HomeОбразованиеRelated VideosMore From: SciShow

6 Times Scientists Radically Misunderstood the World

9907 ratings | 354491 views
Science has come a long way in understanding how our universe works and that road has been full of wrong turns and dead ends. Here are 6 scientific explanations that turned out to be way off track. Hosted by: Michael Aranda Head to https://scishowfinds.com/ for hand selected artifacts of the universe! ---------- Support SciShow by becoming a patron on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/scishow ---------- Dooblydoo thanks go to the following Patreon supporters: Lazarus G, Sam Lutfi, Nicholas Smith, D.A. Noe, سلطان الخليفي, Piya Shedden, KatieMarie Magnone, Scott Satovsky Jr, Charles Southerland, Patrick D. Ashmore, Tim Curwick, charles george, Kevin Bealer, Chris Peters ---------- Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet? Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/scishow Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/scishow Tumblr: http://scishow.tumblr.com Instagram: http://instagram.com/thescishow ---------- Sources: https://www.wired.com/2014/06/fantastically-wrong-how-to-grow-a-mouse-out-of-wheat-and-sweaty-shirts/ https://www.britannica.com/biography/Louis-Pasteur/Spontaneous-generation https://www.britannica.com/science/biology#ref498783 https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/history/book5.html https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/generation/book3.html http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/06/08/dark-matter-vs-aether/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/04/21/the-failed-experiment-that-changed-the-world https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200711/physicshistory.cfm https://www.aps.org/programs/outreach/history/historicsites/michelson-morley.cfm https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.020401 https://books.google.com/books?id=to8OAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false p216 https://www.britannica.com/science/phlogiston https://eic.rsc.org/feature/the-logic-of-phlogiston/2000126.article https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/lavoisier.html https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/lavoisier/antoine-laurent-lavoisier-commemorative-booklet.pdf http://www.chss.uqam.ca/Portals/0/docs/hps5002/Stud_Hist_Phil_Sci_v25n2_p159-190.pdf https://www.jstor.org/stable/3143157?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents https://www.britannica.com/science/steady-state-theory https://www.google.com/amp/s/futurism.com/steady-state-model-of-the-universe/amp/ https://history.aip.org/exhibits/cosmology/ideas/bigbang.htm https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20110816.html https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2011GL047450 https://www.hist-geo-space-sci.net/5/135/2014/hgss-5-135-2014.pdf http://www.earth-prints.org/bitstream/2122/2017/1/MANTOVANI.pdf https://www.hist-geo-space-sci.net/5/135/2014/hgss-5-135-2014.pdf https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/from-the-contracting-earth-to-early-supercontinents/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2014/03/mercury-the-planet-shrinks-as-it-cools ------ Images: https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/maggot-of-fly-for-sport-fisherman-gm106458303-6041350 https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/aristotle-portray-the-philosopher-gm172411889-4331403 https://www.istockphoto.com/vector/house-fly-and-bee-illustrations-gm185111511-19447453 https://www.istockphoto.com/vector/set-of-glass-jars-for-canning-and-preserving-vector-illustration-isolated-on-gm846771750-138853499 https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/dreamy-light-refraction-pastel-soft-pale-background-abstract-defocus-rainbow-gm531186409-55315198 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres#/media/File:Ptolemaicsystem-small.png https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/fireplace-gm498891142-79892091 https://www.istockphoto.com/vector/burning-bonfire-with-wood-gm871355210-145516179 https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/yellow-color-burning-fire-frame-gm853959940-140333267 https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/burning-charcoal-gm865453156-143575701 https://www.nasa.gov/content/most-colorful-view-of-universe-captured-by-hubble-space-telescope https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/multimedia/distant-quasar-RXJ1131.html https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/nasa-captures-epic-earth-image https://images.nasa.gov/details-PIA11245.html https://www.istockphoto.com/vector/19th-century-engraving-of-louis-pasteur-at-work-in-his-laboratory-victorian-gm872138750-243617917
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (1053)
Miguel A. Gil (4 days ago)
Aristotle was the worst pseudo-scientist, with most of his scientific theories being ridiculous, and yet... he has become more famous than all the great scientists of his time who laid the ground for the world we live in today
Raul M. (6 days ago)
Wow, it seems kinda recently*, in Time, that we learned this "Basic" stuff huh.. 😅
Ignacio Pinto (7 days ago)
Really good video this one, some of this ideas may look funny now, but you have to star from something and then work your way until you get the true answer!!!
James Rhile (16 days ago)
The idea about aether is actually really smart, too bad it's wrong
Raistlarn (19 days ago)
We can argue that Aristotle was semi-correct in saying that they could come from other animals "organ secretions", because all animals come from another animals organ secretions.
Madi Roberts (22 days ago)
Daniel hall (26 days ago)
Aether = Dark matter, dark energy and dark flow
Sphinx Rising (28 days ago)
Here we are thousands of years later still worshiping aether, only we call it dark matter now. Can't detect it, can't prove it exists, but science believes in it regardless. Gee, that sounds a lot like religious faith.
Moira O'Deorain (29 days ago)
3:05 please no I'm just trying to study... I don't need this right now
Morty McMort (1 month ago)
a l (1 month ago)
wondering if today's science will seem totally ridiculous 100 years from now.
astrophonix (1 month ago)
That's the best aspect of science and sets it apart from all other human belief systems, it continually checks and self-corrects. In other belief systems errors are hidden, covered up and witnesses threatened, but science openly examines its past mistakes to learn how we fooled ourselves before to help ensure we don't keep making the same errors again. Science as a model of the world is always approximate and provisional but by checking, cross-checking and openly examining mistakes to learn how to continually improve is the key to its success.
Phinehas Priest (1 month ago)
2, Luminiferous aether DOES exist. Thinking it doesn't is one of the biggest blunders in recent science.
aztec999999 (1 month ago)
Oh . I loved this one. Thank you
Jeff Dalton (1 month ago)
I don't know how you f***ed up explaining Francesco Redi's experiment; but you somehow managed. In his experiment, the sealed jars didn't have any maggots, the open jars did have maggots, BUT IN THE JARS COVERED IN GAUZE, THEIR WERE NO MAGGOTS. This is important; if only the sealed jars didn't have maggots, then it would have supported that spontaneous generation was possible, but that air was necessary. That lack of maggots in the jars covered in gauze showed that the maggots in the open jars had to have come from the flies that were not able to get pasted the gauze, but could enter the open jars. Their were maggots on the gauze of the jars, but not inside, again presenting the evidence that the maggots came from the flies; the flies could land on the gauze, but could not get past the gauze so could not lay any eggs in the meat below. He did several more experiments before concluding that all life comes from life.
NobodyKnowsAnything (1 month ago)
6:14 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyaJr22YOYY
Prjndigo (1 month ago)
The AEther is the basis of Homeopathy.
Prjndigo (1 month ago)
You need to broaden your goatnest there a little to the sides to deal with the contour curve of your face but otherwise you're looking great.
matthew nelson (1 month ago)
Peter Wexler (1 month ago)
I can't believe that Ptolemy didn't make this list!
Henk-Jan Bakker (1 month ago)
So.... Newtonian understanding of gravity? We still use it even though we know it's wrong.
madestmadhatter (1 month ago)
What was that? I couldn't hear you over my searing flesh... Man this really burns... Why did you have me do this?
Hastings (1 month ago)
8:07 "-it shows that some of our scientific missteps aren't complete garbage" What!?! WTF!? Micheal-!! JD-!! I am simply appalled!! Science literally is nothing-but a series of compounded missteps! The entire point is that we compile ever-narrowing scopes of potentials, based around the confines which said missteps have defined! How dare you belittle such vital, idiotic advancements of our hard-working scientists of the past!? I could scarcely believe what I was hearing back there! For shame! Goodness me, guys I'm gettin' the vapors over here, just thinkin' about it...
Geri O M (1 month ago)
Aether, Dark Matter; Potayto, potahto.
Howard Delovitch (1 month ago)
I wonder...could you take a Jar of Clay and unscrew and crack the lid. Then, speak a lie into the jar and then quickly close it.......according to Stephen Hawkings theories at least some of that lie is now recorded inside the Jar. Food for thought. A brain is a terrible thing to waste.
Howard Delovitch (1 month ago)
I fault not the Lie itself , but , the subsequent mis-interpretation of the TRUTH I'm worried about. For every action....
Howard Delovitch (1 month ago)
The babies , yes , like "Little Fragile Jars of Clay" aren't they cute.
Howard Delovitch (1 month ago)
So...Phlogiston is like "Anti-Flatulence"?
Psycho3418 (1 month ago)
Inflammable means flammable!? What a country!
Daniel McDavid (1 month ago)
The Aether was decommission in 1898 due to budget cuts.
Adam Edward (1 month ago)
Wouldn’t the higgs boson be the aether
Sargam Bihari (1 month ago)
"Heating stuff to kill off microbes fame" And, our favourite science 'expert'. 😂😂😂😂
Phoenix Phlame (1 month ago)
Ancient science words are so fun to say
Phoenix Phlame (1 month ago)
Anyone who found this video interesting should check out this Wikipedia page if superseded scientific theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories?wprov=sfla1
Kaiodon the geology pokemon pokedex: it is a fusion of groudon and kyogre; it occurs as the bond between kyogre and groudon has been deepend within the mystery dungone universe; this pokemon is like ashgraninja yet like black or white kyurem in it's existence as the geology pokemon of it's world.
Annie Q (1 month ago)
It would suck to go down in history as one of those scientists who were really wrong.
Matt Parker (1 month ago)
This is what I love about science. We get things wrong and can admit it. And it’s okay as long as we keep trying to discover more about our universe. We don’t claim anything as infallible truth and will accept any idea that evidence and data supports. I’m sure that some ideas we generally accept today will be overturned in years to come. It’s to be expected and it’s okay. The SciShow of 2500CE will do a video on some of our “silly” ideas.
B S (1 month ago)
You missed, “Gender is a social construct.”
Electron Resonator (1 month ago)
that is why you shouldn't believe something in field of science so devotedly just because a famous scientist said so in form of a law as you can see quantum mechanic wrecks all what scientist believe for hundred of years, just because for all those years they don't have the capability to observe it, and yet for all those years they confidently claim that their law is the best to explain the universe, and way even worse most people in the word treat it as a dogma, and undoubtedly make you look like a fool trying to explore beyond that, saying that what you do is impossible and the result is fake
Alexandre Palazzo (2 months ago)
Aristotle was not a scientist. The scientific method (or natural philosophy) is much younger than classic philosophy. The latter was, well, guessing with style.
MaximusLight (2 months ago)
You know, for the first two, spontaneous generation and aether, those ideas haven't completely gone away, for instance current theory has a hard time explaining how life first got going and so far most instances that are suggested are basically some form of spontaneous generation, further even Steven Hawking seemed to have believe the universe spontaneous created itself. As for aether dark like was mentioned in the video dark energy and dark matter are starting to sound a lot like different forms of aether. Now I'm with holding judgement on all of the theories I just mentioned... but they these comparisons that seem to so closely match these only discarded theories certainly make me feel like we're missing something in all these instances, makes me excited to think that there might be something we don't know yet to explain them. : )
Engineer Ahmed (2 months ago)
Not Aether but Einstein is wrong as his theory keeps blowing up & aether keeps showing up as ldark matter, ight speed variation through galaxies & above all red shift not possible without aether
palmomki (2 months ago)
6 times scientists radically misunderstood the world: name 6 random things in science. Well, that's my philosophy anyway. Nobody ever really understands anything. The "models" you build in your mind can be more or less efficient in practice, but in the end they are always just approximations, descriptions, not actual insights. If scientists ever _truly_ understood the nature of the world, instead of just an approximate description of it, we wouldn't have the "big questions in science" that we have, always have had unless we were too arrogant, and possibly will always have. There's nothing wrong with that. Getting things wrong but being cautious and self-critical is the best way we've found so far to describe reality better and good enough to predict and do stuff we couldn't before. Now, scientists are humans, and as humans are, they too are petty and arrogant. It is difficult and heavy and scary to face the world and constantly remember that you actually don't know anything for sure ever. So scientists did and will think they do understand much about the world, they will mock ideas they find counter-intuitive even when they don't have any actual evidence gainst them, and so on. But, interestingly enough, I think we actually need scientists to be somewhat arrogant. People like me, who are often discouraged by the thought of not understanding and not knowing anything, are unlikely to contribute to general knowledge. Even most successful mathematicians are somewhat arrogant and "sloppy", at least in thinking they understand what they talk about.
stormRed1236 (2 months ago)
1:04 I wonder if that's why Aphrodite was said to have been born from seafoam?
Nekros (2 months ago)
4:48 They DID see an interfere pattern. That's not what they were looking for. They were looking for a fringe shift in the pattern, which they did not see.
Alan (2 months ago)
I wonder what things we hold to be true or even self-evident today will be viewed as "ridiculous" by people of the future.
Brad Smith (2 months ago)
Ha! Idiots.
spencer knowles (2 months ago)
There are a couple YouTube channels that are actually popular with lots of followers that preach the aether. Even doing experiments to “prove” it exists with tons of people buying into it in the comments but few opposing.
François Cauneau (2 months ago)
Interesting, but 1 and 2 are not to bee seen with too much talk down. 1) After all, spontaneous generation theory is still the one to be considered today, as long as - whatever the hypothesis you consider panspermia or endospermia - life is supposed to emerge spontaneously out of minerals in a non-stationary universe, in very specific conditions (carbon-rich media, organic precursors, pressure and temperature close to triple point of water, etc) Of course, to a human scale, life doesn't emerge continuously in such a way (unless you watch "Evolution" from Ivan Reimman ;-), but to the age of the Universe scale, this process is surely quite continous. The Miller experiment, as an example, was not quite different from what you show here : he just tested special conditions, but expecting , nothing else than life emerging from a primitive soup... 2) Luminiferous Aether sounds not so far, after all, from Feynman path integrals for a photon in vacuum. As it is shown that to propagate from A to B, a photon (in fact never observable between A and B) in fact dissolves into the Dirac sea and, in there, propagates trhough an infinite variety of pathes in this sea of particles. Of course the Luminiferous Aether was a wrong theory, but the underlying intuition seems not so far to the one of QED findings : to travel, light needs the vacuum to contain an infinite amount of virtual particles. To be honests, Physicits could rename Aether this strange vacuum that needs to be filled up, and even Albert Einstein proposed this...
Zaccari Jarman (2 months ago)
So the aether is quantum fields? Aether: elements of the physical universe that allows particles to exist in elemental vacuums. Fire: plasma Air: gasses Water: liquids Earth: solids
John Smith (2 months ago)
What about the hypothetical planet of Vulcan orbiting between The Sun and Mercury?
Benjamin West (2 months ago)
spontaneous generation = evolution and the aether experiment sounds exactly like the gravitational wave detectors we have now
Hades948 (2 months ago)
Tbh, I didn't like this guy when he first came on the show, but now I like him just as much as Hank. So good job improving, I guess!! :D
NessaWyvern (2 months ago)
Luminiferous Aether, I finally know where that annoying to spell ability came from in FF14 :D
Sonicgott (2 months ago)
Failure is always an option.
Rogue Entertainment (2 months ago)
See told you all the earth was flat!
William B Peairson IV (2 months ago)
Scientists: "Spontaneous generation is foolish and wrong." How did life begin on Earth? Scientists: "Spontaneous generation from the primordial soup!"
chanchin chaunchy (2 months ago)
Stop doing movements with your hands and just talk
8:19: You say "Extrapolating backwards that suggested that there was a moment of 'creation' [oops! 😅] that the universe didn't always exist." However, the term 'creation' obviously has religious connotations. Perhaps it 'suggested' such a religious meaning to folks back then (but then again, probably not all scientists), but if that's what was meant, then the script should have corrected this later on in the video, but it doesn't. Might want to issue a correction noting the term should be something more like 'moment of singularity', or to note that while some people initially thought it indicated a 'moment of creation', it's not within the purview of methodological naturalism to jump to that conclusion. Otherwise, the video could be taken as supporting Creationism, which I'm pretty sure was not your intention. 😊
Ben (2 months ago)
0.2mm per year seems a implausibly huge. Age of Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years, which gives a total increase of 908 ± 10 km since its creation. Compared to the current radius of 6,378.1 km, that's an enormous change — about 14%!
Existenceisillusion (2 months ago)
flow-JIS-tahn? No-no-no, it's FLAH-jis-tun.
Durontae Jones (2 months ago)
Neotribalist earrings are duel indicators the wearer is struggling with explanations that correlates to reality.
Mike D (2 months ago)
Cant wait for part 2 in about 10 years when the Global Warming hoax is #1
Dominic Esquivel (2 months ago)
Valve needs to nerf the pholg
glassdemagogue (2 months ago)
around 11:30 it is stated that the radius of the earth undergoes a "change" of about 0.2 mm per year. it's not specified if this is exclusively growth, but assuming it is, i did some back of the envelope calculations that, if correct, dramatically shift my understanding of our planet and its geometry. first, 0.2 mm per year, over 4.5 billion years (the amount of time i understand the "earth" to have "existed"), comes to 9 x 10^8 mm, or 900 km (please stop me at any point if my calculations are wrong). if the "change" is only growth and the earth's current radius is 6371 km (found from cursory google search), that means that the earth had a radius around 5471 km at the time it is commonly said to have "begun." there are a lot of questions that arise from this idea. eg, if the earth is 4.5 billion years old, how is its beginning as a planet marked? or, if its existence extends into the supposed 7 billion year time frame that our solar system has been around (layering in more questions of the demarcation of beginnings and origins), does that 0.2 mm per year change extend all the way back until the earth was nothing more than an incongruence in the density of the gas and dust that would form a locus for our would-be planet? moving forward, questions unanswered, i did some simple geometric calculations, assuming the earth is a sphere and the change was exclusively growth. at a current radius of 6371 km, the surface area of the planet should be around 510 million square km. this is supported by wolfram alpha, which provides a value for earth's surface area of 5.1 x 10^8 square km. if the earth has been adding an average of 0.2 mm per year to its radius and was, therefore, 5471 km 4.5 billion years ago, the surface area of the earth when it "began" was about 376 million square km. the difference in surface area is 134 million square km. that's more than a fourth of earth's total current surface area. granted, this does not account for the oceans by a long stretch, as suggested by the early hypothesis discussed in the video (though it is coincidentally very close the total area of the planet not covered by water - tangent question, are continental plates in some part a result of buildup from accumulated debris from the solar system over earth's span of existance?). i do not mean to suggest that the growing planet hypothesis supplants plate techtonics, but this seems like a significant change in size that simply isn't discussed when we talk about the geometry, geology, and history of the planet. it also raises many questions: was the earth's surface area 134 million sq km, roughly 26%, smaller 4.5 billion years ago? was earth's radius only about 86% of its current dimension? was the "change" discussed continual growth, and if so, growth over what amount of time? did i grossly miscalculate somewhere along the way, leading me to errant conclusions?
Daniel Geer (2 months ago)
Science is wrong, sometimes.
DeadLetter (2 months ago)
/spawn worm
1144185N (2 months ago)
3:34, isn't the way he described Aether kind of like a veeeery simplified version of the Higgs field?
Fredrik Åfeldt (2 months ago)
Earth grows 0.2 mm a day? That's 800 km in 4 billion years! It could explain a river. Or a lake. It's so much that a one could maybe with a bit of a squint, see the difference by naked eye comparisson of baby earth and today's earth (near-death earth) from orbit.
Alex Ye (2 months ago)
Something something Science was wrong believe my variety of psuedoscience.
The time when "scientists" determined Earth was spherical.
tomayto-tomahto (2 months ago)
That “aether wind” experiment seems similar to how LIGO detects gravitational waves 🤔
Mabus (2 months ago)
Is it only me or does this aether-o-meter resemble a gravity wave detector
benjmonster420 (2 months ago)
actually, scientists still desperately cling to the idea of spontaneous generation. they call it "evolution". life springing up where previously there was none. still makes 0 sense.
TheDarkever (2 months ago)
Hint to spot fake theories: they are created from nothing!
Supreme Reader (2 months ago)
I’d add some more recent ideas like the “Big Crunch” idea that the Big Bang happened and then the universe would go back to how it started. Or even Linaeous’ ideas on evolution.
Dennis (2 months ago)
"don't always get it right the first time"? I beg to differ, SciShow. Science is the process of knowing you NEVER get it right, your understanding just gets better in jumps. Newton didn't get it right, he just got it clearer than before. Einstein isn't completely right, just right until you get to the quantum realm. Be more careful about your wording or you'll have a bunch of misinformed people who think they are "right" is an absolute sense.
Lou Fazio (2 months ago)
The smugness is noxious.
Some Kind of Rodent (2 months ago)
I wonder what future scientists will think about our theories.
Jericho Sombilon (2 months ago)
The guy at #5 must've had it bad... Imagine coining the term of the guy who raised a middle finger to scientists and was proven right anyway. 😨😨😨
Ian Davidson (2 months ago)
very good
Mark Thomas (2 months ago)
And yet scientists still smugly refer to almost everything as "settled science". The Big Bang, Darwinism, Global Warming, The 'Standard Model' etc etc etc...
Elaine Green (2 months ago)
Can't wait til the THEORY of Evolution is found to be wrong.
Although it isn't a hypothesis, so have fun trying to disprove fact.
Louis Jovanovich (2 months ago)
inflammable means flammable!? What a country!
A. Lampman (2 months ago)
Drunkenly doing the math here, but even at a rate of 0.2mm/year, that adds up to like a kilometer of change to earth's radius every 5 million years or so. That's pretty crazy.
Cythil (2 months ago)
A lot of these ideas where not dead ends but stepping stones towards a greater understanding. Even something like luminiferous Aether was a step in the right direction of sorts. At least by trying to prod the Aether we figured out what was really going on. (Well.. Actually there still some thing we do not know. But we came closer to a more complete understanding!)
Lance Craig (2 months ago)
What have we got totally wrong now?
Adam Spencer (2 months ago)
Explain dark matter? Aka new ather lol
David Thornton (2 months ago)
Aether, huh? Just like dark energy? May as well just say "because reasons".
AtoZ Botanicals (2 months ago)
What about when it was thought plants ate the dirt around them
djgruby (2 months ago)
Why do you consistently mispronounce "Einstein"? It's "/'aɪnʃtaɪn/", not "/'aɪnstaɪn/".
PayNoAttention (2 months ago)
I'm fairly certain Michael does not blink once in this entire video.
Evyatar Baranga (2 months ago)
About 2, and today we returnd the aether and calld it dark metter...
Avery Bentley Sollmann (2 months ago)
Maybe it's just me, but I have to say that, while I really like the information, I don't quite like the tones of these videos because I think it puts more emphasis on how these scientists got it wrong rather than on the beauty that is the falsifiability principle. The tones here seem to be shaming those scientists for not getting the right answer rather than communicating that science doesn't require that all the answers be right all of the time.
Ron Khare (2 months ago)
Thanks for explaining the expanding Earth theory and why it was wrong. I came across the idea a long time ago and could never find a short, to the point reasoning why it was completely wrong. I don't claim to be a smart man, but my appreciation for so easily smacking down a disproved theory hopefully won't go in vain.
WetBob SpongePants (2 months ago)
We still say sunrise & sunset when the sun doesn't move at all. The horizon moves up or down depending on the time of day.
DinosaurzNspace (2 months ago)
We think we're smart but in the near future we're gonna be laughed at for some of the stuff we believe to be true.
Logan Hall (2 months ago)
Serving laser crop broad apart hit statue infection plan bar link.
Spontaneous Generation was only briefly defeated as a theory. Note how the universe and all life are now believed to have spontaneously generated under the current consensus of Big Bang Theory and Evolution based on sub-atomic particulate motion, and Speciation. Looks like scientists of today have failed to learn from the lessons of History and now tout narratives contrary to their own evidences through using unrelated premises as "proofs" through peer approved, but illogical interpretations.
David M. Johnston (2 months ago)
I'm curious as to how _our_ science will be discussed in such videos in the future!
Noice McNoiceFace (2 months ago)
Somebody deep fried the thumbnail

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.