National Geographic Recreates How The Earth Was Made (VIDEO)

Every once in a while there's something so cool that you forget about work, errands, or whatever else you have to do for a few minutes to watch it.

This clip from the National Geographic special "Earth: Making Of A Planet" is, for lack of a better description, one of those things.

Although the video was released in March, it seems the internet had somewhat of a delayed reaction to its awesomeness. Better late than never! So, take a moment to watch a clip of how the very planet you're living on came into existence, and view a time when, according to the video, "Earth looked more like hell than home."

According to National Geographic's video website: "Through CGI re-creations, meet the inhabitants of Earth over the ages, from slimy mats of algae to the great dinosaurs and the ancestors of mammals and humans."

Awesome.

Can't get enough? Click here for some pictures of asteroid Vesta photographed from NASA's Orbiting Dawn Craft, and here for the tiny asteroid that shares its orbit with Earth.

WATCH:

Comments

[GaelicWench]

08:44 PM on 08/11/2011

justsayno says: "Then I might except your argument that your sources are better than my sources because money was not their reward."

Listen, I have a difficult time taking you seriously when you aren't able to differentiate between "except" and "accept." No, I am not the Grammar Police. But if you are going to throw your arrogance around, then be sure you have your smarts to back that up. Might make it more credible.

Peace out! Au revoir, mon cher!

[GaelicWench]

01:12 PM on 08/11/2011

justsayno says: I know nothing about it. The onlyopinio­n I have is that I do not have enough knowledge about it to form an opinion. My fixation as you call it is open the eyes of those who also have no knowledge

You say you know nothing about it, but would want to open my eyes because I know nothing either? Did it ever occur to you that some of us want to be educated by using the science behind it.

This is why we have scientists who, by collecting data based on facts, record those and then are able to draw up a conclusion BASED ON FACTS. They use data collected from years ago and do a compare and contrast to that of which they collect in the present. This is how they are able to conclude that change is and isn't taking place.

What is it that you don't understand. To say that you have no knowledge, but instead of taking a proactive stand by reading from reliable sources, you find it easier to tell others to see things for what they are because they, themselves, don't know either.

That smacks of the sheeple mindset, yes?

[justsayno]

01:49 PM on 08/11/2011

Now if you would like to understand what I believe, I could surely share that with you but it means nothing because it is derived from someone else’s conclusion, someone else’s analysis of the data, someone else’s summation not mine. Quite frankly I do not believe I will ever be that smart. Maybe you are and good for you. But I assume you have a belief about religion, the economy, global warming, the law, humanity, the wars, the educational system, the right to life, stem cell research, and feel free to add on. I barely have time to get my own chores completed let alone become an expert on every thing I might have a belief about, but if you are free go for it. You may be that one lone person when you state your belief there is not one person there that says.. nope you are wrong…

[justsayno]

01:49 PM on 08/11/2011

This is the last gw comment I am making but I will humor you as you seem to be itching for a debate. I know you wound people’s ego when you explain to them that they do not know. Because they will assure you that they do. Guess what the guy with the opposing “belief” will tell you exactly the same thing. Now either both of you are wrong, both of you are right, or both of you are right about something and wrong about others. I have no idea. Maybe there is that one person out there that really, really knows and no one is listening to him either. I suspect that person is not you. What reliable source would you like me to read from? The one that supports your beliefs or the one that supports the opposing belief? Yes, I concede that there are numerous proven facts however to date there are no proven conclusions. I could read all day long, article, after article after article of others telling me what they think based of their analysis, but it is still their belief, and again, there is someone on the other side telling me they are wrong. So I choose not to pick a side and pretend that I know I am right when in reality I am clues, just like you.

[GaelicWench]

02:43 PM on 08/11/2011

YOU'RE the one who brought up climate change. Why the change in topic when we were discussing the video and the theory behind the planet's birth?

I choose my sources who are unbiased, those who aren't being paid by Exxon, or Pfizer or Shell, et. al. For me, watching such a show as Morgan Freeman's "Through the Worm Hole" or Professor Brian Cox's "Wonders of the Universe" are from unbiased sources, who are focused strictly on the science behind why things occurred when they did. It's just about been proven that there's a co-relation behind creation and evolution regarding the makeup of the human species, mammals, etc.

Having only a HS education is not an end-all for me to continue to learn. I separate the unbiased facts from those such as Exxon who pay scientists to tell them what they want to hear. Their focus is solely on the bottom line: profits! Not mine.

For me, when it comes to riches, empowering myself with knowledge based on the above mentioned exceeds the so-called happiness the corporate CEOs make from their profits beyond what they pay for research and their hired scientists.

How can I tell someone about something I don't know so that they, too, can see what they thought they knew isn't the case? Because this is what you're essentially alluding to......Just some thoughts....I do love a good debate every now and then. ;-)

[leftyirishwoman]

09:41 PM on 08/09/2011

National Geographic is right up there with great art. That was so cool.

[Rusteia]

12:08 PM on 08/04/2011

amazing

[justsayno]

08:13 AM on 08/04/2011

Ha ha we can’t identify chloroform in the back of a trunk, but some will believe this so called “scientific” story. I have to laugh at the ignorance of people in general…

[lynterv]

06:48 AM on 08/10/2011

And your scientific credentials are?

[MrCanuck]

12:01 PM on 08/10/2011

Alternate theory please? I thinks I know what you are a gonna say.

[justsayno]

01:25 PM on 08/10/2011

You think you know what I am going to say? Really? I think I do not know, and I think you do not know; is that what you thought I would say?. I think that scientists have not validated their theories and unless you have a PHD in climate and atmospheric science or are an ecologist or meteorologist you do not have the ability nor the knowledge required to analyze the data and form an educated opinion. Therefore you pick a side. The right picks the side of no global warming because it is a benefit to their ideology and the left picks the side there is global warming because it is a benefit to their ideology. It is quite possible that both side have valid facts, but neither side will concede the others valid position. Obviously neither side is right because both sides concede their position is theory and not fact. So again, my position is… I just don’t know… and neither do you.

[justsayno]

08:32 PM on 08/10/2011

Global warming? I am not sure how many times I must repeat it. I know nothing about it. The onlyopinion I have is that I do not have enough knowledge about it to form an opinion. My fixation as you call it is open the eyes of those who also have no knowledge but follow blindly acting like they know they are right. I find it amusing when trying to convince people they do not know and they will run circles around and miss the entire point. So do you still think my concern is gw?

[martay46]

06:40 PM on 08/02/2011

And all you Christians remember if you send enough money to Benny Hinn ,the gates of heaven will open up and let you in !

[Nelle]

12:25 PM on 08/02/2011

Amazing to see how God did that!!!

[aagoodtime2]

08:39 PM on 08/01/2011

Whats next for earth, according to you arm chair scientists? What came first? Woman or Man? chicken or egg? male or female dust? If you believe in science over religion, you are lost. When will the next earth form? Where will the next earth form? If man is constantly evolving, whats next? Oh yea, you have to wait a million gazillion years for man to grow wings and fly away

[Abnormal Wrench]

11:54 PM on 08/01/2011

Women came first, eggs came first. You're welcome.

I find it ironic you think these questions have no answers.

[aagoodtime2]

11:59 PM on 08/01/2011

how did that woman get pregnant? who laid the egg?

[David N Taiwan]

12:59 AM on 08/02/2011

At some point after "The Beginning," there were a bunch of single-celled life forms running around reproducing all by themselves asexually, but as we know, over time variations will occur. Some were blond, some were redheads, some were tall, short, fat, skinny, etc. Some of the cells began to look more desireable than others and instead of reproducing autosexually, someone got the idea of "Why don't you come over to my place and let's see if we can rub our bellies together and enjoy this simultaneously?"

And they did. But of course, everyone was still the same sex, which got kind of boring for some. After a few generations of this homogenized sex, more variations began to occur. There were fat ones and there were skinny ones. The fat ones couldn't get around very easily and the skinny ones did all the running around. Over time, they had to develop words to describe themselves and the fat ones came to be known as "eggs" and the skinny ones as "sperm."

After that, they began to write science books on their history.

[aagoodtime2]

01:16 AM on 08/02/2011

sounds like a bunch of theories...I choose to believe in God. You may choose not too, that doesnt make me right and you wrong, we just choose to believe in different things.

[aagoodtime2]

08:17 PM on 08/01/2011

I believe, and if you choose not to believe, I will pray for you...what can you non believers do for me?

[PrairieGayCompanion]

12:24 AM on 08/02/2011

We can point you toward a science book instead of a book of fables.

[aagoodtime2]

03:12 AM on 08/02/2011

You too will be forgiven for your sins, if you believe, Prairie Gay Companion..

[David N Taiwan]

08:54 PM on 08/03/2011

We can pray too, but the effect will be the same.

Zip. Nada. Zero. Nothing.

Magicians are the first to tell us there is no such thing as magic, only illusions (and maybe delusions).

[mistercrispyusa]

10:10 PM on 08/03/2011

As Carl Sagan pointed out long ago, if praying had any effect whatsoever, the Kings and Queens of old would never have died, let alone had anything unfortunate befall their lives, their families and themselves, seeing as millions upon millions were praying nightly for their health and prosperity. History has shown prayer to be a farce.

[Vincent McGuyer]

08:24 AM on 08/01/2011

It is nice to see something like this, though, even if it doesn't happen very often.

[KrautMan]

07:46 AM on 08/01/2011

Science is not so popular here with HP and I really think the reason is the kind of quality they'd need to hire in order to present science properly.

It's easy to get away with publishing all kinds of nonsense in the Religion or Spirit section, where everything is arbitrary anyhow. It's not so easy to get away with uncritically editing a science-section, where readers tend to think more fact-based and the covered topics are open to logical reasoning.

[ZenGardner]

07:52 AM on 08/01/2011

^ +1

[palindrom]

08:02 AM on 08/01/2011

Exactly. Whenever anyone asks for a science section, I agree but point out that HP appears to have no one on staff with the expertise needed to present a _good_ science section.

[exPatPatti]

10:09 PM on 07/31/2011

This is a comment stream on HP I can read from page 1 to the end without having my blood pressure rise.

Why isn't there a permanent SCIENCE section here? Surely there is enough going on in the world of science to warrant such a section?

[palindrom]

10:11 PM on 07/31/2011

There should be, I agree, but it also would be good if HP hired more editors who understand science better than the present crew.

[exPatPatti]

11:12 PM on 07/31/2011

Agreed. I admit I have cringed more than a few times...

[PrairieGayCompanion]

12:31 AM on 08/02/2011

Unfortunately, most of the "science" articles they do have come from the merged pop-science editors of A0L. Even this article is somewhat abbreviated which is why I go to the source - National Geographic, Scientific American, Smithsonian Magazine, etc. I do the same thing for news story if I want other than the headline news version. I absolutely do not read any health news here.

[dblueII]

11:50 PM on 07/31/2011

Apparently there is, someone sent me a link to it once, after I had made the same comment, but I'll be darned if I could ever find it again. So we're in the "more" section now. We're getting warmer ...waaarmer...

[exPatPatti]

02:00 AM on 08/01/2011

LOL *darn*

[friendlier]

07:02 PM on 07/31/2011

"There's no air." Sure there is. How else would we hear all those explosions, splats, and rumbles in the video?

[Angel1999]

07:11 AM on 08/01/2011

I hope they were meaning that there's no oxygen.

[nb7264]

05:48 PM on 07/31/2011

Obviously the earth could not have formed in the manner the video shows. That would have taken longer than six days.

[DUSAA-1775]

07:45 PM on 07/31/2011

What's the problem, Bunky?? Did they kick you off the religion section for being too juvenile?

[palindrom]

08:26 PM on 07/31/2011

I smell sarcasm. You might want to sniff before you write. Or something.

[h23154]

05:48 PM on 07/31/2011

Fascinating, especially in the context of what is shown happening over billions of years. What amazes me is the hostility here toward religion here. A lot here sounds like a bunch of 1920's - 1950's Communist ranting.

[palindrom]

08:16 PM on 07/31/2011

Two points:

- Some Christian fundamentalists commenters pounce on anything about Natural History and start waving the Bible in your face. This is in the context of the religious Right trying repeatedly to shoehorn their religious beliefs into the public schools. It gets old.

- I think it's a little difficult for religious people to understand just how shut out you feel in this country if you're an unbeliever. We are the most despised religious minority there is, even more so than than Muslims. No atheist could ever be president. The U.S. is by far the most pious country among advanced western democracies. This kind of prejudice leads to a bitter reaction among many atheists.

[h23154]

10:53 PM on 07/31/2011

"We are the most despised religious minority there is, even more so than than Muslims."

Seriously? You have lost a job, been harrassed in the street, refused a place to live, had people object to you being in their schools, and so on? Has anyone said you should not be allowed on planes? And if you think this country is "pious," whatever you mean by that, try Italy or Spain without being a Catholic.

As for an atheist being President, get in line. There are not only no Muslims in sight for that, but no Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, or for that matter, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, gays, and lots of other people.

Atheists are not persected. Ignored maybe, but not persecuted. No one tells you you can not be an atheist.

[MrBlueBoyBlitz]

01:43 PM on 08/01/2011

Agreed, IMO they don't deserve a science section till they grow up emotionally. I love the insights and knowledge gained by the scientific community and everything good it has done for us all but I am equally repulsed by their child like fans, ranting and raving about the deluded masses of religious or spiritual. When they are confident enough in science and its revelations of our reality to just speak for itself then we will start listening en masse and even with awe at the amazing understanding that science is revealing every day. Children ranting get ignored, even is some of it makes sense.

[Nikuman]

02:12 PM on 08/01/2011

Ironic post of the day.

[TBJ]

04:58 PM on 08/01/2011

What is this I don't even