Comments by "Miriam Weller" (@miriamweller812) on "Veritasium" channel.

Both just a theory, though. Overall one that just ignores the real problem: what was/is outside that "hot pool of matter" and the universe - and again: where did it came from. It's not explanation, just as evolution doesn't explain how life came into existence in the first place, it just shows how life changes, not how "no life" became "life".
3
I mean, it's not even true, because it is indeed the problem of 99,999999+% of planets that they lose or get more energy than they get from the star they are close to. That's the reason why the majority of planets, even if they per se would be earth like, can't hold life, because they are too hot or too cold. Hell, the whole problem with greenhouse effect is just that. Without the greenhouse effect, the earth would lose much more energy and earth would cool out = all life would die. But if the greenhouse effect becomes stronger, then earth heats up = all life will die. A lot of energy is also saved in matter. That's what we burn through via oil and coal for example, the energy in there came from the sun. Or just plants in general, which use the energy from the sun for growth, this is also stored energy from the sun and it WOULD heat up earth if we would burn it all (and of course we wouldn't be able to breath anymore).
1
Sorry, but that earth gladly loses around the same amount of energy that it gets from the sun is what makes earth so special. One of the main reason for rock planets never be able to develope life is that they don't have the luck of this fragile balance. They cool out or overheat. Planets like Venus and Mars show, how fragile this balance is, with Venus having turned into a burning hell, while Mars cooling out after losing more and more of its atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth would cool out, too. And if it gets stronger, earth WILL overheat. That's overall pretty simple and got nothingt to do with entropy. It's just the luck of balance.
1