I really thought this sponsor was a joke, the name alone is already a weird choice, but then this organic anti-GMO bs is making it even more out of place on a science channel, that's like the flat earth of food
I know you need that bag but this sponsor is not it and out of place on your channel. It reeks of crystal healing raw milk adjaceny and what is wrong with decaf coffee?
What’s more, they love to use Satanism as the worst example, but in their own lore, Satan is the first rebel in history, and he got cast out of Heaven for his troubles yes, but he also got kicked out of the place where all the religious idiots think they’re going. Also a lot of modern satanism is about freedom of choice and expression and putting yourself up on a pedestal and not God or Satan, because at the end of the day, you’re your only hope in the world.
It's pure _God Of The Gaps_ territory, and poor Hans' gaps are wider than most and in some cases apparently self-amplifying. I'm reasonably sure, for instance, that he was not taught in elementary school that _all_ light is from dead stars. If he was then he should be pitied and his teacher, if not retired already, should be encouraged to do so immediately. More likely he's misremembered and that, and similar errors, have coloured his thinking and output ever since. Well, that or the pseudo-celebrity and income he no doubt generates from his content creation. Having just looked at some of his output, I'm leaning toward the latter. Nobody can possibly, truly believe _all_ that guff. Can they?
Ricky Gervais said it well, “burn all the books religious and scientific, wait and the science books will come back exactly the same, the religious books will be different “
@@SpyroTek Only religions in the same region. Compare the Quran, Torah and the Bible - all from the same region - with religions in China (Buddhism, Taoism) or India's Hinduism, or the Australian Aboriginal religion and mythology (Rainbow Snakes). Completely different lore. The only thing all religions have in common is some sort of super creature, more powerful than humans, that control things.
Perefect logic: "The universe cannot have always existed it must have had a creator" "And where did this Creator come from?" "Oh, he has always existed!"
@@BrettVanWey1 If there was nothing there in the first place to create the Big Bang, then the Big Bang could not have happened. How do you explain that? God is outside normal space/time and only those of us who follow and believe in him will know the truth in the future. There is no scientific evidence to support evolution as having created everything we see on the Earth.
@@GAM3RFORLIF3-007 He sounded like he has more of a problem with math than science. You have a formula. You plug in the numbers you know. From there you calculate the numbers you don't know. I'm not sure why it's a problem if the answer is 9.8?
Buoyancy Theory... the weight of an object equals the weight of the fluid it displaces, because the buoyant force of a fluid equals the gravitaional force an object exerts against the fluid. You know... how for every action there is an opposite & equal reaction, & what not? Ahhh.... the 3rd Law of Motion applies, even here. Amazing how universal they are. Feel free to cut & paste this for all flerfs you encounter.
"you never question that value don't you?!" No I don't, because in school, my teacher did an experiment involving dropping stuff from tall places, and a stopwatch. It's literally grade-school knowledge that you can prove.
@@SeanCrosseryup, I remember using ticker tape attached to something thrown off the school roof - we then measured the gap between the dots and came up with a value close to 9.8m/s^2
@@SeanCrosser It was paper strips and electric timers for me: Drop a weight attached to a paper strip looped through a 50hz timer, measure the distance between the little dots, do the math... QED! 6th grade, if I remember correctly. :)
I'm American we were not taught that all the stars were long dead we were told that some of the stars in the sky we see could have already died but we haven't received the light from him yet
And the stars that we can see with the naked eye are very close, most within a few dozen light years and the farthest, V762 Cas, being 75,000 light years away. The furthest stars (plural) that can normally be seen are those of the Andromeda galaxy, 2.5 million light years away, though at that distance the human eye can't differentiate individual stars. Stellar lifetimes range from several million to several trillion years (our sun will live for about 10 billion years in total). Long story short, for all intents and purposes all stars that can be seen with the naked eye still exist.
And the stars that we can see without a telescope are very close, most within a few dozen light years and the farthest, V762 Cas, being 75,000 light years away. The furthest stars (plural) that can normally be seen are those of the Andromeda galaxy, 2.5 million light years away, though at that distance the human eye can't differentiate individual stars. Stellar lifetimes range from several million to several trillion years (our sun will live for about 10 billion years in total). Long story short, for all intents and purposes all stars that can be seen with our eyes still exist.
And the stars that we can see without a telescope are very close, most within a few dozen light years and the farthest, V762 Cas, being 75,000 light years away. The furthest stars (plural) that can normally be seen are those of the Andromeda galaxy, 2.5 million light years away, though at that distance the human eye can't differentiate individual stars. Stellar lifetimes range from several million to several trillion years (our sun will live for about 10 billion years in total). Long story short, for all intents and purposes all stars that can be seen with our eyes still exist.
And the stars that we can see without a telescope are very close, most within a few dozen light years and the farthest, V762 Cas, being 75,000 light years away. The furthest stars (plural) that can normally be seen are those of the Andromeda galaxy, 2.5 million light years away, though at that distance the human eye can't differentiate individual stars.
Stellar lifetimes range from several million to several trillion years (our sun will live for about 10 billion years in total). Long story short, for all intents and purposes all stars that can be seen with our eyes still exist.
Science isn't a religion because it doesn't tell you who to hate, it just says "here's our best explanation for how the world works, we'll update you when we have more data."
Devil's advocate (pun unintended), that's actually part of the purpose of religion and mythology as well, just without all the baggage of actual proof to go with it. All the hate comes along with the 'practical application' of it, and the 'us vs. them' mentality.
@@VulpisFoxfire I've never heard a religious person say "here's our best explanation for how the world works, we'll update you when we have more data." They either say "dunno, I'll leave that bit to science". or "Burn the Witch!"
Loved this as a kid. The CBC would come on saying NORAD had spotted something in the north moving at high speed and had scrambled planes to investigate. Then they confirmed it was Santa and gave tracking information. Added so much to the magic of it.
I am sure I will get roasted. I am a Theist. I do still subscribe to the notion that a God 10 dimensions above our level of understanding COULD have created everything. I am an agnostic theist to be honest, but I will not take away intelligence until it is totally disproved.... which is also science.
It's always funny to me when religious people try to demean science by calling it a religion, because they're effectively saying it is undesriable for something to be a religion (otherwise it wouldn't be demeaning to science to be called a religion)
I think it comes from the their view on other religions (as in the sin of believing in the wrong religion). They need to get science on the same playing field of other religions to denounce it as a sinful belief.
And thanks to the vagaries of language, in English some 'why' questions are really 'how' questions. Think of the classic small child's question. "Why is the sky blue, Daddy?" "Because of Rayleigh scattering, which I'll explain properly to you when you're older. For now, though, you can just think of the sky being blue because of sunlight."
Science can study "why" questions insofar as they can be the answer to a falsifiable hypothesis. Why do the stars appear to twinkle as seen from earth? Hypothesis: due to changing air density in the atmosphere. Tested. Proved. It could have been some other reason (their light pulsates, for instance) but they have been disproved.
Our limited understanding came first. When our ancestors began asking who, what, when, where, why, and how, their only tools were their senses and their minds. Using what they observed and experienced, they created explanations for their lives and the world. Nowadays, we still want to know why because we feel that there should be a 'why' even when we have no chance of finding it out.
It always intrigues me when certain people (the religious) call atheists and science a religion. The religious are using the word "religion" as a pejorative without any hint of irony.
atheism is a religion - it is a set of beliefs that a person uses as the basis for their personal philosophy on life. science is a method. it is a framework a person uses to confirm basic facts about the world around them
@@kenbrown2808You fail reading at a third grade level. "Not a thing" is very much NOT identical to "a thing". Atheism is the lack of belief in any god. That's it. It contains zero beliefs. Lack of belief ≠ a set of beliefs.
@@kenbrown2808is it tho? It’s not a belief at all, atheists don’t believe in any deities whatsoever because there’s zero proof for any of them. It’s not our belief there’s no god, it’s a fact that there’s zero proof for any of them. You should google what atheism means.
Atheism is a religion? What system of faith do they prescribe? To whom do they pray? Whom do they worship? What rituals do they perform, and on which days? What are their Holy days? Etc...
@@leif12345 A flat Earther told me it's cables running under the ground. He also was always spouting on about "sciencism" (unsure how to spell that) yet had treatment, and cure for a rather nasty skin complaint (either malignant or pre-malignant) prescribed by doctors (who are in effect scientists) Sorry about my overuse of brackets!
@@leif12345 balloons! its always damned balloons. Just remind them the gps data format is public and consists of _orbital_ elements which rules out balloons, drones, masts etc.
These people (mostly flat earthers) think it should be really simple for an individual to test and verify every scientific claim since the beginning of human history.
That's EXACTLY what he said with the Hubble telescope. We common people cannot corroborate, so is not science. So, how back on time we should go to have real science? 1600s? I am quite sure while Galileo was looking at Jupiter, a farmer in Norwich wasn't able to corroborate. Fun fact: religion and corroboration together is madness.
"I used to follow science like a religion." Well that's weird because science doesn't follow science like a religion. It full on questions and doubts itself at all times and tries to disprove itself as that way it can become more certain of what it says, or it realises it was wrong and now seeks to correct itself.
In fact, we hope to discover new information that shows we are wrong. Something new and exciting to learn. We all know how happy religious people get when they learn something in their holy book doesn't match observation.
You believe in the Big Bang. You believe an asteroid destroyed the dinosaurs. You believe in black holes. Why? Did you discover these things or do you just believe it because everyone else does? Can you find these factoids complete with their proof of origin? Or is it all just belief?
What does ‘science’ say about the seasons and how does it explain the striking differences between the flora/fauna and average winter temperature between the southernmost territories and their ‘northern’ counterparts? Punta Arenas is as far from the equator as the Midlands or northern Germany is, yet one is almost uninhabitable with very few variety in ani las and the plants, while areas in the north just as far from the equator are significantly richer. What explains the rapid sunsets and sunrises in the south? I have an Astronomy and astrophysics textbook by Charma and Shandra that dedicates one short paragraph and nothing more than a short statement to the seasons, failing to explain any of these valid questions.
@@ComeJesusChrist It seems you are looking in the wrong science book to understand the questions you have about climate and flora and fauna. Science is vast and has many fields of specialisations (astronomy, biology, geography) and those fields often intersect with each other. So I’m not surprised a book about astronomy and astrophysics doesn’t go into details about seasons, flora and fauna on Earth. (I searched for the book by the authors you mentioned but couldn’t find it so unless you give a specific title it would be difficult to do so.) To answer your question about seasons, and flora and fauna - that’s a lot to cover and I’m no expert but I’ll mention some of the things here. Seasons are caused by the tilt of the earth as it moves around the sun. On top of that other factors can impact climate and weather such as ocean currents, wind patterns, the land topology (geography). We understand the relationship between the thing and that why we have the ability to accurately predict weather. Climate can impact flora and fauna and different species will adapt over time to occupy niches within the ecosystem (biology). Surprisingly, plate tectonics (geology) also explains the difference in species in some areas - see the Wallace Line. Not sure if that’s what you are after but hope it’s a start.
@@ComeJesusChrist "What does ‘science’ say about the seasons" Are you serious?!? Usually this is explained in elementary school, how did you manage to miss that?!? The seasons are mainly caused by the changing angle of Earth's axis with respect to the sun during its revolution around the sun, which causes the angle of the incident light to change. "how does it explain the striking differences between the flora/fauna and average winter temperature between the southernmost territories and their ‘northern’ counterparts" Try looking into some science textbooks on geology and climatology, or into some more textbooks on astronomy (but the latter ones do not deal much with the climate of the Earth). The main explanation is ocean currents, which themselves are caused by a combination of the different land masses in the north and the south, and the Coriolis effect.
@@scooterjackal You are writing many words, but you are not saying anything. Surely, in the heliocentric globe circus, it wouldn’t matter whether it’s the ‘north’ or ‘south’, the climate should be the same as their counterparts on the other side side of the imaginary ball.
@@ComeJesusChristDude,really? Scooter gave you a pretty good layman’s explanation. The words definitely gave real info. The earth being a globe is not imaginary. Good frickin’ grief. Welcome to this century….
I would rebut his statement with the names of many religious people who are scientists. As the product of science degrees from a couple of Catholic colleges, I have personally known several priests who were scientists ("were" because it was several decades ago, and most, if not all, have likely passed away or at least retired). But I suspect Hans also believes that Catholics are Satanists.
He definitely wasn't taught that in elementary school he wasn't paying attention when they said SOME of the stars are burned out already and it takes that long for the light to get here
How would you know? In a physics lecture in university, they said, that scuba divers don´t use pure oxigen, because they are afraid to burn. Diving wasn´t their field and they just said nonsense, which they either made up themselfes to make sense of it or they repeated something they heard somewhere. I could add more examples. So, why would you assume, that such mistakes don´t happen in elementary school?
@@martinhuhn7813Well if you “believed” that you failed. You should not have accepted a call to authority as your evidence for the scuba example. Upon hearing something that does not make sense ask for the proofs. This is science.
@@martinhuhn7813 Your example is pretty bad considering the teacher should teach in their respective fields. Even if they didn't you shouldn't take it at face value if you are taught something outside their expertise. Even kids knows to be skeptical of what a teacher says if they don't teach the subject. I know, I am a teacher myself and my pupils are hesitant to ask me geography questions even if I teach them biology, physics and chemistry. It is only when I tell them that I also teach geography that they value my insights on the field. That being said. Your professors were stupid. Even if it wasn't their field, that conclusion is not something one should arrive at.
If the apple falls because of bouancy, why doesn't it fall upwards or sideways? Why does the Apple always fall towards the (center of the) Earth? Even if you go by density, the air gets less dense the higher it is. So.. the Apple should then ALWAYS fall up. But it never does.
Yeah or like when the say "It goes to to the ground because it's the closest dense object"... if you are standing inside & hold your arm up then drop an object it should go to the ceiling because it is closer than the floor
Yup. Religion denies being proven wrong. The core of science is *challenging* people to prove you wrong, so you can figure out where the error is, and fix it.
I can imagine this guy at a pet shop holding a picture of a swordfish, looking at the goldfish tank and saying, "This is what they told us fish looked like in school. How come these fish look so different?"
@@irrelevant_noob I think you're correct. I've watched videos on airships, such as R-101, and believe "loss of buoyancy" is the term used when the gas bag tears and starts leaking hydrogen. As long as the object weighs less than the mount of fluid/gas it displaces it is considered buoyant?
G isn't 9.81. That is a nominal figure, in a vacuum, near the surface of a perfect sphere. The actual figure depends where you are. So why is the number different when I'm up a mountain, or when I get nearer to the equator? Surely gravity should be the same everywhere on his flat god pancake? I can assure him that the air above the apple tree is slightly less dense than the air below it, so the apple should fall slowly upwards into the less dense atmosphere above according to biblical based buoyancy theory. There should be apples drifting all over the place, depending on weather conditions according to him.
that just mean that you like science , but do not aknowledge its achievements. same way I like polytheist religions, but will never acknoledge them, they are just interesting to study.
@ryushenron9865 what makes you assume I do not acknowledge the achievements of the science world? Of course I do. Science explains how things work doesn't mean I can't have my faith as well. In my personal view I see a connection to the two and makes me love them both.
The stars being long gone was never taught. The possibility of one star being gone a long time ago, and not knowing, is what is taught. He is miss-remembering.
I love how pseudoscience lovers immediately equate practical technology to ideological fairy-tale beliefs like big bang, evolution, dark matter, black holes and so on. That's how they trap themselves into religious thinking.
@@VulpisFoxfire Yes, Scientology stole the word science to try and lend themselves credibility, as they manipulated their cult victims, stole all their savings and made them slaves.
The nonsense claim that gravity is merely buoyancy is so easy to disprove. If that was true then why would things still fall in a vacuum? If you have a vacuum chamber and drop objects in it they will still fall, often times even faster since the air isn't in the way. I'd like to see the people who make this claim answer that question.
At 7:00, I strongly doubt any of his science teachers told him all the stars are long gone, or dead. He simply didn't understand what he was told. Someone likely told him the light we received was emitted a long time ago. He shouldn't confuse his lack of understanding with a claim made by others. Even in the life time of my parents (born 1920's), no one ever made the claim he is making.
There's his problem right there. You don't experiment to prove yourself right, you do it to test your hypothesis, if the results agree you have a theory.
I always wonder how they cross a busy road? A short prayer, close their eyes and walk (belief) or look both directions and cross if there is no traffic (science)?
@@Pete_R63 You can cast most reasoning problems in terms of practical issues such as crossing the road or putting food in your mouth. It can be an effective way of getting people to think about errors in logic, or in procedure or assumption, especially if you follow a failure up with a question on how that would translate into them teaching a child.
Never understood religious peoples aversion to science. Like if you believe in god, you believed god created everything. Therefore, science is us exploring what god made and how it works and naming it
The way he says; "I used to follow it like a religion. Believe things against better judgement, that don't have proof for it.... " ..... Yeah, he absolutely does not understand how science works.
If you are being serious they would be right. A star that is visible could have indeed died long ago due to the speed of information being limited. Betelgeuse for example could have already gone supernova and we don't see it yet because the light has yet to reach us.
@@do_research to add to the above. He likely wasn't paying attention in class. By the evidence of the video he posted, he was likely praying during the lecture, instead of paying attention.
some people hear things very differently, i was taught about how "some" stars could be long dead, hans's problem is he hears almost everything differently, i would bet he gets stories from the bible wrong.
@@Essex121514lol "he was likely praying during the lecture, instead of paying attention". Agreed. Also praying is a waste of time since an all knowing God would know what you are going to pray about before even doing it. Nothing but contradictions and Bible verse reciting. Can't take them seriously
If you adhere to a religion you take it on faith that you're on the correct path. So for the lay-person who can't / doesn't understand a scientific concept would they not have to have faith that scientistic weren't leading them astray?
@@CrypidLore- Science changes over time, using evidence. Scientists can be assholes, but eventually all but the most stubborn come around when the new models prove to be more accurate than the old ones. That's why we no longer blame diseases on bad smells (yes, that was a thing) or teach the phlogiston theory or that women's uteruses float around inside our bodies. And how we know the Earth is an oblate spheroid and not the center of the Universe. Religion gets into fights and then splinters because too many are locked into being the One True Way. Or changes just sort of happen as times change. Sometimes a combination of both.
If all records and memory of religion and science were erased, given enough time, all science would be recreated just as it is, but none of the religions would, it would be all new religions
He's "fine with" saying god did it. Meaning, he doesn't know how god did it because there is no factual evidence on how. Yet, he's not fine with the factually based scientific reasoning. He says science is a "lie", and not the bible, which still as yet is not proven to be factually correct at all.
You can literally find the explanation of why G = 9.8m/s by typing it on google. Religion is like a blindfold to these people: if it isn't in their bible, it isn't true, and they won't believe it no matter how many times we explain it to them or PROVE it to them.
'if it isn't in their bible, it isn't true' oh boy, this brought back a memory of an old girlfriend who was a religious nutter. I was watching some TV show about UFOs, Bigfoot and other strange phenomena. She happened to be passing through the room just as they said that Bigfoot could be a link to man a million years ago (or something like that) and she stopped and said, that that couldn't be true, the earth wasn't here a million years ago since the Bible says it is only 6000 years old. Later, she walked through as they were talking about aliens and she said that they couldn't be real because 'she would have read about them in the Bible.' I'm so glad I got out of that relationship.
@@Pete_R63 Can we assume her religious beliefs didn't extend to the rules on chastity, remaining silent & respectful, not being in the presence of an unrelated man without a chaperone then?
@@memkiii That assumption would indeed be correct. Oh, the stories I could tell but I am still trying to repress those memories from 3 decades ago. Cheers
Religeon is belief; Science is skeptisism. Religeon says, "Trust the word of God". Science says, "I won't believe it until its proven under scientific methods. . . then I still won't believe it until the majority of my peers agree with it. . . even then it will still be considered just a theory so that future generations have a chance to disprove it with future scentific methods.
...you do realize that a scientific theory and the colloquial usage of the word theory are not synonymous, right? To say a scientific theory is "just a theory" is rather dim, as a scientific theory is pretty much a proven fact, whereas when a person uses the word theory in common parlance what they mean is "hypothesis", or "guess". A scientific theory started out as a hypothesis then was tested again and again in a number of ways by many scientists in laboratory conditions who all came to the same conclusion through experimentation. A scientific theory is basically fact. A colloquial theory is basically a guess.
@@FilipCordas Replace "proven" in the above with either or both of "confirmed" or "demonstrated". And science absolutely can and does falsify things. For example, the discovery in 1697 of black swans on the Swan River in Australia falsified forever the then prevailing hypothesis that all swans were white. Similarly, the discovery of Neptune confirmed Newton's theory of gravity but its failure to explain the observed precession of the perihelion of Mercury falsified it near a sufficiently large mass (in this case, the Sun). Whereas Einstein's theory of General Relativity is confirmed by the the fact that it does explain the same observations, as well as by the observation of the bending of light around the sun (first seen during the total eclipse of 1919) and the phenomenon of gravitational redshift. If you use a sat nav you are also confirming GR (or at least Special Relativity) because GPS corrects for time dilation (the effect that moving clocks - in this case, on the satellites - run slow) by an accumulating 7 miles per day.
Brushing off all of science as "just a religion" is legit so degrading and disrespectful to actual religions that it boarders on parody. What a complete joke. I'm saying this as an atheist btw.
"because god made the world in a way that makes sense" It makes sense because he was born in it and learnt how the world works living in the environment...
4:26 Science is about how something happens, science does not assume that there was a why. Why is an assumption, you are assuming there had to be a reason why?
A lot of people cannot cope if they think there is no reason for things. Think how popular fate and the 'everything happens for a reason' discourse is.
Was that a Rudolph reference from Dan? Calling Han’s the “greatest conspiracy theorist of all” in the same sense as Rudolph being the greatest reindeer of all time
"It's just mocked up images, and not science". He demands that we prove our claims, while at the same time not being able to provide any proof of his own...
I really thought this sponsor was a joke, the name alone is already a weird choice, but then this organic anti-GMO bs is making it even more out of place on a science channel, that's like the flat earth of food
I was thinking the same thing. I bet there isn't a ton of evidence to back up the claims regarding those mushrooms. These kinds of products are just overpriced BS. If a caffeine crash is a problem for you, you could just drink less caffeine. Tea has less caffeine. It certainly wouldn't be out of place for a Brit to drink tea. I have Finnish ancestry. So I have no intention of giving up my coffee. I just switch to a dark roast later in the day since it has less caffeine.
It is pretty disappointing to see a science channel push absolute wankery. But then I try and remember what BoyBoy said. Which was something along the lines of, no matter what we tell you to buy, just ignore it because it's all crap and we have to have sponsors. That was heavily paraphrased.
The irony of it all is that Hans directly defies the Creator he loves. Psalms 147.4 "He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names."
Didn't any flat earthers take science courses and do their own experiments? Did any of them go to college and take some science courses there? I had to. And we had to actually DO the stuff.
Same lack of education they show every time, they honestly believe science is just make stuff up, write it in a book then students just learn it. Like we were all just given the “Bumper Book of Science”. They just don’t get I know the laws of physics to be true because at university I did experiments and saw the results and proved them to be true myself. Higher learning isn’t just a memory test of scientific facts, you understand at a base level by experimenting and proving for yourself. They just don’t get that and it shows they are of very limited education.
As someone that believes in God, I can accept that He created it the way it is. He created everything working the way science has come to discover. The ultimate engineering feat. The Earth is spherical in general. Gravity is a force of mass (roughly speaking). And we can see the light of stars millions of light-years away. The problem with Hans and many like him is that they have to limit what God can create to what they can comprehend, so they can feel comfortable with themselves.
you believe in a god that is a liar? Science has refuted most of what is said in the bible, it is impossible to say you believe in god and its word, the bible, and say you believe in science. both are contradictory.
@ryushenron9865 not at all. There are in fact a lot of scientists that believe in a god. And I don't expect you to believe and am not trying to convince you to. I hope you enjoy your New Year
I'm not religious, so correct me if I'm wrong. Why would god and science be mutually exclusive? If god made the earth it could stand to reason god also created laws of physics. And a myriad other things to keep this creation in existance. Would science, trying to find out how it all fits together, not be a quest to understand god's creation and therfore be an effort in understand god?
@@dwightfitch3120 Oh, really? I don't know you, but if I had to take a plane, I'd prefer it had been designed by aeronautical engineers than by a bunch of uneducated high school dropouts.
Merry Christmas , @scimandan good to know that I can eat as many mince pies as I can, because there is no gravity, so I won’t put on weight! I am only more dense than air😂😂😂😂 I find that argument very convincing 😅😂😂
I used to be a Christian, but I encountered too many fundamentalists like Wormhat on the Internet. I had to bail: no way was i going to allow liars and lunatics to define my reality.
The vast, VAST majority of Christianity (including the Vatican) is perfectly fine with science, including the earth being what it is, a globe. It's fringe parts of mainly American fundemantlist spewing this creationist nonsense
That’s a pretty general statement. Every scientist has probably misunderstood something in science,particularly if it was in another field. Why would you expect otherwise?
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
** Go to mudwtr.com/scimandan to get 15% off your new morning ritual **
I really thought this sponsor was a joke, the name alone is already a weird choice, but then this organic anti-GMO bs is making it even more out of place on a science channel, that's like the flat earth of food
Merry Happy Christmas!
I know you need that bag but this sponsor is not it and out of place on your channel. It reeks of crystal healing raw milk adjaceny and what is wrong with decaf coffee?
Honestly… I don’t think it’s fair to make fun of Hans. He’s clearly deeply mentally unwell.
You're not nearly a good enough actor to convince anybody that bullshit 'health' drink is anything other than disgusting.
"Science is a religion, as as such, it can be dimissed"
Said a religious person.
It's mind boggling
Was thinking the same thing
I think that's why they're trying to reframe religion as a "way of life" or a "relationship" nowadays. 🙄
Did they have a stutter?
What’s more, they love to use Satanism as the worst example, but in their own lore, Satan is the first rebel in history, and he got cast out of Heaven for his troubles yes, but he also got kicked out of the place where all the religious idiots think they’re going.
Also a lot of modern satanism is about freedom of choice and expression and putting yourself up on a pedestal and not God or Satan, because at the end of the day, you’re your only hope in the world.
"Anything I'm too stupid to understand can't be true". That's it in a nutshell.
He's clearly pretty stupid, He sets the bar really low and he keep just limboing under that bar every day
If you're too stupid to understand a scientific concept, would you not have to take it on faith that you're being told the truth?
It is extraordinary how much Hans doesn't understand.
Well.... I'd say it's more "Anything that contradicts what I believe can't be true."
It's pure _God Of The Gaps_ territory, and poor Hans' gaps are wider than most and in some cases apparently self-amplifying. I'm reasonably sure, for instance, that he was not taught in elementary school that _all_ light is from dead stars.
If he was then he should be pitied and his teacher, if not retired already, should be encouraged to do so immediately. More likely he's misremembered and that, and similar errors, have coloured his thinking and output ever since. Well, that or the pseudo-celebrity and income he no doubt generates from his content creation. Having just looked at some of his output, I'm leaning toward the latter. Nobody can possibly, truly believe _all_ that guff. Can they?
Ricky Gervais said it well, “burn all the books religious and scientific, wait and the science books will come back exactly the same, the religious books will be different “
He also said that “being stupid is like being dead, you don’t know, but the people around you do”😊
To be fair the different religious books are pretty similar. Wrong, but similar.
@@SpyroTekthey are all copied from even older religions. Religions are a casserole. 😂
Although he does say that, he is incorrect because religeon is belief based and belief is nessecary to learn.
@@SpyroTek Only religions in the same region. Compare the Quran, Torah and the Bible - all from the same region - with religions in China (Buddhism, Taoism) or India's Hinduism, or the Australian Aboriginal religion and mythology (Rainbow Snakes). Completely different lore.
The only thing all religions have in common is some sort of super creature, more powerful than humans, that control things.
Perefect logic: "The universe cannot have always existed it must have had a creator"
"And where did this Creator come from?"
"Oh, he has always existed!"
Antinomy of reason 😮
It did have a creator, currently the most popular one among physicists is the Big Bang.
@@BrettVanWey1
If there was nothing there in the first place to create the Big Bang, then the Big Bang could not have happened. How do you explain that? God is outside normal space/time and only those of us who follow and believe in him will know the truth in the future.
There is no scientific evidence to support evolution as having created everything we see on the Earth.
Science threatens his cherished beliefs, and he can't deal with the prospect of being wrong.
You do realize the government controls science
And we are all satanists for taking measurements, calculations, formulating tests, observing outcomes.
these people are dangerous
Nothing irritates me more than people who have no clue about science, saying that actual science isn't science.
Tell me about it, this guy irritated me so much. Talking about "they don't know why 9.8" yes "THEY" do you genius
@@GAM3RFORLIF3-007 He sounded like he has more of a problem with math than science. You have a formula. You plug in the numbers you know. From there you calculate the numbers you don't know. I'm not sure why it's a problem if the answer is 9.8?
And usually also claiming supports their beliefs.
Nothing irritates me more than people who have no clue about science saying that it’s true because scientists said so.
@@timefilm cope harder
I love how gravity deniers just go to buoyancy as an explanation when buoyancy is literally caused by gravity. Without gravity, *there is no buoyancy*
Don't forget density too. Which breaks down when you realize that there is no direction in density.
It might be the craziest part of their perspective.
He should know better, being very dense himself...
yeah its like they never heard of a vacuum chamber.
Buoyancy Theory... the weight of an object equals the weight of the fluid it displaces, because the buoyant force of a fluid equals the gravitaional force an object exerts against the fluid.
You know... how for every action there is an opposite & equal reaction, & what not? Ahhh.... the 3rd Law of Motion applies, even here. Amazing how universal they are.
Feel free to cut & paste this for all flerfs you encounter.
Why is “g” equal to 9.81m/s^2. ?
Because that’s what we MEASURE it to be.
What a surprise if it turned up in the next bible!!! Rgr
"you never question that value don't you?!" No I don't, because in school, my teacher did an experiment involving dropping stuff from tall places, and a stopwatch.
It's literally grade-school knowledge that you can prove.
@@SeanCrosseryup, I remember using ticker tape attached to something thrown off the school roof - we then measured the gap between the dots and came up with a value close to 9.8m/s^2
@@SeanCrosser It was paper strips and electric timers for me: Drop a weight attached to a paper strip looped through a 50hz timer, measure the distance between the little dots, do the math... QED! 6th grade, if I remember correctly. :)
@@graydanerasmussen4071 We just threw flat-earthers off the roof, the ones that floated were given 1 million dollars.
I'm American we were not taught that all the stars were long dead we were told that some of the stars in the sky we see could have already died but we haven't received the light from him yet
And the stars that we can see with the naked eye are very close, most within a few dozen light years and the farthest, V762 Cas, being 75,000 light years away. The furthest stars (plural) that can normally be seen are those of the Andromeda galaxy, 2.5 million light years away, though at that distance the human eye can't differentiate individual stars. Stellar lifetimes range from several million to several trillion years (our sun will live for about 10 billion years in total). Long story short, for all intents and purposes all stars that can be seen with the naked eye still exist.
And the stars that we can see without a telescope are very close, most within a few dozen light years and the farthest, V762 Cas, being 75,000 light years away. The furthest stars (plural) that can normally be seen are those of the Andromeda galaxy, 2.5 million light years away, though at that distance the human eye can't differentiate individual stars. Stellar lifetimes range from several million to several trillion years (our sun will live for about 10 billion years in total). Long story short, for all intents and purposes all stars that can be seen with our eyes still exist.
And the stars that we can see without a telescope are very close, most within a few dozen light years and the farthest, V762 Cas, being 75,000 light years away. The furthest stars (plural) that can normally be seen are those of the Andromeda galaxy, 2.5 million light years away, though at that distance the human eye can't differentiate individual stars.
Stellar lifetimes range from several million to several trillion years (our sun will live for about 10 billion years in total). Long story short, for all intents and purposes all stars that can be seen with our eyes still exist.
And the stars that we can see without a telescope are very close, most within a few dozen light years and the farthest, V762 Cas, being 75,000 light years away. The furthest stars (plural) that can normally be seen are those of the Andromeda galaxy, 2.5 million light years away, though at that distance the human eye can't differentiate individual stars.
Stellar lifetimes range from several million to several trillion years (our sun will live for about 10 billion years in total). Long story short, for all intents and purposes all stars that can be seen with our eyes still exist.
These are the consequences of allowing anti-intellectualism to take root in a society.
Science isn't a religion because it doesn't tell you who to hate, it just says "here's our best explanation for how the world works, we'll update you when we have more data."
Devil's advocate (pun unintended), that's actually part of the purpose of religion and mythology as well, just without all the baggage of actual proof to go with it. All the hate comes along with the 'practical application' of it, and the 'us vs. them' mentality.
@@VulpisFoxfire You'd have a point if it weren't for the dogma of many religions precluding the "we'll update you..." part.
In 2020 and 2021, Science 100% told you who to hate!
Thanks, I really like this explanation. Cheers mate
@@VulpisFoxfire I've never heard a religious person say "here's our best explanation for how the world works, we'll update you when we have more data."
They either say "dunno, I'll leave that bit to science". or "Burn the Witch!"
Even though we don't really exist in Australia, Santa watch has begun. Everyone have a safe and happy Christmas and enjoy the holidays 🎄
He's just left my place a few minutes ago.
Coal?
Loved this as a kid.
The CBC would come on saying NORAD had spotted something in the north moving at high speed and had scrambled planes to investigate. Then they confirmed it was Santa and gave tracking information.
Added so much to the magic of it.
@@cecilbrisley5185 "Added so much to the magic of it."
Until the missiles were launched.
Merry Christmas to all of you in the mychical land down under.
Does Santa change clothes when he delivers presents there ? It’s the middle of summer ffs
Okay so he was saying "I still believe in being able to have theories and test them," right? ..but then completely threw that away
He's an idiot, caught up in the modern cynicism movement.
No, to him "testing a thoery" is reading a 2000 year old book.
@@SanderEvers Misread or responded to the wrong post. Cheers.
Exactly. He clearly believes in stating stuff about god and then calling it a day.
Also he doesn't know what a theory is.
It's the sheer arrogance of these deniers that always gets to me.
He wasnt taught that all stars are long dead. Hes misremembering. Simple as that.
The human memory is remarkably innaccurate.
"Just because they have one FAIRY TALE answer thrown in..." , while invoking god as his reason is the apex of projection.
And he then talks about his FAIRY TALE story about god "creating"
@@84com83 Cue the magic man!
I am sure I will get roasted. I am a Theist. I do still subscribe to the notion that a God 10 dimensions above our level of understanding COULD have created everything. I am an agnostic theist to be honest, but I will not take away intelligence until it is totally disproved.... which is also science.
Religious fundamentalist anti-science internet trolls never make sense.
🇺🇲 is a death cult.
@@gregmason2434 the Higgs Boson says different
The older I get the more I detest religion in any shape or form.🥺
The older I get the more I realize how many idiots there are in this world. Especially now that they can publish their stupidity over the Internet.
If there is a God, religion is the veil that blocks our interaction with it. Religion is the more anti-God than atheism.
Same. I have no patience for it any longer. It both bewilders & appalls me that so many people around the world would believe such things.
Oh! My comment got deleted. I wonder why. Oh well...
Testify!
It's always funny to me when religious people try to demean science by calling it a religion, because they're effectively saying it is undesriable for something to be a religion (otherwise it wouldn't be demeaning to science to be called a religion)
Ah, but _their_ religion is the 'one true religion' so it's right and everyone else is wrong!
Yup! I've long wondered why some deeply religious people use the word "religion" as an insult when talking about science.
@@BarnabyRudge-sx3pb Because they don"t like all religions. They like their religion
I think it comes from the their view on other religions (as in the sin of believing in the wrong religion). They need to get science on the same playing field of other religions to denounce it as a sinful belief.
@@ThisPyro You hit that big old nail on the head. Spot on!
This idiotic idea there has to be a ‘why’ stems from the arrogance of us humans. Things just ‘are’.
And thanks to the vagaries of language, in English some 'why' questions are really 'how' questions. Think of the classic small child's question.
"Why is the sky blue, Daddy?"
"Because of Rayleigh scattering, which I'll explain properly to you when you're older. For now, though, you can just think of the sky being blue because of sunlight."
Science can study "why" questions insofar as they can be the answer to a falsifiable hypothesis. Why do the stars appear to twinkle as seen from earth? Hypothesis: due to changing air density in the atmosphere. Tested. Proved. It could have been some other reason (their light pulsates, for instance) but they have been disproved.
Science has an answer for our creation, it can’t leave it a question. It’s this arrogance that makes it a religion because science becomes belief.
Our limited understanding came first. When our ancestors began asking who, what, when, where, why, and how, their only tools were their senses and their minds. Using what they observed and experienced, they created explanations for their lives and the world.
Nowadays, we still want to know why because we feel that there should be a 'why' even when we have no chance of finding it out.
@@timefilm- Science. Is. Not. A. Religion.
The "trust the science" of the pandemic did immeasurable damage to public trust in science.
Well, he said he'd end the video with blatant lies, then blatantly lied. He delivered what he promised.
Yes. Let him go away and come back when he has created a computer based only on facts from his bible.
It always intrigues me when certain people (the religious) call atheists and science a religion. The religious are using the word "religion" as a pejorative without any hint of irony.
atheism is a religion - it is a set of beliefs that a person uses as the basis for their personal philosophy on life. science is a method. it is a framework a person uses to confirm basic facts about the world around them
@@kenbrown2808"A lack of belief is a set of beliefs".
@@kenbrown2808You fail reading at a third grade level. "Not a thing" is very much NOT identical to "a thing".
Atheism is the lack of belief in any god. That's it. It contains zero beliefs. Lack of belief ≠ a set of beliefs.
@@kenbrown2808is it tho? It’s not a belief at all, atheists don’t believe in any deities whatsoever because there’s zero proof for any of them. It’s not our belief there’s no god, it’s a fact that there’s zero proof for any of them. You should google what atheism means.
Atheism is a religion? What system of faith do they prescribe? To whom do they pray? Whom do they worship? What rituals do they perform, and on which days? What are their Holy days? Etc...
The ironic thing is that this science denier regularly uses the products of science without a second thought.
And flat earthers routinely use GPS tech on their phones to navigate to Walmart while denying the existence of satellites.
I suppose he thinks that God made both the internet and youtube. Just.. magic'd them into existence one day.
@@leif12345 A flat Earther told me it's cables running under the ground. He also was always spouting on about "sciencism" (unsure how to spell that) yet had treatment, and cure for a rather nasty skin complaint (either malignant or pre-malignant) prescribed by doctors (who are in effect scientists)
Sorry about my overuse of brackets!
@ I’ve heard them claim it’s from telephone lines. When I asked how it works out on the ocean they go silent or even block me.
@@leif12345 balloons! its always damned balloons. Just remind them the gps data format is public and consists of _orbital_ elements which rules out balloons, drones, masts etc.
These people (mostly flat earthers) think it should be really simple for an individual to test and verify every scientific claim since the beginning of human history.
That's EXACTLY what he said with the Hubble telescope.
We common people cannot corroborate, so is not science.
So, how back on time we should go to have real science? 1600s? I am quite sure while Galileo was looking at Jupiter, a farmer in Norwich wasn't able to corroborate.
Fun fact: religion and corroboration together is madness.
I like when the guy summed it all up by "I will only believe in things that are not true and will refuse to believe in things that are factual."
"I used to follow science like a religion."
Well that's weird because science doesn't follow science like a religion. It full on questions and doubts itself at all times and tries to disprove itself as that way it can become more certain of what it says, or it realises it was wrong and now seeks to correct itself.
...and that is exactly why it is not a religion. Religions are based on dogma, and brook no challenges.
In fact, we hope to discover new information that shows we are wrong. Something new and exciting to learn. We all know how happy religious people get when they learn something in their holy book doesn't match observation.
Religion is practiced by people. And people can make a religion out of anything, including science. That does not make science a religion.
Yeah it says more about him than about science (or religion, really).
You believe in the Big Bang. You believe an asteroid destroyed the dinosaurs. You believe in black holes. Why? Did you discover these things or do you just believe it because everyone else does? Can you find these factoids complete with their proof of origin? Or is it all just belief?
So basically “I choose to be ignorant so science is wrong!”
What does ‘science’ say about the seasons and how does it explain the striking differences between the flora/fauna and average winter temperature between the southernmost territories and their ‘northern’ counterparts? Punta Arenas is as far from the equator as the Midlands or northern Germany is, yet one is almost uninhabitable with very few variety in ani las and the plants, while areas in the north just as far from the equator are significantly richer. What explains the rapid sunsets and sunrises in the south? I have an Astronomy and astrophysics textbook by Charma and Shandra that dedicates one short paragraph and nothing more than a short statement to the seasons, failing to explain any of these valid questions.
@@ComeJesusChrist It seems you are looking in the wrong science book to understand the questions you have about climate and flora and fauna. Science is vast and has many fields of specialisations (astronomy, biology, geography) and those fields often intersect with each other. So I’m not surprised a book about astronomy and astrophysics doesn’t go into details about seasons, flora and fauna on Earth. (I searched for the book by the authors you mentioned but couldn’t find it so unless you give a specific title it would be difficult to do so.)
To answer your question about seasons, and flora and fauna - that’s a lot to cover and I’m no expert but I’ll mention some of the things here.
Seasons are caused by the tilt of the earth as it moves around the sun. On top of that other factors can impact climate and weather such as ocean currents, wind patterns, the land topology (geography). We understand the relationship between the thing and that why we have the ability to accurately predict weather.
Climate can impact flora and fauna and different species will adapt over time to occupy niches within the ecosystem (biology). Surprisingly, plate tectonics (geology) also explains the difference in species in some areas - see the Wallace Line.
Not sure if that’s what you are after but hope it’s a start.
@@ComeJesusChrist "What does ‘science’ say about the seasons"
Are you serious?!? Usually this is explained in elementary school, how did you manage to miss that?!? The seasons are mainly caused by the changing angle of Earth's axis with respect to the sun during its revolution around the sun, which causes the angle of the incident light to change.
"how does it explain the striking differences between the flora/fauna and average winter temperature between the southernmost territories and their ‘northern’ counterparts"
Try looking into some science textbooks on geology and climatology, or into some more textbooks on astronomy (but the latter ones do not deal much with the climate of the Earth). The main explanation is ocean currents, which themselves are caused by a combination of the different land masses in the north and the south, and the Coriolis effect.
@@scooterjackal You are writing many words, but you are not saying anything. Surely, in the heliocentric globe circus, it wouldn’t matter whether it’s the ‘north’ or ‘south’, the climate should be the same as their counterparts on the other side side of the imaginary ball.
@@ComeJesusChristDude,really? Scooter gave you a pretty good layman’s explanation. The words definitely gave real info. The earth being a globe is not imaginary. Good frickin’ grief. Welcome to this century….
Arguing viruses look different now is like complaining why silent movies ever existed
Silence might be too abstract a concept if you have voices in your head.
"Why doesn't a cow look like a boa constrictor? They are both animals!"
I’ve never HEARD a silent movie; therefore, they never existed.
Yes, it's like old times there is no colours... what a BS.
@@catfishcave379 :D
1:52 for the start of the topic
Ok
8:20 and there ya go- the quiet part said very much out loud, "if you pursue science you're literally a satanist".
I would rebut his statement with the names of many religious people who are scientists. As the product of science degrees from a couple of Catholic colleges, I have personally known several priests who were scientists ("were" because it was several decades ago, and most, if not all, have likely passed away or at least retired).
But I suspect Hans also believes that Catholics are Satanists.
He definitely wasn't taught that in elementary school he wasn't paying attention when they said SOME of the stars are burned out already and it takes that long for the light to get here
How would you know? In a physics lecture in university, they said, that scuba divers don´t use pure oxigen, because they are afraid to burn. Diving wasn´t their field and they just said nonsense, which they either made up themselfes to make sense of it or they repeated something they heard somewhere. I could add more examples. So, why would you assume, that such mistakes don´t happen in elementary school?
@@martinhuhn7813Well if you “believed” that you failed. You should not have accepted a call to authority as your evidence for the scuba example. Upon hearing something that does not make sense ask for the proofs. This is science.
I think we can safely assume that nothing from elementary school stuck with Hans.
@@martinhuhn7813 Your example is pretty bad considering the teacher should teach in their respective fields. Even if they didn't you shouldn't take it at face value if you are taught something outside their expertise. Even kids knows to be skeptical of what a teacher says if they don't teach the subject. I know, I am a teacher myself and my pupils are hesitant to ask me geography questions even if I teach them biology, physics and chemistry. It is only when I tell them that I also teach geography that they value my insights on the field.
That being said. Your professors were stupid. Even if it wasn't their field, that conclusion is not something one should arrive at.
@@martinhuhn7813breathing pure oxygen can essentially burn your lungs...they don't use pure oxygen
If the apple falls because of bouancy, why doesn't it fall upwards or sideways? Why does the Apple always fall towards the (center of the) Earth? Even if you go by density, the air gets less dense the higher it is. So.. the Apple should then ALWAYS fall up. But it never does.
Yeah or like when the say "It goes to to the ground because it's the closest dense object"...
if you are standing inside & hold your arm up then drop an object it should go to the ceiling because it is closer than the floor
The fact is that without gravity, there is no buoyancy.
They ignore the fact that the atmosphere gets less dense as it gets farther away from the earth.
I just love that the equation for buoyancy has little g in it too. Incredibly ironic that flerfs are quite happy to accept this!
As he said in the video "Because G*d". That's the answer for people who don't actually want to know how things work.
Science adjusts its views based on what's observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.
Tim Minchin
Yup. Religion denies being proven wrong. The core of science is *challenging* people to prove you wrong, so you can figure out where the error is, and fix it.
Science is an ongoing self-correcting process leading us to better understand the world/universe around us.
I love Tim Minchin- genius on so many levels.
@@slm3945 Exactly, I hate the way this is presented as a flaw.
I heard that in Australia, science works in reverse 🤪
I can imagine this guy at a pet shop holding a picture of a swordfish, looking at the goldfish tank and saying, "This is what they told us fish looked like in school. How come these fish look so different?"
Merry Christmas Dan. All the best!
Ah yes, buoyancy. The property of an object that famously includes gravity is its formula.
Don't you need a liquid medium for buoyancy to mean anything?
@@gregorymoore2877 i think you can do with fluids... gases can be the medium just fine, can't they?
@@irrelevant_noob I think you're correct. I've watched videos on airships, such as R-101, and believe "loss of buoyancy" is the term used when the gas bag tears and starts leaking hydrogen. As long as the object weighs less than the mount of fluid/gas it displaces it is considered buoyant?
@@gregorymoore2877 yep the Archimedes principle applies to both types of fluids. 👍
_Why 9.81?_
Why does a religious man ask this instead of saying that God made "G" 9.81?
G isn't 9.81. That is a nominal figure, in a vacuum, near the surface of a perfect sphere. The actual figure depends where you are. So why is the number different when I'm up a mountain, or when I get nearer to the equator? Surely gravity should be the same everywhere on his flat god pancake? I can assure him that the air above the apple tree is slightly less dense than the air below it, so the apple should fall slowly upwards into the less dense atmosphere above according to biblical based buoyancy theory. There should be apples drifting all over the place, depending on weather conditions according to him.
One of my old science teachers used to say science can never ask "Why?", science can only ask "How?".
I'm a Christian and I absolutely love science, this channel and many like it. Science has never been an issue in regards to my faith.
Thats why I dont deem you as a fanatic and dont fear you burning down my house if we disagree.
that just mean that you like science , but do not aknowledge its achievements. same way I like polytheist religions, but will never acknoledge them, they are just interesting to study.
@ryushenron9865 what makes you assume I do not acknowledge the achievements of the science world? Of course I do. Science explains how things work doesn't mean I can't have my faith as well. In my personal view I see a connection to the two and makes me love them both.
Thanks. Merry Christmas to you, too, Dan! 🙂🐕🐕
Merry Christmas to you and your family, Dan. 🙂
Merry Christmas from Australia. 🇦🇺 🦘 👍
"Look a wrong-way driver" ... "one? thousands!!!"
The stars being long gone was never taught. The possibility of one star being gone a long time ago, and not knowing, is what is taught. He is miss-remembering.
“I used to believe in science” whilst recording a video and uploading it to the internet.
I love how pseudoscience lovers immediately equate practical technology to ideological fairy-tale beliefs like big bang, evolution, dark matter, black holes and so on. That's how they trap themselves into religious thinking.
He obviously does it using religion😂
Note how my comment got erased, asking how technology is related to space pseudoscience.
@@morzemus1805
You mean, using space-and-globe religion?
@ grow up mate.
Scientology is a religion. I think that’s what Hans meant.
Science and Scientology are two very different and mostly unrelated things.
@@VulpisFoxfire Yes, Scientology stole the word science to try and lend themselves credibility, as they manipulated their cult victims, stole all their savings and made them slaves.
Scientology exists so we can laugh at it.
Flerfers exist so Scientologists and Jehovahs Witnesses can laugh at someone else for a change.
I m not sure if scientology is a religion, I view it more of pseudo psychology. However I am not a expert.
It is tax exempt,so it is a religion.
Just because something is hard to understand doesn’t mean it is a belief. It is no more complicated than that.
5:55 "I'm going to end this video with blatant lies..." Should have stopped right there!
The nonsense claim that gravity is merely buoyancy is so easy to disprove. If that was true then why would things still fall in a vacuum? If you have a vacuum chamber and drop objects in it they will still fall, often times even faster since the air isn't in the way. I'd like to see the people who make this claim answer that question.
At 7:00, I strongly doubt any of his science teachers told him all the stars are long gone, or dead. He simply didn't understand what he was told. Someone likely told him the light we received was emitted a long time ago. He shouldn't confuse his lack of understanding with a claim made by others. Even in the life time of my parents (born 1920's), no one ever made the claim he is making.
There's his problem right there. You don't experiment to prove yourself right, you do it to test your hypothesis, if the results agree you have a theory.
I always wonder how they cross a busy road? A short prayer, close their eyes and walk (belief) or look both directions and cross if there is no traffic (science)?
That was wonderful! I'll have to remember it!
@@Pete_R63 You can cast most reasoning problems in terms of practical issues such as crossing the road or putting food in your mouth. It can be an effective way of getting people to think about errors in logic, or in procedure or assumption, especially if you follow a failure up with a question on how that would translate into them teaching a child.
Science is not a belief, either you understand or don't understand science.
science is a way of thinking, comparing observed effects with existing theories and if needed changing the theory to account for the observed effects
@@zebo-the-fat Science is a belief, and anyone who says it's not 'don't understand science'
@zebo-the-fat , even if you don't understand science it doesn't make it not true.
Sounds like fight club.
Absolutely. Science is a process, not a belief system.
Never understood religious peoples aversion to science. Like if you believe in god, you believed god created everything. Therefore, science is us exploring what god made and how it works and naming it
That's how Newton viewed it.
The way he says; "I used to follow it like a religion. Believe things against better judgement, that don't have proof for it.... " ..... Yeah, he absolutely does not understand how science works.
What they probably told him in school was that some stars are long dead.
If you are being serious they would be right. A star that is visible could have indeed died long ago due to the speed of information being limited. Betelgeuse for example could have already gone supernova and we don't see it yet because the light has yet to reach us.
@@do_research Yes, but the guy remembered them saying all stars were dead.
@@do_research to add to the above. He likely wasn't paying attention in class. By the evidence of the video he posted, he was likely praying during the lecture, instead of paying attention.
some people hear things very differently, i was taught about how "some" stars could be long dead, hans's problem is he hears almost everything differently, i would bet he gets stories from the bible wrong.
@@Essex121514lol "he was likely praying during the lecture, instead of paying attention". Agreed. Also praying is a waste of time since an all knowing God would know what you are going to pray about before even doing it. Nothing but contradictions and Bible verse reciting. Can't take them seriously
Just another case of ‘I don’t believe it therefore it must be wrong’ syndrome.
If you adhere to a religion you take it on faith that you're on the correct path.
So for the lay-person who can't / doesn't understand a scientific concept would they not have to have faith that scientistic weren't leading them astray?
@ then the default position should be ‘I don’t know’ which is the most honest answer you can give.
@@CrypidLore- Science changes over time, using evidence. Scientists can be assholes, but eventually all but the most stubborn come around when the new models prove to be more accurate than the old ones. That's why we no longer blame diseases on bad smells (yes, that was a thing) or teach the phlogiston theory or that women's uteruses float around inside our bodies. And how we know the Earth is an oblate spheroid and not the center of the Universe.
Religion gets into fights and then splinters because too many are locked into being the One True Way. Or changes just sort of happen as times change. Sometimes a combination of both.
Merry Christmas
If all records and memory of religion and science were erased, given enough time, all science would be recreated just as it is, but none of the religions would, it would be all new religions
On that bombshell, I always imagine Clarkson saying it!
He's "fine with" saying god did it. Meaning, he doesn't know how god did it because there is no factual evidence on how. Yet, he's not fine with the factually based scientific reasoning. He says science is a "lie", and not the bible, which still as yet is not proven to be factually correct at all.
And don’t forget that all koalas are just animatronics.
You can literally find the explanation of why G = 9.8m/s by typing it on google. Religion is like a blindfold to these people: if it isn't in their bible, it isn't true, and they won't believe it no matter how many times we explain it to them or PROVE it to them.
'if it isn't in their bible, it isn't true' oh boy, this brought back a memory of an old girlfriend who was a religious nutter. I was watching some TV show about UFOs, Bigfoot and other strange phenomena. She happened to be passing through the room just as they said that Bigfoot could be a link to man a million years ago (or something like that) and she stopped and said, that that couldn't be true, the earth wasn't here a million years ago since the Bible says it is only 6000 years old. Later, she walked through as they were talking about aliens and she said that they couldn't be real because 'she would have read about them in the Bible.' I'm so glad I got out of that relationship.
@@Pete_R63- So she hadn't been taught the 'extraterrestrials are actually demons' BS? That's what some people think.
@@Pete_R63 These are exactly the same things I say to my wife, but she understand that I'm taking the pi$$...
@@Pete_R63 Can we assume her religious beliefs didn't extend to the rules on chastity, remaining silent & respectful, not being in the presence of an unrelated man without a chaperone then?
@@memkiii That assumption would indeed be correct. Oh, the stories I could tell but I am still trying to repress those memories from 3 decades ago. Cheers
There is no end to the limitations of Hans Wormhat.
As a scientist, I can tell you that science endeavors to answer the "how", not the "why". It's the difference between fact and truth.
"I'm all lost in the super-market..."
Religeon is belief; Science is skeptisism.
Religeon says, "Trust the word of God".
Science says, "I won't believe it until its proven under scientific methods. . . then I still won't believe it until the majority of my peers agree with it. . . even then it will still be considered just a theory so that future generations have a chance to disprove it with future scentific methods.
"science adjusts its views based on what's observed; faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."
-Tim Minchin
you can't 'prove' anything using the scientific method profs are a mathematical thing you can only disprove something to a certain level of accuracy.
...you do realize that a scientific theory and the colloquial usage of the word theory are not synonymous, right?
To say a scientific theory is "just a theory" is rather dim, as a scientific theory is pretty much a proven fact, whereas when a person uses the word theory in common parlance what they mean is "hypothesis", or "guess".
A scientific theory started out as a hypothesis then was tested again and again in a number of ways by many scientists in laboratory conditions who all came to the same conclusion through experimentation.
A scientific theory is basically fact.
A colloquial theory is basically a guess.
Skepticism.
@@FilipCordas Replace "proven" in the above with either or both of "confirmed" or "demonstrated". And science absolutely can and does falsify things. For example, the discovery in 1697 of black swans on the Swan River in Australia falsified forever the then prevailing hypothesis that all swans were white.
Similarly, the discovery of Neptune confirmed Newton's theory of gravity but its failure to explain the observed precession of the perihelion of Mercury falsified it near a sufficiently large mass (in this case, the Sun). Whereas Einstein's theory of General Relativity is confirmed by the the fact that it does explain the same observations, as well as by the observation of the bending of light around the sun (first seen during the total eclipse of 1919) and the phenomenon of gravitational redshift. If you use a sat nav you are also confirming GR (or at least Special Relativity) because GPS corrects for time dilation (the effect that moving clocks - in this case, on the satellites - run slow) by an accumulating 7 miles per day.
Brushing off all of science as "just a religion" is legit so degrading and disrespectful to actual religions that it boarders on parody. What a complete joke.
I'm saying this as an atheist btw.
Can't respect religions, cults are cutls
Flerfers assuming* up and down are universal directions 😂😂😂
*edit, Thanks for the suggestion
Correction: theyre not thinking. If they were, i dont think theyd be flerfs for long.
"because god made the world in a way that makes sense"
It makes sense because he was born in it and learnt how the world works living in the environment...
Another person disingenuously asking "why" (declaring they do not understand something) and then asserting their particular feelings are facts.
That video is 4 years old. Why give that guy a platform or any kind of validation?
4:26 Science is about how something happens, science does not assume that there was a why. Why is an assumption, you are assuming there had to be a reason why?
A lot of people cannot cope if they think there is no reason for things. Think how popular fate and the 'everything happens for a reason' discourse is.
"...the fairy tale of gravity..."
Someone find a window.
He doesn't understand but he's a big brain boy so it must be fake, he then replaces fact with cause magic.
Was that a Rudolph reference from Dan? Calling Han’s the “greatest conspiracy theorist of all” in the same sense as Rudolph being the greatest reindeer of all time
"It's just mocked up images, and not science". He demands that we prove our claims, while at the same time not being able to provide any proof of his own...
I really thought this sponsor was a joke, the name alone is already a weird choice, but then this organic anti-GMO bs is making it even more out of place on a science channel, that's like the flat earth of food
Got to pay the bills somehow, i just ignore them
I was thinking the same thing. I bet there isn't a ton of evidence to back up the claims regarding those mushrooms. These kinds of products are just overpriced BS. If a caffeine crash is a problem for you, you could just drink less caffeine. Tea has less caffeine. It certainly wouldn't be out of place for a Brit to drink tea.
I have Finnish ancestry. So I have no intention of giving up my coffee. I just switch to a dark roast later in the day since it has less caffeine.
@@jennoscura2381lol speaking of pseudoscience, its _not_ your _“Finnish ancestry”_ !! wtf u just like coffee, *most people do* , literally Wormhat.
It is pretty disappointing to see a science channel push absolute wankery.
But then I try and remember what BoyBoy said. Which was something along the lines of, no matter what we tell you to buy, just ignore it because it's all crap and we have to have sponsors.
That was heavily paraphrased.
You're probably one of the very few who actually watches the sponsor segment. That's what the skip feature is for 😊
The only people who think that way are projecting their own crap...
Merry Christmas everybody
Merry Christmas all thanks dan
Believes in buoyancy but not gravity? What causes the buoyancy then? I think I just had an aneurysm out of sheer stupidity.
When you put it in the very simple way, science deniers shouldn't think 1+1=2.
see Terrence Howard
The irony of it all is that Hans directly defies the Creator he loves. Psalms 147.4 "He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names."
Hans Wormhat might have worm in his head...
That would mean he would actually have a brain in his head, tiny as it may be.
Worms might have had replaced his brain completely.
He might find employment with the department of health and human services in the next administration.
Not just one!
@@Er_Guille Ah there it is! DTS syndrome!
6:25 "Why doesn't a kangaroo look like an eagle?"
Merry Sciencemas everyone!
When he said he’s going to finish with lies I thought he had a realisation! 😂
And then he finished with lies about science.
Didn't any flat earthers take science courses and do their own experiments? Did any of them go to college and take some science courses there? I had to. And we had to actually DO the stuff.
FEs are either grifters or total idiots
College??? Please, they barely finished high school
You seem a similar thing in politics in the US
Same lack of education they show every time, they honestly believe science is just make stuff up, write it in a book then students just learn it. Like we were all just given the “Bumper Book of Science”. They just don’t get I know the laws of physics to be true because at university I did experiments and saw the results and proved them to be true myself. Higher learning isn’t just a memory test of scientific facts, you understand at a base level by experimenting and proving for yourself. They just don’t get that and it shows they are of very limited education.
As someone that believes in God, I can accept that He created it the way it is. He created everything working the way science has come to discover. The ultimate engineering feat. The Earth is spherical in general. Gravity is a force of mass (roughly speaking). And we can see the light of stars millions of light-years away. The problem with Hans and many like him is that they have to limit what God can create to what they can comprehend, so they can feel comfortable with themselves.
Pass on my thanks to god for creating cancer, mental illness and suffering in general. He did a top notch job there.
you believe in a god that is a liar? Science has refuted most of what is said in the bible, it is impossible to say you believe in god and its word, the bible, and say you believe in science. both are contradictory.
@ryushenron9865 not at all. There are in fact a lot of scientists that believe in a god. And I don't expect you to believe and am not trying to convince you to. I hope you enjoy your New Year
There's only ONE direction in what things fall? Bud, if you're on the other side of the planet, things fall in the exact opposite direction! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I'm not religious, so correct me if I'm wrong.
Why would god and science be mutually exclusive?
If god made the earth it could stand to reason god also created laws of physics. And a myriad other things to keep this creation in existance.
Would science, trying to find out how it all fits together, not be a quest to understand god's creation and therfore be an effort in understand god?
"I don't believe" is a form of saying "I don't understand, but I'm too narcissist to admit other people understand more things than I do".
Right….Why should we “admit” that ppl who pile assertion on assertion know more than we do. You don’t.
@@dwightfitch3120 Oh, really? I don't know you, but if I had to take a plane, I'd prefer it had been designed by aeronautical engineers than by a bunch of uneducated high school dropouts.
Word of the day -"sciencism"
I pity Hans. How sad to live a life in constant denial of reality.
Hans is the most delusional. Mikey Smith and Daniel Pratt, along with a few others, are bat shit crazy, but Hans is the King of Delusion.
Pity those who deny their Creator and arrogantly fall for pagan fairytales, facing eternal condemnation!
.....but think of how amazed he must be regarding EVERYTHING. Not just gravity, but light, electricity, matter, etc.
@ Don’t pity Hans but pity yourself for rejecting the One Who created the heavens, the earth and you in it!
@@ComeJesusChrist We don't live in a fairy tale that threatens those who won't agree with it. Such a loving, abusive bastard that God of yours is.
Merry Christmas , @scimandan good to know that I can eat as many mince pies as I can, because there is no gravity, so I won’t put on weight! I am only more dense than air😂😂😂😂 I find that argument very convincing 😅😂😂
The only difference I see between a Satanist and a Christian is only one believes in Satan. And it's not the Satanists.
You lost him at "study" . 3:01
I used to be a Christian, but I encountered too many fundamentalists like Wormhat on the Internet. I had to bail: no way was i going to allow liars and lunatics to define my reality.
The vast, VAST majority of Christianity (including the Vatican) is perfectly fine with science, including the earth being what it is, a globe.
It's fringe parts of mainly American fundemantlist spewing this creationist nonsense
My religion gave me smartphones and antibiotics. How about yours, Hans?
Hans found a reason to accept pain and suffering. " God is testing us "..... Good luck!! Rgr
99% of scientists throught history were fairly religious people so..
@@Canaris3 And still their religion didn´t stop them from making groundbraking science... Did they however bring god into their discoveries??? Rgr
@@Canaris3 100% of ALL people were in those times of ignorance and oppression - to profess otherwise was perilous.
@@borano2031 lots of them did, do you know anything about history?
Always been confused why they think right is wrong and wrong is right
But even scientists misunderstand science
That’s a pretty general statement. Every scientist has probably misunderstood something in science,particularly if it was in another field. Why would you expect otherwise?
@dwightfitch3120 I didn't say I expected otherwise