl at 4:15 seems to have attended several of the lectures and always seems either fascinated by astronomy or completely in love with Carl Sagan or both.

[@2fast2block]

Maybe it's amazement that anyone listens to clown Carl. Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the fool, "It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a vomit bag or trash can nearby for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, foolish person he was. Now, Carl the fool NEVER can get around these laws and what the lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet the buffoon thinks creation happened naturally, but the idiot says, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" as the crap-for-brains ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still, the fool who ignores the laws farted out, "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as dumb as he is. So in his way of foolish thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan the imbecile will at some point face his Maker for his judgment of what he believed in this life. His extreme shame and regret was all his choice. He wanted to be a hypocritical bozo. Then he'll be thrown into the lake of fire. It will be his 'The End' and be remembered no more. ALL his choice and for others who follow that fool.

[@thegreatreverendx]

@@2fast2block I'm pretty sure that's not what the girl was thinking.

[@MrBuzzin14]

@@thegreatreverendx underrated burn right there .. 9 months, only 3 likes.. oof

[@nofloco3175]

@@2fast2block damn bruh you must not be comfortable with your death

[@2fast2block]

@@thegreatreverendx all I know is what I showed, Carl lived and died a loser. Too bad you missed that CLEAR point.

[@michaeltette7869]

Effin awesome

[@RayRay-zt7bj]

Carl Sagan is so amazing that even the introduction title took a bow @ 0:34

[@2fast2block]

An amazing dumbass was all by having so many dumbass followers like you. Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the dumbass, "It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a vomit bag or trash can nearby for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, foolish person he was. Now, Carl the dumbass NEVER can get around these laws and what the lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet the buffoon thinks creation happened naturally, but the idiot says, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" as the crap-for-brains ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still the fool who ignores the laws farted out, "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as dumb as he is. So in his way of foolish thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan the dumbass will at some point face his Maker for his judgment of what he believed in this life. His extreme shame and regret was all his choice. He wanted to be a hypocritical dumbass. Then he'll be thrown into the lake of fire. It will be his 'The End' and be remembered no more. ALL his choice and for others who follow that fool.

[@TheSoy1313]

I wish he was still alive

[@JamesGarry]

A consummate presenter - what a lucky audience!

[@knarfx4732]

Thanks for this videos 💪👍🔥

[@2fast2block]

So you're thanking for this garbage? Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the fool, "It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a vomit bag or trash can nearby for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, foolish person he was. Now, Carl the fool NEVER can get around these laws and what the lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet the buffoon thinks creation happened naturally, but the idiot says, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" as the crap-for-brains ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still, the fool who ignores the laws farted out, "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as dumb as he is. So in his way of foolish thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan the imbecile will at some point face his Maker for his judgment of what he believed in this life. His extreme shame and regret was all his choice. He wanted to be a hypocritical bozo. Then he'll be thrown into the lake of fire. It will be his 'The End' and be remembered no more. ALL his choice and for others who follow that fool.

[@harrietharlow9929]

@@2fast2block So, I see you're a master of copy and paste. How about you let God worry about Carl Sagan and worry about your own soul. Might want to work on your judgementalism.

[@2fast2block]

@@harrietharlow9929 Wow, that was some rebuttal to the evidence I gave. Too bad you have your head up your A$$ and ignored it.

[@polarpanda2337]

35:20 "And it's probably good not to know Spanish to think of... LAPUTA!"

[@FirstLast-fr4hb]

That took me a second before I smiled and thought how much I love educated people 😅 😅 😅

[@ceciliateixeira5195]

not a good word this

[@washcloud]

@John straight up 7 year old's comment right there

[@mylesbishop1240]

LMFAO when he said that i was like seriously

[@stevencoardvenice]

@@mylesbishop1240 sagan was a stoner

[@meetghelani5222]

My man, carl sagan.

[@ceciliateixeira5195]

yes it is fantastic man

[@2fast2block]

Yes he was a stupid man. Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the dumbass, "It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a vomit bag or trash can nearby for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, foolish person he was. Now, Carl the dumbass NEVER can get around these laws and what the lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet the buffoon thinks creation happened naturally, but the idiot says, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" as the crap-for-brains ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still the fool who ignores the laws farted out, "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as dumb as he is. So in his way of foolish thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan the dumbass will at some point face his Maker for his judgment of what he believed in this life. His extreme shame and regret was all his choice. He wanted to be a hypocritical dumbass. Then he'll be thrown into the lake of fire. It will be his 'The End' and be remembered no more. ALL his choice and for others who follow that fool.

[@falangenglishdictionarybys3653]

great

[@2fast2block]

pathetic. Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the fool, "It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a vomit bag or trash can nearby for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, foolish person he was. Now, Carl the fool NEVER can get around these laws and what the lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet the buffoon thinks creation happened naturally, but the idiot says, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" as the crap-for-brains ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still, the fool who ignores the laws farted out, "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as dumb as he is. So in his way of foolish thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan the imbecile will at some point face his Maker for his judgment of what he believed in this life. His extreme shame and regret was all his choice. He wanted to be a hypocritical bozo. Then he'll be thrown into the lake of fire. It will be his 'The End' and be remembered no more. ALL his choice and for others who follow that fool.

[@unnilnonium]

Thank you thank you thank you. I have been periodically searching for the whole lectures forever! And I never could find part 1/6 of lecture 5. I am eager to see if that annoying sound problem in lecture 6 is cleared up.

[@stevencoardvenice]

Sagan is hilarious. Always making little jokes

[@dougdaniels7848]

Probably better to not know Spanish when thinking about.... La Puta.

[@stevencoardvenice]

@@dougdaniels7848 ahhh it's Christmas again. Might have to rewatch La Puta lectures

[@FirstLast-fr4hb]

55:55 -56:11 Carl Sagan for president.

[@ceciliateixeira5195]

of universe would be much better place with this beauty hearted man

[@ceciliateixeira5195]

for God,, God fergive me

[@2fast2block]

He's dead now which is great. Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the dumbass, "It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a vomit bag or trash can nearby for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, foolish person he was. Now, Carl the dumbass NEVER can get around these laws and what the lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet the buffoon thinks creation happened naturally, but the idiot says, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" as the crap-for-brains ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still the fool who ignores the laws farted out, "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as dumb as he is. So in his way of foolish thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan the dumbass will at some point face his Maker for his judgment of what he believed in this life. His extreme shame and regret was all his choice. He wanted to be a hypocritical dumbass. Then he'll be thrown into the lake of fire. It will be his 'The End' and be remembered no more. ALL his choice and for others who follow that fool.

[@alessandrocernuzzi]

@@2fast2block You're like a murderer who's disgusted by someone throwing a piece of paper on the ground.

[@2fast2block]

@@alessandrocernuzzi Here's what happens when you give a dumbass common science that they can't contend with, they will completely ignore it and since they are disgusting human beings that don't care, they will think they have something clever to say that makes it look like they are not as stupid as they are, so this is what is considered a good scientific come back to all the science they were provided: Drumroll, please.... their science....."You're like a murderer who's disgusted by someone throwing a piece of paper on the ground." Yes, I'm serious. I'm not making this up. They are really that stupid.

[@emmysan93]

I love him so fucking much it hurts

[@FirstLast-fr4hb]

50:10 What are we going to name after Carl?

[@ceciliateixeira5195]

CosmoS the beginig and the end ,, CS all of it

[@2fast2block]

Moon Moron because Carl was a moron. Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the dumbass, "It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a vomit bag or trash can nearby for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, foolish person he was. Now, Carl the dumbass NEVER can get around these laws and what the lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet the buffoon thinks creation happened naturally, but the idiot says, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" as the crap-for-brains ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still the fool who ignores the laws farted out, "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as dumb as he is. So in his way of foolish thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan the dumbass will at some point face his Maker for his judgment of what he believed in this life. His extreme shame and regret was all his choice. He wanted to be a hypocritical dumbass. Then he'll be thrown into the lake of fire. It will be his 'The End' and be remembered no more. ALL his choice and for others who follow that fool.

[@supereman1999]

2fast2block lol

[@2fast2block]

@TheRenaissanceman65 ah, yes, more science from the dingbat that somehow proves me wrong... "Do shut up, troll." No, I'll keep on with crushing you clowns. It's too much fun.

[@2fast2block]

@TheRenaissanceman65 I have a life that God created. Do tell how you got your creation of the universe that then gave you life. You keep being so afraid to show how much of a useless clown you are.

[@ethandoe2502]

I just imagine young kids off camera not knowing wtf Carl is talking about, then picking their nose. Carl would be empathetic to their plight

[@2fast2block]

Carl was stupid, period. Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the dumbass, "It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a vomit bag or trash can nearby for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, foolish person he was. Now, Carl the dumbass NEVER can get around these laws and what the lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet the buffoon thinks creation happened naturally, but the idiot says, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" as the crap-for-brains ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still the fool who ignores the laws farted out, "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as dumb as he is. So in his way of foolish thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan the dumbass will at some point face his Maker for his judgment of what he believed in this life. His extreme shame and regret was all his choice. He wanted to be a hypocritical dumbass. Then he'll be thrown into the lake of fire. It will be his 'The End' and be remembered no more. ALL his choice and for others who follow that fool.

[@FirstLast-fr4hb]

How is there a room full of kids who are actually interested in learning instead of watching TV and doing drugs?

[@abooswalehmosafeer173]

Elitist kids whose daddies loaded with money buying all the latest books etc etc. There may be the talented not so rich who managed to percolate as is naturally the case. Look at their clothes. Fair is Foul Foul is Fair That is the Way it is Although sometimes Fair is Fair Foul is Foul.

[@notsure6187]

because they're not American children.

[@2fast2block]

Carl was useless. Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the dumbass, "It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a vomit bag or trash can nearby for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, foolish person he was. Now, Carl the dumbass NEVER can get around these laws and what the lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet the buffoon thinks creation happened naturally, but the idiot says, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" as the crap-for-brains ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still the fool who ignores the laws farted out, "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as dumb as he is. So in his way of foolish thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan the dumbass will at some point face his Maker for his judgment of what he believed in this life. His extreme shame and regret was all his choice. He wanted to be a hypocritical dumbass. Then he'll be thrown into the lake of fire. It will be his 'The End' and be remembered no more. ALL his choice and for others who follow that fool.

[@alessandrocernuzzi]

yeah, because no one was doing drugs in the 70's :D

[@2fast2block]

@@alessandrocernuzzi "yeah, because no one was doing drugs in the 70's :D" Says the person whose mind is a waste.

[@FirstLast-fr4hb]

38:28 This is a major dominant issue with society prevalent with nearly all "common knowledge".

[@ceciliateixeira5195]

he is a man with lots of knowledge more than we now it

[@ceciliateixeira5195]

not for all,, but it is common knowledge

[@2fast2block]

@@ceciliateixeira5195 Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the dumbass, "It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a vomit bag or trash can nearby for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, foolish person he was. Now, Carl the dumbass NEVER can get around these laws and what the lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet the buffoon thinks creation happened naturally, but the idiot says, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" as the crap-for-brains ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still the fool who ignores the laws farted out, "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as dumb as he is. So in his way of foolish thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan the dumbass will at some point face his Maker for his judgment of what he believed in this life. His extreme shame and regret was all his choice. He wanted to be a hypocritical dumbass. Then he'll be thrown into the lake of fire. It will be his 'The End' and be remembered no more. ALL his choice and for others who follow that fool.

[@franiscorodriguez4318]

franisco rodriguez franisco rodriguez Hace 1 segundo It is not subtitled Spanish Carl Sagan Christmas Lectures 2, about the outer solar system and life

[@singlesideman]

Because this is what you put in your Christmas stocking...

[@derekbaugh6360]

What did he mean at 6:02 when he said that that is not the way a greenhouse works?

[@FirstLast-fr4hb]

green houses are also fairly air tight, the atmosphere blows all over the place and has osmosis. Though I am not sure what exactly he meant, I am curious also.

[@2fast2block]

Who cares what the dumbass said then? He's dumb. Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the dumbass, "It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a vomit bag or trash can nearby for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, foolish person he was. Now, Carl the dumbass NEVER can get around these laws and what the lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet the buffoon thinks creation happened naturally, but the idiot says, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" as the crap-for-brains ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still the fool who ignores the laws farted out, "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as dumb as he is. So in his way of foolish thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan the dumbass will at some point face his Maker for his judgment of what he believed in this life. His extreme shame and regret was all his choice. He wanted to be a hypocritical dumbass. Then he'll be thrown into the lake of fire. It will be his 'The End' and be remembered no more. ALL his choice and for others who follow that fool.

[@2fast2block]

@@xopha I'm so sorry. Let me apologize by saying if you don't like it, shove it up your ass.

[@2fast2block]

@TheRenaissanceman65 I know, you don't like looking like the clown you are. Sorry, I have to expose you bozos.

[@Jojikiba]

In a greenhouse, the walls (plastic) stop the heat from escaping. But in the greenhouse effect on Venus, it is carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that traps the heat. I guess that is the difference he was talking about.

[@billy-joe4398]

"Lol" he says at 47:30 , that man's a genius

[@2fast2block]

He's stupid like you. Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the dumbass, "It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a vomit bag or trash can nearby for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, foolish person he was. Now, Carl the dumbass NEVER can get around these laws and what the lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet the buffoon thinks creation happened naturally, but the idiot says, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" as the crap-for-brains ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still the fool who ignores the laws farted out, "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as dumb as he is. So in his way of foolish thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan the dumbass will at some point face his Maker for his judgment of what he believed in this life. His extreme shame and regret was all his choice. He wanted to be a hypocritical dumbass. Then he'll be thrown into the lake of fire. It will be his 'The End' and be remembered no more. ALL his choice and for others who follow that fool.

[@vanillagorilla8438]

35:21-35:26 LMFAO!

[@ElCholoDeJolo]

XD yep!

[@notsure6187]

lmao.

[@stevencoardvenice]

Sagan was gangsta

[@an4ximander]

17:55 So in english its ok to say "mars is half the size of the earth" when mars has just half the diameter? A sphere with half the diameter of another sphere has 1/8 the volume and 1/4 of the surface. So for me mars has 1/8 the size of the earth.(If you draw a dice and then draw another dice with half the length then it would fit 8 times in the first dice.Same thing for spheres )

[@billbob7720]

an4ximander “size” can mean many different things....if you think of “size” as straight across from one point to another then yes Mars is about half...of you think of “size” as volume...then no Mars is less then 20% of the earth I believe...mass is around 10% of earth...so it just depends what you mean by size and he was just talking about left to right point to point

[@MacinteuchPlus]

Carl Sagan was just making the idea easy to digest for the young people there

[@2fast2block]

@@MacinteuchPlus No, he was a clown as I showed.

[@MacinteuchPlus]

@@2fast2block you showed fuck all lmao

[@2fast2block]

@@MacinteuchPlus actually, I showed science and you can't get around it, obviously. Any other useless comments you'd like to make?

[@DrDeuteron]

I put five s/c on mars and never heard of cirtus major.

[@AngryNotSoOldHippy]

Barsoom!

[@leeshackelford7517]

I have a set of hardback illustrated by Frazetta...reread many times

[@DrDeuteron]

Jupiter has 92 moons rn.

[@johnnndoeee674]

To be given this stage ,is not given lightly,

[@2fast2block]

Then it only goes to dumbasses. Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the dumbass, "It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a vomit bag or trash can nearby for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, foolish person he was. Now, Carl the dumbass NEVER can get around these laws and what the lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet the buffoon thinks creation happened naturally, but the idiot says, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" as the crap-for-brains ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still the fool who ignores the laws farted out, "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as dumb as he is. So in his way of foolish thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan the dumbass will at some point face his Maker for his judgment of what he believed in this life. His extreme shame and regret was all his choice. He wanted to be a hypocritical dumbass. Then he'll be thrown into the lake of fire. It will be his 'The End' and be remembered no more. ALL his choice and for others who follow that fool.

[@skywolf2012]

77 BABY 🇺🇸😷

[@Ana_crusis]

he uses the word 'overcast' as a noun, rather than an adjective

[@morganmitchell4017]

overcast is also a noun

[@Ana_crusis]

Apparently , but I've never seen it used as a noun before. For me it is an adjective. I'd say it isn't used in Britain as a noun.

[@morganmitchell4017]

No, which is fair.

[@Ana_crusis]

eh?

[@CeciliaAbreuTeixeira]

light beutys want 3

[@CeciliaAbreuTeixeira]

want 3,with u and beautys. yes

[@donnysandley6977]

I can't believe how much I love the soup that we are born in 💘🤩 shot through the heart you're too lame you gave Love a bad name ✨💥💯

[@whirledpeas3477]

Why does it take Carl so long to say something 🤔