We’re Made of Star Stuff

The Discovery Channel’s How the Universe Works does its take on the old Carl Sagan quote, plus considers the end of the “Age of Stars.” Appropriately, it’s a star studded clip: Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku, Phil Plait and others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u8eNy1w9y5Q#!

From The Kid Should See This

What is Love? Baby Don't Hurt Me ...
Forbidden Knowledge
Historical vs. Observational Science
Editing Memories
  • UrsaMinor

    I just don’t understand people who think that religious myths are more profound and awe-inspiring than the real universe.

    • trj

      I think many find the universe just too overwhelming, so they find comfort in thinking there’s a plan and a purpose for it (since, mainly for emotional reasons, they won’t accept the alternative: that we’re entirely left to our own devices). So their awe is directed less at the natural phenomena and more at their deity of choice who created and directs all of it just for us puny humans. To think that God created an entire universe just for us; isn’t that awe-inspiring? And if the universe is awesome, just think how much more awesome the god who created it must be.

  • Theory_of_I

    Because they are taught that if they look out upon the star fields they should see only the face of god, all those damn twinklies are just distracting.

  • Jack

    … Why couldn’t it have been ‘God’ who caused the stars to do this? Who says God didn’t use the physics of astronomy, or the like, to undergo the creation of the world or man?

    People forget that science’s handicap is that it can not actually tell us about what happened long ago. Science is built on observations and science can not observe what happened x years ago. The theory of evolution, for example, makes many good possibilities and points based on what we know about the universe *now*. Remember, it’s based of of countless assumptions. It is no less ridiculous than believing an almighty being was there to create all of it.

    Dr. Krauss, and others, *who* or *what* created the stars in order to create us?

    • trj

      I love how your argument is basically “Believing in an almighty Creator is ridiculous, but so is your scientific explanation”. And also your complete disregard of the whole concept of historical evidence.

      Jack, *who* or *what* created the Creator in order to create us?

    • Kodie

      It is no less ridiculous than believing an almighty being was there to create all of it.

      You mean a scientific explanation is as ridiculous, or more ridiculous, but not less ridiculous, than believing a magic invisible man decided to make an art?

      • Elizabeth

        Faith isn’t about an “invisible man.” And science doesn’t have the answers to how or why the universe was made and / or how it fits into an even larger picture. We have no idea where this universe is. So “science” is infinitely limited.
        But many humans have had spiritual experiences that prove there is something else… unseen… a force behind our senses and limited human knowledge, and those personal experiences that multitudes have had are just as, if not more real, than a measuring device.

        • Troutbane

          “But many humans have had spiritual experiences that prove there is something else… unseen… a force behind our senses and limited human knowledge, and those personal experiences that multitudes have had are just as, if not more real, than a measuring device.”

          No, all that proves is that people have an experience that they themselves consider extraordinary. They can chalk it up to “God” but it doesn’t prove there is a or any Gods and it sure as heck doesn’t enforce any one particular religion’s claims.
          For example, some people have heard their pets talking to them, see other people as demons, or feel an incredible urge to slay evil beings and drink their blood. We could chalk this up to the supernatural OR we might wonder if those people are schizophrenic or mentally delusional.
          Science is about proving stuff using repeatable observable claims. Science is the opposite of inerrant belief because if you can sufficiently prove a scientific claim as being inaccurate or even wrong, science (over time) HAS to accept this and move on. It is always changing and fixing itself to come to a better understanding of the universe. Belief in a (or several) God(s) is the opposite of this.

  • Chris

    …or nuclear waste, as Hitchens pointed out.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X