Share Video
Download Video: Click Here (save as ***.flv) | Real Player or any FLV Player Required
Permalink:
Embed Code:
Bookmark
StrongAgnostic1 Says:
Oct 11, 2009 - Carl Sagan was also an agnostic.
StrongAgnostic1 Says:
Oct 11, 2009 - Dr. Tyson is an agnostic and also a physicist. He works with truth, not belief. That's why he said he didn't care. If people are ignorant, remove the ignorance via education and the diffusion of scientific information. Don't take an emotional stance and claim that all religious individuals are idiots. Do something about it and educate as opposed to telling us how you feel. He doesn't have time to dispute religious claims about the afterlife or Jesus.
fctchk Says:
Oct 14, 2009 - The resurrection is a truth claim. Believed by millions to be true. For it to be true a spectacular suspension of the laws of physics would had to have taken place. A genuine response of a scientist , especially a physicist, facing this question would not be "I don't care". The most scientifically accurate response would be "I don't know, but I do know it would require suspending the laws of physics so the likelihood of it being true is as close to zero as we have gotten to 0° Kelvin"
gobuddyboy Says:
Oct 15, 2009 - these dumb fucks think they got all the answers. Dawkins is an idiot.
equallyeasilyfuqyou Says:
Oct 18, 2009 - i don't think tyson likes richard dawkins
lapkine77 Says:
Oct 21, 2009 - Mister Tyson is teh shit. He blasts the hell out of ignorance with comical and witty comments and statements. He's awesome ! Also : he has been elected sexiest astrophysicist on the planet : in other words, he OWNS :D
alphakristjan Says:
Oct 22, 2009 - Omg , yeah .
Alphonzen Says:
Oct 23, 2009 - What Ken wilber-esque bullshit.
hyperseauton Says:
Oct 23, 2009 - Peace to you. Ask yourself why science needs your defense if it is the answer to all our questions.
Alphonzen Says:
Oct 23, 2009 - It can't answer alot of questions. But you shouldn't readily accept anything from anyone who says that they do have all the answers. Go and search Tony Parsons- hes much better than ken wilber.
hyperseauton Says:
Oct 23, 2009 - thanks. Will check out Tony Parsons. loose the "much" if you actually want to convince me you are not just trying to get me to defend Wilber and turn the table on me and still defend your initial structures.
Alphonzen Says:
Oct 23, 2009 - You're right. The "much better" part was very silly on my part. I should have said that whilst Ken Wilber fulfilled an emotional-spiritual gap inherent in science- It very quickly became another conceptual and hollow structure. If there is wonder and majesty in life- I don't need to do a thing for it to be realised. This includes meditation, therapy, books etc.
stupidtreehugger Says:
Oct 24, 2009 - ctravis0128, Creationists worthy of the name use the same peer reviewed evidence Evolutionists do, and the peer reviewed published papers the Evolutionists would rather not mention. Your comment merely repeats propaganda: if you want to know a point of view you need to study those that hold it well, not those that hold it badly, and especially not those that oppose it.
stupidtreehugger Says:
Oct 24, 2009 - And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail has God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith (Ecc 1:13).
stupidtreehugger Says:
Oct 24, 2009 - Correct. Full marks. What was the question you were answering? Listen mighty dufus: YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM OF HOMOCHIRALITY EVEN IS. Never mind what a naturalistic solution to it might look like. So shut up SHUT UP all you pontificating amoeba brains and go LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT THE DECREPITUDE OF YOUR OWN SUMMATIONS before you vaunt yourselves as being purveyors of truth
jjukil Says:
Oct 24, 2009 - You don't see how quoting the bible to nonbelievers is meaningless?
mfunke Says:
Oct 25, 2009 - There isn't such thing as evolutionists. There are those who take science seriously and those who don't. Creationists don't. They take their version of the origin of everything seriously (the bible, quran or whatever) and use the "science" to pretend to prove it. And they publish it on "peer reviewed" papers that are not peer reviewed.
TheDudeAbidesNoMore Says:
Oct 26, 2009 - We know that humans have been mulling around for at least 200,000 years which means that the God who would have to be 11.7 billion universe years old wasn't all that affected by all of the terrible things that went on the first 198,000 years. It was only 2000 years ago that God was finally moved to send a son to earth. Does that sound logical?
TheFunkyBuddhaa Says:
Oct 28, 2009 - i only want to talk to u non-aggressively. Think maybe science can evolve with religion, be cause such readings as the bible were written by man maybe man never knew. Evolve, use the brain god gave you and think i believe in my theory that god started the big bang giving us life but that is my spiritual belief you have been programmed to do that. Just please think of this rationally, what you are saying is simple belief i want you realize wat religion really is and wat science is.
polymath7 Says:
Nov 4, 2009 - Don't be so harsh on Ann Druyan -she definitely is not at her best here.
MakeshiftEstablished Says:
Nov 8, 2009 - That is very interesting the almost disdain and disinterest the rest of the panelists show Ann.
MindAndMarzipan Says:
Nov 8, 2009 - Ummmm That WOMEN is Ann Druyan. She wrote much of the beautiful things attributed to Carl Sagan. She is obviously ill in this video.
halonone Says:
Nov 12, 2009 - Except that your belief goes against the Bible AND science, so it kind of sticks you nowhere. If a being wanted to create life, there are so many better ways it could have been done. If a human can figure that out, surely a god could have.
AlbertoAntonio6 Says:
Nov 24, 2009 - They're just jealous cause she got to bump ugly's with Carl Sagan.
StrongAgnostic1 Says:
Oct 11, 2009 - Dr. Tyson is an agnostic and a physicist for a reason. He understands pure totalities in cosmology and the limits of human perceptions. You cannot know anything about the cosmogeny of eleven-dimensional hyperspace, so why posit a belief when the suspension of judgment is rational?