Podcasts about science questions

Watch Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels (mentioned at the end of the podcast) here. In this discussion you will learn how the very nature of real science gives us a better understanding of why scientists come to very opposing conclusions. ✍️ Links and Show Notes ‘It’s not science’: Is evolution ‘science’ and creation ‘religion’? “This changes everything!” The right perspective makes a big difference Faith and facts: How a biblical worldview makes best sense of the evidence Science Questions and Answers Dinosaur soft tissue How the Joggins polystrate fossils falsify long ages Folded rocks Little-known facts about radiometric dating Diamonds—are the really that old? Darwin’s impact—the bloodstained legacy of evolution G.K. Chesterton: Darwinism 'Is an Attack on Thought Itself' Darwinism and World War One

Are you finding it challenging to secure employment in India, the USA, the UK, Canada, or the UAE? We assist students, working professionals, and housewives in these countries to find jobs in Data Analytics, Data Science, Machine Learning, Data Engineering, and Artificial Intelligence. You can schedule a personalized one-on-one call with me to discover more about our Career Transition Plan. During this call, we'll discuss the most suitable pathway for you, considering your background and specific challenges. We'll also cover the duration and daily time commitment necessary for your career transition. I will guide you in strategically enhancing your resume and preparing for interviews in these countries. We helped 15,000+ professionals achieve their career transition. If you are looking for a Successful Career Transition into Data Analytics, Data Science, Machine Learning, AI, Gen AI, LLMs, Azure, AWS, Data Engineering, Power BI, and Deep Learning?? Book Free Career Discovery Call: https://bepec.in/registration-form/✅ AI Engineer Career Transition Program with Remote Internship in 12 Months:https://bepec.in/courses/ai-engineer/✅ Generative AI Career Transition Program with Remote Internship: https://bepec.in/courses/generative-ai/✅Full Stack Data Analytics Career Transition Program with Remote Internship: https://bepec.in/courses/full-stack-data-analytics/✅Full Stack Data Science Career Transition Program with Remote Internship: https://bepec.in/courses/data-science-course-syllabus/✅Power BI & SQL Career Transition Program with Remote Internship = https://bepec.in/courses/power-bi-program/Connect with Kanth on Instagram: www.instagram.com/meet_kanth/Connect with Kanth on Twitter: https://twitter.com/meet_kanthConnect with Kanth on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rajeev-kanth-6222a618a

What is in the This Week in Science Podcast? This Week: Interview W/Natalia Reagan, Glowing Monkeys, Editing Cholesterol, Seawater Soup, Sperm Sorrow, Ovarian Teeth, Social Sickness, Sober Thoughts, Science Questions, And Much More! Become a Patron! Check out the full unedited episode of our science podcast on YouTube or Twitch. And, remember that you can […] The post 15 November, 2023 – Episode 951 – Should Science Monkey Around? appeared first on This Week in Science - The Kickass Science Podcast.

What is in the This Week in Science Podcast? This Week: Engineered Yeast, Satellite Viruses, No Body Just Head, Rhombot, Humans vs. Robots, Cosmic Interview W/Alan Boyle, Cat Evolution, Cat Stink, Aging & Cat Poo, Science Questions, And Much More! Become a Patron! Check out the full unedited episode of our science podcast on YouTube […] The post November 9, 2023 – Episode 950 – What's the Cosmic Log on Science? appeared first on This Week in Science - The Kickass Science Podcast.

Aerospace engineer Keji Sojobi (@kejisojobi on Instagram) joins the show to discuss our most pressing science questions. #VolumeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Aerospace engineer Keji Sojobi (@kejisojobi on Instagram) joins the show to discuss our most pressing science questions. #VolumeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Thanks to Curiosity Stream and NordVPN for sponsoring today's podcast. Go to https://curiositystream.com/SPACENUTS and use code SPACENUTS to save 25% today.Visit www.nordvpn.com/spacenuts for our special security deal designed for you and save big time.In this episode of the Space Nuts podcast, Professor Fred Watson and I answer the most pressing astronomy and space science questions from our listeners. From the role of moons in creating tides to the speed of light, we explore the vast mysteries of the universe. But one listener's hypothetical scenario involving black holes has us stumped. Tune in to find out why. As a space enthusiast, I was excited to listen to the latest episode of the Space Nuts podcast, where host Andrew Dunkley and Professor Fred Watson answered a variety of astronomy and space science questions from their curious listeners. Learn about the properties of dark matter and dark energy and how they affect the universe's expansion. Additionally, the hosts discussed the connection between time and space and how they both play a crucial role in our understanding of cosmology. Moreover, listen to their explanations about tides, speed of spacecraft, and the effects of tumbling in space. Recommended as a podcast that is engaging and informative, and highly recommended to anyone seeking a deep understanding of astronomy and space science. In this episode, you will be able to: · Ponder the mysterious influence of dark matter and dark energy throughout the cosmos. · Investigate how space and time converge in the fascinating realm of space-time. · Scrutinize factors affecting spacecraft velocity and their ability to remain unseen. · Learn about the significant role played by moons and tidal forces in sustaining life on habitable worlds. The resources mentioned in this episode are: · Check out our Patreon page to support the show and get access to exclusive content. · Visit our website to listen to past episodes and browse our merchandise. · Follow us on social media for updates and behind-the-scenes content. · Leave us a review on your podcast platform of choice to help others discover the show. · Sign up for our newsletter to stay up-to-date on all things Space Nuts. · Consider donating to organizations that support space exploration and research, such as the Planetary Society or the International Dark-Sky Association.

On this Heard Tell Good Talks we are talking science headlines, your questions, and issues with science and scientists with Heard Tell's most frequent guest, scientist Dr Michael Siegel. We talk James Webb space telescope, how to discern "studies say" in news media, STEM education, why scientist struggle to communicate with the public and what to do about it, why intro-level college courses should cover a broad spectrum of topics, and more.--------------------Questions, comments, concerns, ideas, or epistles? Email us HeardTellShow@gmail.comPlease make sure to subscribe to @Heard Tell , like the program, comment with your thoughts, and share with others.Support Heard Tell here: https://app.redcircle.com/shows/4b87f374-cace-44ea-960c-30f9bf37bcff/donationsSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/heard-tell/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Your Heard Tell for Thursday, January 26th, 2022, is turning down the noise of the news cycle and getting to the information we need to discern our times by talking science headlines, your questions, and issues with science and scientists with Heard Tell's most frequent guest, scientist Dr Michael Siegel. We talk James Webb space telescope, how to discern "studies say" in news media, STEM education, why scientist struggle to communicate with the public and what to do about it, why intro-level college courses should cover a broad spectrum of topics, and more. Plus writer and commentator Benjamin Ayanian returns to Heard Tell to talk about the importance of paying attention to state legislatures, how national narratives don't always apply and often distract from state and local politics and policies, what COVID-19 should have taught legislative bodies but apparently different, and how "don't let a crisis go to waste" is becoming a real problem when crisis keeps coming. All that and more on this Thursday edition of Heard Tell. --------------------Questions, comments, concerns, ideas, or epistles? Email us HeardTellShow@gmail.comPlease make sure to subscribe to @Heard Tell , like the program, comment with your thoughts, and share with others.Support Heard Tell here: https://app.redcircle.com/shows/4b87f374-cace-44ea-960c-30f9bf37bcff/donationsSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/heard-tell/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Scientist Leah Elson joins the show to give fascinating and insightful answers to my dumb questions, including: Why do men have nipples? What's the deal with pubic hair? Why is the sky blue? Is teleportation possible? ..and many more Elson is an infinitely patient teacher. She has an upcoming book called There Are (No) Stupid Questions in... Science, in which she addresses a wide range of perplexing topics from the ridiculous to the sublime.  

Welcome to Earth, a place where societies run on pure fantasy and we just make up shit as we go along

Have a wacky science question? Randall Munroe is here to help. The author of the science question-and-answer blog What If? and the popular web comic xkcd joins host Krys Boyd to discuss questions like: Could you cool the earth by opening freezer doors? And: Is it possible to build a billion-story building? His book full of answers is “What If? 2: Additional Serious Scientific Answers to Absurd Hypothetical Questions.”

This Data Science Interview Questions and Answers video will help you to prepare yourself for Data Science interviews. This video is ideal for both beginners as well as professionals who want to learn or brush up their concepts in Data Science and Machine Learning. Please visit https://www.infosectrain.com/offers/ or Write back to us at sales@infosectrain.com #DataScienceInterviewQuestions #DataAnalytics #DataScienceTutorial #DataScienceTraining #Datascience #InfosecTrain Subscribe to our channel to get video updates. Hit the subscribe button above. Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Infosectrain/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/Infosec_Train LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/infosec-train/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/infosectrain/ Telegram: https://t.me/infosectrains

How fast are sperm? Can women get 'whiskey dick'? And wtf is with period poos? Dr Karl and Dr Theresa Larkin give us the answers to this and more.

How fast are sperm? Can women get 'whiskey dick'? And wtf is with period poos? Dr Karl and Dr Theresa Larkin give us the answers to this and more.

How fast are sperm? Can women get 'whiskey dick'? And wtf is with period poos? Dr Karl and Dr Theresa Larkin give us the answers to this and more.

Which biases are under recognised in healthcare marketing or market research? Where do you stand on using facial coding, eye tracking and voice tonality recognition in your research? During our second Annual Celebration of Behavioural Science we answered your questions! Have a listen to see what the Shift team had to say and what biases they encounter in their work or personal lives!

Big Questions Acts 5:27-42

Science is based on questioning everything. The term "FOLLOW" is bad news, don't listen to anyone who uses this word unless you trust them with your life. 3 terrific book reviews: "Younger Next Year" by Crowley and Lodge, "Sleep Smarter" and "Eat Smarter" both by Shawn Stevenson.

This Tuesday talk featuring Winston Meikkle as a return guest focuses upon COVID and what is going on with Omicron. As a Nurse who ran a Covid ward and experienced the pandemic up close and personal. To his refusal to take the shot and exit from that position. On his previous visit? He predicted the current "wave of the vaccinated" around now that cannot be disguised or dismissed. But how did he know? Winston discusses what he sees as flaws in the logic and science of using our own natural messaging system to fight against COVID which is how these shots work. And why he feels for most people boosting your own immune system is the best course of action. Born In Trouble does not tell you whether or not. We just want you to understand that Science is Questioning what we already know!

Learn why the #NoMakeup movement actually drove more makeup sales; photosynthetic frogs; and why atoms don't collapse. The #nomakeup movement is linked to a rise in makeup sales -- here's why by Steffie Drucker “Natural beauty” isn't effortless (or free). (2021). Chicago Booth Review. https://review.chicagobooth.edu/marketing/2021/article/natural-beauty-isn-t-effortless-or-free  Smith, R. K., Yazdani, E., Wang, P., Soleymani, S., & Ton, L. A. N. (2021). The cost of looking natural: Why the no-makeup movement may fail to discourage cosmetic use. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-021-00801-2  Jewel, A. (2020, November 10). Alicia Keys Is GLAMOUR UK's Autumn/Winter 2020 Cover Star. Glamour UK; Glamour UK. https://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/article/alicia-keys-glamour-uk-cover-2020  Shunatona, B. (2020, January 26). Why Doesn't Alicia Keys Wear Makeup? Other Than, You Know, Because She CAN. Cosmopolitan; Cosmopolitan. https://www.cosmopolitan.com/style-beauty/beauty/a30519498/alicia-keys-no-makeup-look/  Scientists made photosynthetic frogs by Cameron Duke Incredible Creatures that Use Photosynthesis For Energy. (2014, March 9). Futurism; Futurism. https://futurism.com/photosynthetic-animals  Olena, A. (2021, October 13). Scientists Use Photosynthesis to Power an Animal's Brain. The Scientist Magazine®; The Scientist Magazine. https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/scientists-use-photosynthesis-to-power-an-animal-s-brain-69307  Özugur, S., Chávez, M. N., Sanchez-Gonzalez, R., Kunz, L., Nickelsen, J., & Straka, H. (2021). Green oxygen power plants in the brain rescue neuronal activity. IScience, 24(10), 103158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2021.103158  Why don't atoms collapse by Ashley Hamer (Listener question from Joseph in Denver, Colorado) Fermilab | Science | Inquiring Minds | Questions About Physics. (2012). Fnal.gov. https://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/inquiring/questions/bob.html  Baird, C. (2013). Why don't electrons in the atom enter the nucleus? Science Questions with Surprising Answers. https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/08/08/why-dont-electrons-in-the-atom-enter-the-nucleus/  ‌Ethan. (2011, October 5). Music theory and quantum mechanics. The Ethan Hein Blog. http://www.ethanhein.com/wp/2011/music-theory-and-quantum-mechanics/  ‌Nicholas McKay Parry. (2021). Electron capture | Radiology Reference Article | Radiopaedia.org. Radiopaedia.org. https://radiopaedia.org/articles/electron-capture?lang=us#:~:text=Electron%20capture%20is%20the%20radioactive,neutrino%20(ve)%201.  Follow Curiosity Daily on your favorite podcast app to learn something new every day with Cody Gough andAshley Hamer. Still curious? Get exclusive science shows, nature documentaries, and more real-life entertainment on discovery+! Go to https://discoveryplus.com/curiosity to start your 7-day free trial. discovery+ is currently only available for US subscribers. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dr Karl answers all of Danny Lakey's Science Questions. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dr Karl answering all of Danny lakey's Science Questions!!! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Bob Elliott and Ray Goulding were an American comedy duo whose career spanned five decades. Using satire and deadpan delivery, their routine was typically to conduct radio or television interviews presented as though it were a serious broadcast, but using off-the-wall dialogue. GSMC Classics presents some of the greatest classic radio broadcasts, classic novels, dramas, comedies, mysteries, and theatrical presentations from a bygone era. The GSMC Classics collection is the embodiment of the best of the golden age of radio. Let Golden State Media Concepts take you on a ride through the classic age of radio, with this compiled collection of episodes from a wide variety of old programs. ***PLEASE NOTE*** GSMC Podcast Network presents these shows as historical content and have brought them to you unedited. Remember that times have changed and some shows might not reflect the standards of today's politically correct society. The shows do not necessarily reflect the views, standards, or beliefs of Golden State Media Concepts or the GSMC Podcast Network. Our goal is to entertain, educate give you a glimpse into the past.

Dr Karl answering all Danny Lakey's Science Questions!!! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How does our voice work? What plant stings worse than a stinging nettle? Astronaut and author Tim Peake joins us to answer YOUR questions about space! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dr Karl answering your Science Questions!!! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Need something to lift you and make you smile. Junction Park Primary school students visit the lab and learn about the brain. They ask the most fantastic questions and made us so happy. It is only fair that you are able to enjoy this one too. Thank you John Bray and Junction Park students for embracing neuroscience and the future. We may have some great scientists on the way.Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/selenab)

Want to know why eczema feels good under hot water? Why do we get wrinkles in the bath? Why can I see the moon during the day? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

More quizzing and guessing! Indigo answers some strange science questions from the Internet. This will be the last episode of Our Lively World, at least for a while.

This episode of the 'Research @ OU Graduate School' Podcast is an informal introduction of the OU's Posthuman Collective research group. In the podcast the Posthumanist Collective members, students and academics, will talk about how and why the group started and how the weaving, thinking, and becoming with each other, their PhD experiences and their research led to different, positive, and productive ways of working and researching in the academia. The group will discuss several key Posthumanist and New Materialist concepts and modes of inquiry, such as diffraction or the processes of making-with, to provide a window into and start a discussion around these significant theories. More importantly, they will talk about what Posthumanist/New Materialist concepts do for our daily struggles, in the academic and personal life and at times of a pandemic, and how they can be harnessed towards rebuilding and rethinking what next in relation to academic career and personal life. The following content therefore engages, entangles, and thinks-with Posthumanist and New Materialist theories as they are lived and enacted by a group of OU researchers in their personal and academics contexts. To contact the group please email Posthumanist.Collective@gmail.com or reach them individually through their respective institutional emails. AUTHORS Petra Vackova is a fourth-year PhD student at the Open University and a member of a Children's Research Centre. She has recently completed her PhD thesis that engages feminist new materialist theories to explore socio-material interactions in and around artmaking beyond processes of social inclusion and exclusion and towards educational justice to come in early-years settings working with historically disadvantaged children and families. Donata Puntil is studying for a Doctorate in Education at the Open University as part of the Language Acts and Worldmaking Project. She is also the Programme Director for the Modern language Centre at KCL, and she has an extensive teaching and research experience in Second Language Acquisition, Intercultural Studies and Applied Linguistics, with a particular focus on using cinema and literature in language teaching. Carolyn Cooke has recently, successfully completed her PhD at the University of Aberdeen focused on music student teachers' experiences of 'living' pedagogy. She has worked as a music teacher, a head of music in a large secondary school, and is now working as a Lecturer at the Open University with particular responsibilities for the music PGCE course and generic aspects of PGCE courses for six secondary subjects. Emily Dowdeswell is a second-year PhD student at the Open University and her doctoral research explores the role of fun in learning. In her research she focuses on the perspectives of primary schools pupils to learn how they understand fun and learning to develop and build an innovative model for the role of fun in learning in primary education. READING LIST 1. Haraway, D. (2013). When Species Meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 2. Haraway, D. (2016). Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene.Duke University Press. 3. Braidotti, R. (2006). Affirming the Affirmative: On Nomadic Affectivity. Rhizomes, Fall 2005/(11/12), 1–19. Retrieved from http://www.rhizomes.net/issue11/ 4. Burnett, C, Merchant and Neumann, M. (2020). Closing the gap? Overcoming limitations in sociomaterial accounts of early literacy. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 20:1, pp. 111-133. 5. Braidotti, R. (2011) Nomadic Subjects. New York: Columbia University Press. 6. Haraway, D. (1988) Situated Knowledges: the Science Questions in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective, Feminist Studies, 14:3, pp. 575-599. 7. Tsing, A. (2005) Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connections. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. 8. Tsing, A. (2015). The mushroom at the end of the world. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week we continue our summer series through some difficult questions, this week looking at the intersection of science and faith. Are they at odds? What do I do when science contradicts scripture (or vice versa)? Can I be a… Read More Difficult Questions // The Science Question The post Difficult Questions // The Science Question appeared first on Refuge.Church.

This week we continue our summer series through some difficult questions, this week looking at the intersection of science and faith. Are they at odds? What do I do when science contradicts scripture (or vice versa)? Can I be a… Read More Difficult Questions // The Science Question

Learn about introverts’ and extroverts’ pandemic response; astronaut farts; and why violet and purple are different. Introverts fared better than extroverts during the pandemic by Kelsey Donk Benz, M. (2021). COVID-19 and College Students: Introverts Coped Better than Extroverts During Shutdown. Medicalresearch.com. https://medicalresearch.com/mental-health-research/covid-19-and-college-students-introverts-coped-better-than-extroverts-during-shutdown/57012/  Extroverts and introverts showed differences in mood during early COVID 19 pandemic. (2021). EurekAlert! https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-03/p-eai032221.php  Rettew, D. C., McGinnis, E. W., Copeland, W., Nardone, H. Y., Bai, Y., Rettew, J., Devadenam, V., & Hudziak, J. J. (2021). Personality trait predictors of adjustment during the COVID pandemic among college students. PLOS ONE, 16(3), e0248895. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248895  In the 1960s, people were worried that astronaut farts were a fire hazard by Grant Currin Krulwich, R. (2010, October 4). Space Propulsion Made Easy: Eat Beans. NPR.org. https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2010/09/16/129908529/space-propulsion-made-easy-eat-beans  Seriously Science. (2018, August 23). Farts: An Under-appreciated Threat to Astronauts. Discover Magazine; Discover Magazine. https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/farts-an-underappreciated-threat-to-astronauts  ‌Starr, M. (2018). Here’s The Really Gross Reason Why You Don’t Want to Burp in Space. ScienceAlert. https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-the-really-gross-reason-why-you-don-t-want-to-burp-in-space  Calloway DH, Murphy EL. (2021). Intestinal hydrogen and methane of men fed space diet. Life Sciences and Space Research, 7. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12197533/  Violet and purple are completely different forms of color by Ashley Hamer Pappas, S. (2010, April 29). How Do We See Color? Livescience.com; Live Science. https://www.livescience.com/32559-why-do-we-see-in-color.html  ‌https://www.facebook.com/sciencequestionswithchris. (2012). Why are there only six fundamental colors: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and violet? Science Questions with Surprising Answers. https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2012/12/04/why-are-there-only-six-fundamental-colors-red-orange-yellow-green-blue-and-violet/  Color. (2021). Gsu.edu. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/specol.html  Marian, J. (2021). Difference between “violet” and “purple.” Jakubmarian.com. https://jakubmarian.com/difference-between-violet-and-purple/  Subscribe to Curiosity Daily to learn something new every day with Cody Gough and Ashley Hamer. You can also listen to our podcast as part of your Alexa Flash Briefing; Amazon smart speakers users, click/tap “enable” here: https://www.amazon.com/Curiosity-com-Curiosity-Daily-from/dp/B07CP17DJY  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

 * PART II -- Real Science Radio on the Big Bang with Lawrence Krauss: (Hear also Krauss part I but for our written evidence against the big bang, keep reading here.) Creationist co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams present Bob's wide-ranging discussion with theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical) Lawrence Krauss. These RSR programs air on America's most powerful Christian radio station, Denver's 50,000-watt AM 670 KLTT. Over time this web page will grow as we add the work of countless secular scientists who document widely accepted observational data, which facts taken individually and together challenge the atheistic big bang origins claim made by Krauss. * Krauss: "All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang": Mentioning some of the obvious studies and massive quantities of data (see list below) that at least apparently seems to strongly contradict fundamental big bang predictions, Bob offered Krauss a chance to dial back his written claim that "all evidence now overwhelmingly supports" the big bang (p. 6 in his book, and 3:45 into today's program, beginning with Krauss' question, "You're not a young earther, are you?"). Instead, Krauss dug in deeper. There is nothing objective about Lawrence Krauss. He comes across more like the high priest of a cult than a scientist willing to acknowledge and follow the data. Each of the major observations below require secondary assumptions and rescue devices, some of which have not even been invented yet, to keep these enormous quantities of scientific data from apparently falsifying the big bang and its standard claims for the age of the universe and for star and planetary formation (this list will grow including with additional references over the next months): RSR's List of Evidence Against the Big Bang: For the latest version of this list which includes links to dozens of peer-reviewed journal papers where even proponents themselves admit their major discoveries go against the predictions of their own big bang theory, see rsr.org/evidence-against-the-big-bang. Here's a summary: * Mature galaxies exist far, far away where the big bang predicts that only infant galaxies should exist. * Hundreds of galaxies are clustered out at tremendous distances where the big bang predicts that such clusters should not exist. * Spiral galaxies look “too perfect” because they are missing millions of years of their predicted collisions. * The surface brightness of the furthest galaxies is identical to that of the nearest galaxies, contradicting a central prediction of the big bang. * Nine billion years of synthesized heavy elements are missing from a trillion stars. That’s a lot. This study failed to confirm the fundamental expectation of the big bang’s theory of nuclear synthesis. * Not even one of the millions of stars ever analyzed is a supposed “first generation” star (aka Population III), contrary to big bang expectations. * The discovery of exoplanets, including hot Jupiters and one with a retrograde orbit, has completely falsified the big bang’s nebular hypothesis of solar system formation, as openly admitted by Mike Brown, the exoplanet database manager for NASA. * It is not a scientific statement but merely a philosophical one to claim that the universe has no center, and thus, the big bang’s central Copernican principle is not based on science but on philosophical bias, as widely acknowledged including by Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman.* The most advanced three-dimensional map of more than a million galaxies seems to imply that the universe has a center. * Our sun is missing nearly 100% of the angular momentum (i.e., spin) that the big bang theories of stellar evolution and solar system formation predict that it should have. * There is an entire universe worth of missing antimatter if the big bang theory were true. * The big bang’s theory of chemical evolution is in crisis as inherently admitted with the National Academy of Sciences report titled, 11 Science Questions for the New Century which asks “How were the heavy elements from iron to uranium made?” with the journal Nature recently publishing a paper also admitting that even supernovae cannot produce our earth’s heavy elements. Today's Resource: For today's program we recommend RSR's Evidence Against the Big Bang video. * If our solar system’s heavy elements were produced in supernovae, then the sun and the earth are expected to have the same isotopes (versions) of elements like nitrogen and oxygen. But the sun has “40 percent less nitrogen-15 (compared to nitrogen-14)” than does the earth, and we have 7 percent less oxygen-16 relative to other isotopes, than does the sun. * The spiral galaxy’s beautiful arms are missing millions of years of expected deformation which lead proponents to assert the existence of the first of the hypothetical entities, dark matter, to prop up the big bang theory. * Superclusters of millions of galaxies exist yet the big bang predicts that gravity could not form them even in the supposed great age of the cosmos. * The astounding uniform temperature of the universe challenges the claim that the early universe would have been clumpy enough for galaxies to form. * While materialists have spent a century objecting to “catastrophism” here on earth where continent-wide evidence for such catastrophe exists, out in space, there are so many planetary “anomalies”, like Venus rotating backwards, Uranus rolling, and the highly elongated and even retrograde orbits of exoplanets, that despite the enormous distances between astronomical bodies, cosmologists today have become catastrophists. * The Sun rotates seven degrees off the ecliptic, and is missing 99% of its expected spin, with both observations providing powerful evidence against the big bang’s nebular hypothesis sub-model. * The infrared light that was supposed to be left over from star formation appears to not exist. * Hundreds of advanced-degreed scientists have publicly rejected the big bang. * The so-called “Axis of Evil”, confirmed most recently by the Planck satellite, appears to falsify the big bang’s Copernican principle of isotropy by displaying a preferred direction in the CMB. * Quasars typically have high redshifts (implying great distance) but they statistically cluster with low redshift galaxies (implying near distance), undermining confidence in the big bang’s foundational claim that redshift reliably indicates distance. * Contrary to any expectation of naturalism, the cosmos has astounding fine-tuning, which has led many big bang proponents to effectively admit the big bang’s inability to explain our existence. An increasing number of mainstream cosmologists therefore are resorting to a belief in the existence of countless trillions of universes, in hopes that, by mere chance, such a multiverse might explain the many wildly unlikely fortuitous circumstances that combine to enable our existence. * All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang? The world’s most popular scientists, like Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, and Neil deGrasse Tyson, at best stay silent and at worst abet their own side’s misrepresentation of the literature. The multinational multi-billion dollar science industry tolerates individual discoveries here and there which may require tweaking fundamental dogma. But what is not tolerated is the summarizing of widespread and diverse evidence that may question the very validity of such dogma. * Michael Crichton on Consensus: When the physician and writer Dr. Crichton asked, “When did ‘skeptic’ become a dirty word in science?” he answered his own question. When evidence is weak, the status quo appeals to “the consensus” with the aid of “the decline of the media [think Ira Flatow as in NPR's Science Friday] as an independent assessor of fact.” Taking advantage of all that, Krauss appeals to that consensus, as he alleged to us, “All scientists are Darwinists” (apparently, except for the thousands documented at rsr.org/doubters), and as he dismissed the hundreds of scientists who reject the big bang by implying that their expertise was in unrelated disciplines. Please consider, though, that when those who believe in the big bang claim consensus, consensus, there just might be evidence that disproves that consensus. * Krauss' Anthropic Circular Reasoning: Regarding the many fine-tuned parameters of the universe, like Krauss said to Enyart and atheists are content to trust, the Anthropic Principle explains all this, for otherwise, we wouldn't be here to notice. In response, Bob said to Lawrence, quoting Walter ReMine (1993, p. 61), that this is as satisfying as a doctor saying, "The reason that your father is deaf is because he can't hear." * Scientists Questioning or Rejecting the Big Bang: See rsr.org/scientists-doubting-darwin-and-the-big-bang. * Krauss on Credentials: Within ten seconds Lawrence Krauss contradicted himself, claiming at six minutes into today's program that, "Scientists don't argue on credentials", but only ten seconds earlier he had asked, "What department?" as a way of discrediting the hundreds of scientists who argue that much evidence contradicts the Big Bang. (And countering Krauss' claim that, "All scientists are Darwinists," for the hundreds of thousands of Ph.D.s and Masters in the sciences, including in the applied and biological sciences, see also rsr.org/scholars-doubting-darwin.) * Krauss Admits Misleading Title to Sell Books: An atheist Professor at City University of New York, Massimo Pigliucci (whom we've quoted recently when pointing out that PZ Myers is filthy), is glad that folks are "pressing Krauss on several of his non sequiturs." He quotes Columbia's David Albert, who holds a PhD in theoretical physics and who in the New York Times made the same argument, brilliantly though, that I gave to Krauss today, that the “physical stuff of the world" and "quantum field theories" "have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from... or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period.” And Pigliucci shows the "intellectual dishonesty" from Krauss' own words in The Atlantic, when challenged that his book has a misleading title, because his topic actually is "a quantum vacuum" which "has properties," which properties objectively are not nothing, as in Krauss' title, A Universe from Nothing. Lawrence replied, “I don’t think I argued that physics has definitively shown how something could come from nothing... if the ‘nothing’ of reality is full of stuff, then I’ll go with that." But when the Atlantic interviewer, Ross Andersen presses, "when I read the title of your book, I read it as 'questions about origins are over.'" To which Krauss responds: “Well, if that hook gets you into the book that’s great. But in all seriousness, I never make that claim. ... If I’d just titled the book ‘A Marvelous Universe,’ not as many people would have been attracted to [i.e., bought] it." Pigliucci too points out the dishonesty and chastises Krauss: "Claim what you wish to claim, not what you think is going to sell more copies of your book, essentially playing a bait and switch with your readers." Not learning from Krauss' earlier mistitled book, Richard Dawkins was also taken in by his friend's ruse, for he wrote the Afterword, clearly without having read the manuscript itself, because Dawkins stated that the book title "means exactly what it says." Not. * Missing Uniform Distribution of Radioactivity: The materialist theory on the origin of the elements in the periodic table claims that all of our radioactive elements were created in the explosion of stars (no longer supernovas, but now neutron stars and even black holes), but that would predict a relatively uniform distribution on Earth, at least throughout the crust, and possibly the mantle too. So in today's otherwise contentious interview, Krauss agreed with Enyart's statement that 90% of Earth's radioactivity (uranium, thorium, etc.) is located in the continental crust, and Krauss added, a mystery for him, that it tends to concentrate around granite! That is, that 90% is not in the mantle nor in the enormous amount of the crust which lies under the oceans, but our planet's radioactivity is concentrated in 1/3rd of 1% of the Earth's mass, in the continental crust. (Further, the release of it's heat has not yet reached a steady state.) Krauss offered a partial explanation: that uranium was originally evenly distributed throughout (an alleged) molten earth but being a large atom, it floated toward the surface. This the bias of this physicist led him to forget, apparently, that it is density, and not size, that causes things to float. Even denser than gold, uranium is one of the most dense elements (excluding atheists and other manmade phenomena). Further, for argument's sake, that would only explain the relative absence of radioactivity deep in the Earth, but would not explain uranium's distancing itself from the mantle and from the oceanic crust, nor its affinity for the continents and even, of all things, for granite. Further, under Krauss' belief in the widespread falsehood that the planet was once molten, if so, then the gold in the crust should have sunk to the core! The creationists, on the other hand, have a theory based on observational science as to why radioactivity is concentrated around granite. * Absurd Consistency of Uranium Isotopes IF Formed in Space: Google: origin of Earth's radioactivity. The top-ranked result is Walt Brown's hydroplate theory. See this also at rsr.org/radioactivity. Brown earned his Ph.D. from MIT. He writes: The isotopes of each chemical element have almost constant ratios with each other. ... Why is the ratio of 235U to 238U in uranium ore deposits so constant almost everywhere on Earth? One very precise study showed that the ratio is 0.0072842, with a standard deviation of only 0.000017. Obviously, the more time that elapses between the formation of the various isotopes (such as 235U and 238U) and the farther they are transported to their current resting places, the more varied those ratios should be. The belief that these isotopes formed in a supernova explosion millions of light-years away and billions of years before the Earth formed and somehow collected in small ore bodies in a fixed ratio is absurd. Powerful explosions would have separated the lighter isotopes from the heavier isotopes. Some radioisotopes simultaneously produce two or more daughters. When that happens, the daughters have very precise ratios to each other, called branching ratios or branching fractions. Uranium isotopes are an example, because they are daughter products of some even heavier element. Recall that the Proton-21 Laboratory has produced superheavy elements that instantly decayed. Also, the global flux of neutrons during the flood provided nuclei with enough neutrons to reach their maximum stability. Therefore, isotope ratios for a given element are fixed. Had the flux of neutrons originated in outer space, we would not see these constant ratios worldwide. Because these neutrons originated at many specific points in the globe-encircling crust, these fixed ratios are global. "Walt Brown is the Isaac Newton of our day." -Bob Enyart 

 * PART II -- Real Science Radio on the Big Bang with Lawrence Krauss: (Hear also Krauss part I but for our written evidence against the big bang, keep reading here.) Creationist co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams present Bob's wide-ranging discussion with theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical) Lawrence Krauss. These RSR programs air on America's most powerful Christian radio station, Denver's 50,000-watt AM 670 KLTT. Over time this web page will grow as we add the work of countless secular scientists who document widely accepted observational data, which facts taken individually and together challenge the atheistic big bang origins claim made by Krauss. * Krauss: "All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang": Mentioning some of the obvious studies and massive quantities of data (see list below) that at least apparently seems to strongly contradict fundamental big bang predictions, Bob offered Krauss a chance to dial back his written claim that "all evidence now overwhelmingly supports" the big bang (p. 6 in his book, and 3:45 into today's program, beginning with Krauss' question, "You're not a young earther, are you?"). Instead, Krauss dug in deeper. There is nothing objective about Lawrence Krauss. He comes across more like the high priest of a cult than a scientist willing to acknowledge and follow the data. Each of the major observations below require secondary assumptions and rescue devices, some of which have not even been invented yet, to keep these enormous quantities of scientific data from apparently falsifying the big bang and its standard claims for the age of the universe and for star and planetary formation (this list will grow including with additional references over the next months): RSR's List of Evidence Against the Big Bang: For the latest version of this list which includes links to dozens of peer-reviewed journal papers where even proponents themselves admit their major discoveries go against the predictions of their own big bang theory, see rsr.org/evidence-against-the-big-bang. Here's a summary: * Mature galaxies exist far, far away where the big bang predicts that only infant galaxies should exist. * Hundreds of galaxies are clustered out at tremendous distances where the big bang predicts that such clusters should not exist. * Spiral galaxies look “too perfect” because they are missing millions of years of their predicted collisions. * The surface brightness of the furthest galaxies is identical to that of the nearest galaxies, contradicting a central prediction of the big bang. * Nine billion years of synthesized heavy elements are missing from a trillion stars. That’s a lot. This study failed to confirm the fundamental expectation of the big bang’s theory of nuclear synthesis. * Not even one of the millions of stars ever analyzed is a supposed “first generation” star (aka Population III), contrary to big bang expectations. * The discovery of exoplanets, including hot Jupiters and one with a retrograde orbit, has completely falsified the big bang’s nebular hypothesis of solar system formation, as openly admitted by Mike Brown, the exoplanet database manager for NASA. * It is not a scientific statement but merely a philosophical one to claim that the universe has no center, and thus, the big bang’s central Copernican principle is not based on science but on philosophical bias, as widely acknowledged including by Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman.* The most advanced three-dimensional map of more than a million galaxies seems to imply that the universe has a center. * Our sun is missing nearly 100% of the angular momentum (i.e., spin) that the big bang theories of stellar evolution and solar system formation predict that it should have. * There is an entire universe worth of missing antimatter if the big bang theory were true. * The big bang’s theory of chemical evolution is in crisis as inherently admitted with the National Academy of Sciences report titled, 11 Science Questions for the New Century which asks “How were the heavy elements from iron to uranium made?” with the journal Nature recently publishing a paper also admitting that even supernovae cannot produce our earth’s heavy elements. Today's Resource: For today's program we recommend RSR's Evidence Against the Big Bang video. * If our solar system’s heavy elements were produced in supernovae, then the sun and the earth are expected to have the same isotopes (versions) of elements like nitrogen and oxygen. But the sun has “40 percent less nitrogen-15 (compared to nitrogen-14)” than does the earth, and we have 7 percent less oxygen-16 relative to other isotopes, than does the sun. * The spiral galaxy’s beautiful arms are missing millions of years of expected deformation which lead proponents to assert the existence of the first of the hypothetical entities, dark matter, to prop up the big bang theory. * Superclusters of millions of galaxies exist yet the big bang predicts that gravity could not form them even in the supposed great age of the cosmos. * The astounding uniform temperature of the universe challenges the claim that the early universe would have been clumpy enough for galaxies to form. * While materialists have spent a century objecting to “catastrophism” here on earth where continent-wide evidence for such catastrophe exists, out in space, there are so many planetary “anomalies”, like Venus rotating backwards, Uranus rolling, and the highly elongated and even retrograde orbits of exoplanets, that despite the enormous distances between astronomical bodies, cosmologists today have become catastrophists. * The Sun rotates seven degrees off the ecliptic, and is missing 99% of its expected spin, with both observations providing powerful evidence against the big bang’s nebular hypothesis sub-model. * The infrared light that was supposed to be left over from star formation appears to not exist. * Hundreds of advanced-degreed scientists have publicly rejected the big bang. * The so-called “Axis of Evil”, confirmed most recently by the Planck satellite, appears to falsify the big bang’s Copernican principle of isotropy by displaying a preferred direction in the CMB. * Quasars typically have high redshifts (implying great distance) but they statistically cluster with low redshift galaxies (implying near distance), undermining confidence in the big bang’s foundational claim that redshift reliably indicates distance. * Contrary to any expectation of naturalism, the cosmos has astounding fine-tuning, which has led many big bang proponents to effectively admit the big bang’s inability to explain our existence. An increasing number of mainstream cosmologists therefore are resorting to a belief in the existence of countless trillions of universes, in hopes that, by mere chance, such a multiverse might explain the many wildly unlikely fortuitous circumstances that combine to enable our existence. * All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang? The world’s most popular scientists, like Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, and Neil deGrasse Tyson, at best stay silent and at worst abet their own side’s misrepresentation of the literature. The multinational multi-billion dollar science industry tolerates individual discoveries here and there which may require tweaking fundamental dogma. But what is not tolerated is the summarizing of widespread and diverse evidence that may question the very validity of such dogma. * Michael Crichton on Consensus: When the physician and writer Dr. Crichton asked, “When did ‘skeptic’ become a dirty word in science?” he answered his own question. When evidence is weak, the status quo appeals to “the consensus” with the aid of “the decline of the media [think Ira Flatow as in NPR's Science Friday] as an independent assessor of fact.” Taking advantage of all that, Krauss appeals to that consensus, as he alleged to us, “All scientists are Darwinists” (apparently, except for the thousands documented at rsr.org/doubters), and as he dismissed the hundreds of scientists who reject the big bang by implying that their expertise was in unrelated disciplines. Please consider, though, that when those who believe in the big bang claim consensus, consensus, there just might be evidence that disproves that consensus. * Krauss' Anthropic Circular Reasoning: Regarding the many fine-tuned parameters of the universe, like Krauss said to Enyart and atheists are content to trust, the Anthropic Principle explains all this, for otherwise, we wouldn't be here to notice. In response, Bob said to Lawrence, quoting Walter ReMine (1993, p. 61), that this is as satisfying as a doctor saying, "The reason that your father is deaf is because he can't hear." * Scientists Questioning or Rejecting the Big Bang: See rsr.org/scientists-doubting-darwin-and-the-big-bang. * Krauss on Credentials: Within ten seconds Lawrence Krauss contradicted himself, claiming at six minutes into today's program that, "Scientists don't argue on credentials", but only ten seconds earlier he had asked, "What department?" as a way of discrediting the hundreds of scientists who argue that much evidence contradicts the Big Bang. (And countering Krauss' claim that, "All scientists are Darwinists," for the hundreds of thousands of Ph.D.s and Masters in the sciences, including in the applied and biological sciences, see also rsr.org/scholars-doubting-darwin.) * Krauss Admits Misleading Title to Sell Books: An atheist Professor at City University of New York, Massimo Pigliucci (whom we've quoted recently when pointing out that PZ Myers is filthy), is glad that folks are "pressing Krauss on several of his non sequiturs." He quotes Columbia's David Albert, who holds a PhD in theoretical physics and who in the New York Times made the same argument, brilliantly though, that I gave to Krauss today, that the “physical stuff of the world" and "quantum field theories" "have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from... or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period.” And Pigliucci shows the "intellectual dishonesty" from Krauss' own words in The Atlantic, when challenged that his book has a misleading title, because his topic actually is "a quantum vacuum" which "has properties," which properties objectively are not nothing, as in Krauss' title, A Universe from Nothing. Lawrence replied, “I don’t think I argued that physics has definitively shown how something could come from nothing... if the ‘nothing’ of reality is full of stuff, then I’ll go with that." But when the Atlantic interviewer, Ross Andersen presses, "when I read the title of your book, I read it as 'questions about origins are over.'" To which Krauss responds: “Well, if that hook gets you into the book that’s great. But in all seriousness, I never make that claim. ... If I’d just titled the book ‘A Marvelous Universe,’ not as many people would have been attracted to [i.e., bought] it." Pigliucci too points out the dishonesty and chastises Krauss: "Claim what you wish to claim, not what you think is going to sell more copies of your book, essentially playing a bait and switch with your readers." Not learning from Krauss' earlier mistitled book, Richard Dawkins was also taken in by his friend's ruse, for he wrote the Afterword, clearly without having read the manuscript itself, because Dawkins stated that the book title "means exactly what it says." Not. * Missing Uniform Distribution of Radioactivity: The materialist theory on the origin of the elements in the periodic table claims that all of our radioactive elements were created in the explosion of stars (no longer supernovas, but now neutron stars and even black holes), but that would predict a relatively uniform distribution on Earth, at least throughout the crust, and possibly the mantle too. So in today's otherwise contentious interview, Krauss agreed with Enyart's statement that 90% of Earth's radioactivity (uranium, thorium, etc.) is located in the continental crust, and Krauss added, a mystery for him, that it tends to concentrate around granite! That is, that 90% is not in the mantle nor in the enormous amount of the crust which lies under the oceans, but our planet's radioactivity is concentrated in 1/3rd of 1% of the Earth's mass, in the continental crust. (Further, the release of it's heat has not yet reached a steady state.) Krauss offered a partial explanation: that uranium was originally evenly distributed throughout (an alleged) molten earth but being a large atom, it floated toward the surface. This the bias of this physicist led him to forget, apparently, that it is density, and not size, that causes things to float. Even denser than gold, uranium is one of the most dense elements (excluding atheists and other manmade phenomena). Further, for argument's sake, that would only explain the relative absence of radioactivity deep in the Earth, but would not explain uranium's distancing itself from the mantle and from the oceanic crust, nor its affinity for the continents and even, of all things, for granite. Further, under Krauss' belief in the widespread falsehood that the planet was once molten, if so, then the gold in the crust should have sunk to the core! The creationists, on the other hand, have a theory based on observational science as to why radioactivity is concentrated around granite. * Absurd Consistency of Uranium Isotopes IF Formed in Space: Google: origin of Earth's radioactivity. The top-ranked result is Walt Brown's hydroplate theory. See this also at rsr.org/radioactivity. Brown earned his Ph.D. from MIT. He writes: The isotopes of each chemical element have almost constant ratios with each other. ... Why is the ratio of 235U to 238U in uranium ore deposits so constant almost everywhere on Earth? One very precise study showed that the ratio is 0.0072842, with a standard deviation of only 0.000017. Obviously, the more time that elapses between the formation of the various isotopes (such as 235U and 238U) and the farther they are transported to their current resting places, the more varied those ratios should be. The belief that these isotopes formed in a supernova explosion millions of light-years away and billions of years before the Earth formed and somehow collected in small ore bodies in a fixed ratio is absurd. Powerful explosions would have separated the lighter isotopes from the heavier isotopes. Some radioisotopes simultaneously produce two or more daughters. When that happens, the daughters have very precise ratios to each other, called branching ratios or branching fractions. Uranium isotopes are an example, because they are daughter products of some even heavier element. Recall that the Proton-21 Laboratory has produced superheavy elements that instantly decayed. Also, the global flux of neutrons during the flood provided nuclei with enough neutrons to reach their maximum stability. Therefore, isotope ratios for a given element are fixed. Had the flux of neutrons originated in outer space, we would not see these constant ratios worldwide. Because these neutrons originated at many specific points in the globe-encircling crust, these fixed ratios are global. "Walt Brown is the Isaac Newton of our day." -Bob Enyart 

On today's show: CDC says vaccinated people may safely resume travel Details on the vaccine rollout in Washington Science guy Jason Tetro answers your questions! Vancouver restaurant owner speaks out against public health orders See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On today's show: Science guy Jason Tetro answers YOUR questions! One-on-one with Adrian Dix A word of caution to dog owners! What's it like to live in a van?

On today's show: A brief history of the Super Bowl halftime show! Should schools still be using FSA to assess students? One-on-one with Jason Tetro! Movies, TV, Streaming, and more! What should we be watching?

Dan is joined by astrobiologist Dirk Schulze-Makuch to chat about 24 planets better suited for life than earth as well as asking your own Science Questions! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Thank you for listening to my podcast and if you are having trouble you can always switch to YT and search for Reality Life Series. I have the same content. Also recommend to visit smarteditionacademy.com/ref/7/ --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/iamfilipinaninja/support

The Quirks & Quarks annual Question show, ten questions, ten answers.

Will and Brendann have their friend and science professor on the podcast. Professor Jake answers science based questions like if former planet Pluto is bitch-ass or bitchin'. Jake also explains how the sun works, talks about his dog's balls, and he blows their mind with his scientific knowledge and expertise.

Dr Karl and Dr Rhod answer your questions about the weird and wonderful world of science, including the early signs of prostate cancer, the future of wifi -- and whether there'll ever be a full cure for AIDS.

Join Chris Smith and Kat Arney as they tackle the science questions you have been sending in for the past few weeks.

For the first time scientists have dissected, from skin to blood and bones, a life-like Tyrannosaurus Rex dinosaur. The massive creature was one of the fiercest carnivores in the history of the planet. On Friday's AU, Sheri Quinn talks with the paleontologist leading the T. rex Autopsy, which is featured on the National Geographic Channel Sunday night.Then, Science Questions explores new studies on autism presented at the International Meeting on Autism Research held in Salt Lake City in May.

Sheila Dillon is joined by Harold McGee to answer your food science questions.Harold McGee is fascinated by what we are actually doing to our food when we prepare and cook it. His research and writing have inspired many chefs, including Heston Blumenthal. Today he answers questions from listeners, food writers and chefs about the chemistry of food and cooking.Producer: Sarah Langan.