i know the church held back advancement for centuries, scientists had to lie,hide,cypher,all there works if it was against the church doctrine,.anyhoo..IF,these comets sorta made us,,to a point,,wouldnt there be millions of other civilisations,around the universe,?.i say yes..but we are told still,like the church,we are the first.rubbish.one major Q,that is never brought up,as its a given to us humans,,is,,why are we the only ape with a voice box,& no other ape has developed one in millions of yrs.??..to this,i say,alien intervention.!..even de grasse will not admit,we are not alone,or he,ll lose his position,,are science & the church,in bed together,.??.i hear the pope is building a huge telescope.?,to find god.??.why are we lied to & kept dumb..

Cool. He really liked Mars . Eh?

@@phantomwalker8251 you would have written the same thing long ago about eyes if you had been the first species with eyes. Your comment just shows how unfathomable to us the time scales are at which evolution crafts species, tiny changes at a time. Our ability for vocal speech implies in no way that aliens intervened. And if indeed there are somewhere pockets of life (which is, it seems, increasingly highly likely at least for primitive forms of life) and if indeed at some point some species developed intelligence to the point that their technology can help extract themselves from their cradle (their planet), these civilizations may be so far apart from one another that no known method in the known laws of Physics would allow for their spheres of influence to cross. Sad, but likely. That you and I cannot conceive of Nature coming up with speech is not an argument to support the idea that some other intervention took place. You could just as well have put God/Gods in place of Aliens in your comment and the claim would have been just as devoid of proof. It's a belief. A nice one🙂

This was one great mind that has clearly spoken for Science. This man made me see the Universe and learn about myself with his 13 episodes of Cosmos and liberated me from Religion and help me get on the path of fully embracing knowledge and yet Cosmos was about Science not Religion, it was bigger and it was the start of my rebirth and that happened around 2007. Rip Dr. Sagan,

I‘m sad :( i wasnt even born back then and thats not fair

A truly intelligent man, Dr Sagan was! And not a shred of ego. That's rare in someone so young! Especially someone with natural charisma.

Thanks I was wondering when she was going to shut up

^^^ty

best comment

I was looking for this comment. Thanks

I was about to make this comment but someone was 5 years ahead of me. (´• ω •`) ♡

And miss out on the RAD tunes at 0:25 ? No way!

I feel exactly the same way. At least we can still listen to his lovely voice & watch him, & read his books. He is such a loss.

The word "prophetic" carries a lot of superstitious baggage.

well said.

Pavarotti and James brown

It was YUGE

Close to despair. 33 years to get it right and the USA has reignited the Cold War. The FRG has just declared they will have a Bundeswehr second in the world only to the USA. Watch everything get so much more expensive to pay for this. The petro-dollar is, hopefully, going to be eclipsed

or even the world

lumel666 yeah don't even mention his books..

Totally true. He was a great cientific, and one of the best humans of all times.

@@CROFTUSAS12 He was a liar for jokes like you. Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the clueless Carl, --It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?"-- from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a laugh for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, person he was. Carl cannot get around these laws and what they lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet he thinks creation happened naturally, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" He ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still, he ignores the laws... "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as pathetic as he is. So in his way of useless thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally, and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan lived his empty life clueless and has clueless followers.

Enlightened people usually don't do politics. That's why we tend to distrust politicians.

Why would he?

@@tommarks795 to make a difference? I have absolutely no faith in our 2 party political structure but I would vote for this man regardless of his affiliation.

People like that are smart enough not to run for office. Although it would be nice to have some rational thought for a change.

Because the majority of humans are idiots

really,,no disrespect to carl,..but,,have you read,researched,sumerian tablets,or are they scoffed at as not real but the bible is,,as man wrote it for his own ideals.control of man.

Carl just cared about his side of things, not what science proved. Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the clueless Carl, --It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?"-- from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a laugh for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, person he was. Carl cannot get around these laws and what they lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet he thinks creation happened naturally, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" He ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still, he ignores the laws... "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as pathetic as he is. So in his way of useless thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally, and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan lived his empty life clueless and has clueless followers.

i bet everyone makes you feel smart🤔

@@justinwalker4475 especially those who use the numbers 4475 in there screen names and have small penises 🌈

Rather, he was a clueless misfit. Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the clueless Carl, --It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?"-- from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a laugh for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, person he was. Carl cannot get around these laws and what they lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet he thinks creation happened naturally, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" He ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still, he ignores the laws... "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as pathetic as he is. So in his way of useless thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally, and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan lived his empty life clueless and has clueless followers.

@@2fast2block It's off to the INVISIBLE MAN in the SKY for you soon, son! Hope you followed all his rules! And gave him lots of money! (He's terrible with money...).

@@TheVanillatech wow, talk about ignoring what I gave because your small brain can't deal with it. You sure showed that. Go have a cookie as a reward for your empty self.

Thank you.

Amazing how people took Carl seriously. Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the clueless Carl, --It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?"-- from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a laugh for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, person he was. Carl cannot get around these laws and what they lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet he thinks creation happened naturally, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" He ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still, he ignores the laws... "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as pathetic as he is. So in his way of useless thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally, and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan lived his empty life clueless and has clueless followers.

I don't. Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the clueless Carl, --It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?"-- from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a laugh for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, person he was. Carl cannot get around these laws and what they lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet he thinks creation happened naturally, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" He ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still, he ignores the laws... "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as pathetic as he is. So in his way of useless thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally, and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan lived his empty life clueless and has clueless followers.

Know 'Belief It Or Not' and 'Viced Rhino'? They are very, very good Atheist-UKpostsr, just like Hbomberguy.

Horrible guy, sadly taken seriously. Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the clueless Carl, --It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?"-- from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a laugh for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, person he was. Carl cannot get around these laws and what they lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet he thinks creation happened naturally, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" He ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still, he ignores the laws... "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as pathetic as he is. So in his way of useless thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally, and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan lived his empty life clueless and has clueless followers.

His thoughts were very shallow for his shallow followers. Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." Carl Sagan, "I can’t imagine anyone denying the existence of the laws of nature, but I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." More from the clueless Carl, --It’s perfectly possible that the universe is infinitely old and therefore uncaused. In fact, there are detailed cosmological models that hold such a view and that are consistent with everything we know. To my mind, it seems not fully satisfactory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say “God” made the universe, then surely the next question is, “Who made God?” If we say “God” was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question “Where did God come from?” is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of, “Where did the universe come from?” is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology? What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?"-- from: www.uscatholic.org/articles/202001/god-and-carl-sagan-cosmos-big-enough-both-them-31939 Read the article. Have a laugh for what a hypocritical, lying, mocking, disgusting, person he was. Carl cannot get around these laws and what they lead to... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. ....yet he thinks creation happened naturally, "What predictions does it make on which the hypothesis will stand or fall?" He ignores the CLEAR science that creation had to happen by God supernaturally! Still, he ignores the laws... "I don’t know of any compelling evidence for the old man in the sky." Notice his mocking God, "man in the sky" as if that makes him look smart as he completely ignores the evidence. His question, "Who made God?" is as pathetic as he is. So in his way of useless thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally, and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If he wanted to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are. Sagan lived his empty life clueless and has clueless followers.

@@2fast2block you stink of fanatism

@@2fast2block GET HELP FOR GOD’S SAKE! YOU. HAVE ONE SUBJECT IN LIFE - CRITICISE CARL SAGAN! You desperately need help to get the permanent tenant out of your head! HE’S DEAD, BRO!

Dealing with science and outer space and the infinite the way he did should humble anyone.

thank you.

I think Dr Sagan would have hoped his presentation would have been so comprehensive as to negate any need for further discussion on the subject. at hand. In reality this great man must have spent the greater part of his life answering questions on myriad topics, when in truth "To Ask Questions" was his reason for being. My sincere regards.

They would have been dumb questions, I bet.

Religious or visitors from Flattardia.

It's 19 now, April, 2019

@Prakhara07 Seems likely ... it isn't as good as it probably could have been.

Prakhara07 - That’s a dumb reason, because the value is in the audio. There is no reason to watch it at all.

Aliens bro

How old are you? Interesting to see if he has reached the younger generations. I love him too by the way. Exceptional man.

@@bobuk161 I was 22 when I wrote that still In love with him haha

@@Nomineification It's amazing Nicole, just how everything he warns against is basically here today. MSM being controlled by the super rich, so deciding what we see and hear. Technology not being understood by the masses, and will be used to control us all very soon. Though he wasn't religious he radiated more humanity and spirit than any church leader. Thank you for replying and i can see why you love him so much. Take care😊

Yep that is the case. Even today. CHEERS

Good questions!

I can't imagine.

All Republicans and Islamist

+T Man Stephen hawking

@@cosmo9287 Speak for yourself

That would be so awesome coming to think of it ! Love you so much Carl Sagan ❤🙏

I think he would have liked the plan but not the guy nor the execution, Carl Sagan was greatly humanist, Elon Musk however, is an opportunistic billionaire who doesn't hesitate to exploit his employees or countries he uses for mining resources

Easy peasy He would Have Supported Elon Musk

He almost certainly wouldn't support what Elon is doing, especially the part about "For services provided on Mars, or in transit to Mars via Starship, or other colonisation spacecraft, the parties recognize Mars as a free planet that no Earth-based government has authority or sovereignty over Martian activities". That alone would almost certainly worry him... and should concern everyone else. Carl explicitly stated that he believes that if there's already life on Mars, then he wouldn't want to colonize it. We still don't know whether there is life there or not (we haven't done nearly enough research), but considering how much we've learned since then, it looks promising.

Also, Elon is very unpopular among astronomers. I doubt Carl would be any different.

Just listen. And stop crying

Know 'Belief It Or Not' and 'Viced Rhino'? They are very, very good Atheist-UKpostsr, just like Hbomberguy.

Not by design, from all we can tell/see.

It's only a Goldielocks scenario if this is the only universe that has ever been. I believe in the cyclic universe theory where there has been endless iterations before it and coming after it, with random fluctuations at the Big Bang, possibly with some kind of feedback loop from previous iterations. It seems this universe is fine tuned for life, and perhaps it's just random but it isn't random to us as this universe happens to be the one we live in. The point is, with eons gone before it, perhaps there has been endless iterations of the universe where life didn't evolve? Perhaps every iteration becomes more and more fine tuned?

Carl Sagan was more of a scientific humanist. Being a scientific humanist is precious; few scientists or not are scientific humanist. But, as perhaps you detect, even he leaves a little bit to be desired. The most important chapters of his Cosmos are 3 and 7. And these are heavily dependent on Arthur Koestler's Sleepwalkers. But, he did rescue Democritus and put him back in the story that Koester actually misses in his episode 7 about the Greeks awakening.

oker59 you're an idiot.