Creationists Demand Airtime On 'Cosmos' For The Sake Of Balance

Fromabove
Oh, no,no,no... don't go there. If you walk away with that thought it is your own. You do realize that I am saying that I understand why people think "I'm" foolish don't you?

If it were clear, I wouldn't have taken the time to ask the question. And I'm not walking away with any thought in my head, I'm asking you a question. If I had a preconceived notion I wouldn't bother to ask you for clarification. I would just run with my assumption and base further debate on it.

Science shows us that we must have proof and proof can be seen and touched.

that's mostly true. To be more accurate, science is based on observations and testing of hypothesis that can be independently reproduced and verified.

Matters of faith are rejected by the science mind and disregarded as mere foolishness.

I know many people of faith who are actively pursuing science. As long as they are engaging in good science who they talk or pray to is none of my business as it, to me, is something of a very personal nature. Whether I agree or not, believe or not is inconsequential because it's not my business unless its shoved in my face.

I am a person of faith. I don't know what you are and this topic of discussion is not on your good and bad points but about the show and maybe a twist of creation vs evolution by default. So please, keep with good discussion and don't pick fights.

Who is picking a fight? I'm asking you a question based on how you are responding to people. It's a valid question. As for going off topic... you are all over the place. My comments regarding interactions with other posters on this site was to give context not make the thread about me so take a breath and relax. I'm not attacking or badgering you, just asking a sincere question and giving some friendly advice on how to make your message easier to digest for people who may not agree with your stance.

Was my statement wrong to say that people who will only accept tangible hands on provable science will only see faith as foolishness and God as a foolish notion. Let me know. I don't have a superior mindset,

The statement in and of itself was not incorrect. It was the way you stated it that came off as demeaning and condescending.

just a different point of view from your own. That remark btw about having a superior mindset could have been insulting to someone else.

Then maybe my point got through if you can see how semantics and rhetoric can be misconstrued and insulting.

BuzzyWigs
nm. totally off-topic again, dammit.

The show. The show doesn't have to address "God" at all, and insisting that it is just drivel because it doesn't include any discussion of God does not indicate that you really are doing much except trolling. At least you're keeping the conversation alive while we await the next episode. But really, you're not being very deep, and I suspect it's purposeful.

You can't possibly be competent enough at writing a well-thought out post reiterating your 'lightning' vs 'creator' argument and also expect us, thinking adults with very valid points, to simply accept your judgment that COSMOS is nothing but junk science.

But you know that.

edit on 3/29/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)

Actually I thought I was a bit too deep. But in support of the evolutionary theory for which the show bases everything, would it be possible to know of any scientist that has proven by experimentation the random chance outcome for spontaneous life? This invite is not only to you but others who might have this empirical evidence in support of the foundation stone of what will become known as evolution. As far as I know, the experiment resulted in constant failure though it was repeated many times.

However, in support of a designer, the human genome can be spliced, diced, and reprogrammed, and done over and over.

Just saying....

reply to post by peter vlar


Gee wiz.... The only place I go off topic is where others are already going, evolution vs creation and should Christians need air time on COSMOS. I say no, no need at all.

And btw, you really weren't asking a question but making a statement. I can feel the angst in your postings. There's an anger there.

Also, I'm a person of faith. But I love science. And you are correct to say the science needs proof by experimentation, observation, and reptitonal results.

reply to post by Fromabove

You do realize that I am saying that I understand why people think "I'm" foolish don't you?

It's not that you are being "foolish" as you label everyone else - it's that you are obviously capable of complicated thought but are being deliberately obtuse just so you can trash the show.

You don't even agree with Ham, and you don't think evolution is a ridiculous notion. Since Tyson has no intention of addressing God in this series, you're simply ignoring the show as nothing but 'trash'. And you have a decidedly superior tone, vlar is right.

He asked you a question -
"I've got to ask, are you purposely being demeaning towards people here as you pontificate from authority because of the superior nature of your religiosity? You are making a lot of sweeping broad assumptions about people and what they can or can't understand"

Please answer it, it's about attitude, and 'attitude' seems to be your beef with Tyson.

BuzzyWigs
reply to post by Fromabove

 

You do realize that I am saying that I understand why people think "I'm" foolish don't you?

It's not that you are being "foolish" as you label everyone else - it's that you are obviously capable of complicated thought but are being deliberately obtuse just so you can trash the show.

You don't even agree with Ham, and you don't think evolution is a ridiculous notion. Since Tyson has no intention of addressing God in this series, you're simply ignoring the show as nothing but 'trash'. And you have a decidedly superior tone, vlar is right.

He asked you a question -
"I've got to ask, are you purposely being demeaning towards people here as you pontificate from authority because of the superior nature of your religiosity? You are making a lot of sweeping broad assumptions about people and what they can or can't understand"

Please answer it, it's about attitude, and 'attitude' seems to be your beef with Tyson.

He asked you a question -
"I've got to ask, are you purposely being demeaning towards people here as you pontificate from authority because of the superior nature of your religiosity? You are making a lot of sweeping broad assumptions about people and what they can or can't understand"

The answer of course, is no. And like I said before, I keep an open mind to all ideas. I have my own as I have said to you, but I still keep myself open to other ideas. As for pontificating, I'm not doing that. In fact, can you search my posts to see if I called you are the author of the above statement stupid, deluded, or high minded as I have already been called?

I am not, nor will I demean you or that other person. Although I believe there is a bit of anger in the air from him towards me. But then, that again is how I take it. I would like to keep the discussion on the things were were talking about before I was accused.

reply to post by Fromabove

This invite is not only to you but others who might have this empirical evidence in support of the foundation stone of what will become known as evolution. As far as I know, the experiment resulted in constant failure though it was repeated many times.

However, in support of a designer, the human genome can be spliced, diced, and reprogrammed, and done over and over.

Just saying....

Oh honestly! *shakes head*
You don't have any real reason to say "evolution isn't true" when you can also discuss DNA manipulation. The show is NOT "about evolution" - it's about the COSMOS. And evolution has been proven. It's real. You've admitted it yourself. You keep harping on it, but the actual question of "how life started" has been acknowledged since episode 1. WE DON'T KNOW.

You keep linking that to evolution and trying to say evolution is a lie, when you really don't believe that at all. That's being purposefully, willfully argumentative. Obtuse. Just admit it and say that you're taking that stance to keep the conversation alive, because I just don't buy it. You can do better than that, obviously.

At least we agree Christians (Ham or whoever) have no reason to be granted airtime - THAT would be "foolish", and Tyson is no fool. Guess that's a wrap then.

Should they be given airtime? No.
Is it reasonable for them to demand it like a kindergartner who wants a present too because it's the baby's birthday? No.
Is evolution false? NO.
Did Tyson mention how life started? No.
Do you have any other "points" to make? your answer here

reply to post by BuzzyWigs


Again, I listed tow possible ideas. Care to comment on either. You can't claim evolution with saying how it begins.

And no, Christians do not need air time on COSMOS.

So was it a zap of electricity in the mud, or a designer intelligence, and why.

Answers anyone, and why. Include science if possible.

Fromabove
You can't claim evolution with saying how it begins.

Why? How hard is it for you to comprehend that evolution and abiogenesis are two mutually exclusive subjects?

reply to post by Fromabove

Care to comment on either. You can't claim evolution with saying how it begins.

You mean "without" saying how it begins?
Of course we can, and we do. You've already been shown that, and you know it. Tyson didn't mention how it began. Augustus asked you a question so I won't bother repeating it.

No, I don't care to comment on lightning vs designer. It's beside the point. Evolution has nothing to do with how it started, and you can't just throw evolution out as 'junk' just by saying there was a designer. Evolution stands on its own, and is not the topic of the show.

Fromabove
You can't claim evolution with saying how it begins.

Rubbish. Evolution is only concerned with biodiversity. A leprechaun could have willed the first life into existence for all that it matters and it wouldn't have any effect on evolution, any more that plate tectonics theory is concerned with how the Earth was originally formed.

Fromabove
Yes, the Bible has room for an argument for evolution, but it is a guided evolution. And if the show would have at least looked at that in support and the science claimed to exist for it that would have been one thing.

Could you point me towards the science that supports a guided evolution? and why is that the only possibility from a religious perspective? Why couldn't god or gods if he she they exist have simply set things in motion and let it ride out without a plan? It seems pretty illogical to me that a godlike creature could INTELLIGENTLY design me and put my fun parts in such close proximity to my waste siposal units or give me a spine and hip that require corrective surgery.

Religion itself is a system of governance over individuals and can be anything. It can be Buddhist, Islam, Catholic, and Voodoo. And it can also involve science. Take global warming for instance. Some of the supporters of this are quite religious in their actions. And evolutionists can sometimes take science as their religion.

I disagree entirely on this premise. The only reason it may come off that way is because, with evolution at least, there is a century and a half of legitimate data to support it. There really is no question as to the reality of evolution from any biologist or anthropologist. The same is true with climate change. We have a century and a half of first hand records coupled with 100's of thousands of years of Ice Core and tree ring data to support it. I think the only part that can be disputed is the extent of human involvement in our changing climate and if theres anything we can do about it but wait it out and hope for the best.

Evolutionaries would argue that life "evolves" from one thing to another through the process of time and change combined with mutation. Selective changes through the concept of the survival of the fittest also come into play here. But there has never been a controlled experiment where this has been proven in the lab. The adaptation of viruses and bacteria don't really count because in the end they are still viruses and bacteria.

No,"evolutionaries" wouldn't argue, they would show supporting evidence. It's only an argument when someone denies evidence staring them in the face. As far as bacteriological experiments, they count. Humans are still apes. Dogs are descended from wolves but are still a member of the family Canis along with wolves, fox, dingoes and jackals.

But while evolutionaries can take this stance on present life, they cannot come up with the reason for life itself, that is, how it happened to begin at all. Life happened but they don't know how, so their journey would seem to have hit a road block. Science demands that a thing be proven by experimentation and repeat outcomes ruling out other controls. If life happened from a whack of lightning and soupy amino acids then it should be provable in the lab. But still nothing to show for it. So the evolutionaries stop there not wishing to be pressed on life itself.

This is because hypothesis like abiogenesis have nothing to do with evolution. One is a biologicval process the other chemical. Two very different fields of study. There is some overlap but the beginnings of life and how life evolves are different processes and studied as separate fields by different scientists.

We go back to life itself then, where on that one day it all began, and life happened. And we have two choices. One of those choices is by intentional design, and the other is by random chance. If I choose by design I should have something to show for it. So I look at the complexity of the double helix and the millions of things it does. To prove design I must by experimentation prove that it can be modified and reprogrammed by intentional interference. This has already been done in the lab and repeatedly so. So I now know the DNA helix is not only a code but a programmable code at that.

can you show me a citation that supports this?

If I take the random chance stand, I must prove by random chance that it can happen as I claim. If I believe that in a mixture having all of the right chemicals and ingredients, that if I apply electrical force there should be evidence of life happening, then I must conduct the experiment in the lab to prove the results and then repeat the experiment. The experiment was conducted, and while acids did combine to form other chemicals, life was never found. The experiment has been repeated many many times and without any success.

abiogenesis is a hypothesis, not a theory. there is evidence to support it though.
Environmental - There are several conditions that must apply to make chemical evolution possible. First, there has to be an external energy source*. Prebiotic earth has lots of these- lightning, volcanoes, radiation. Second, we can’t have a lot of oxygen. Lots of oxygen will make any formed complex molecules short-lived. Again, prebiotic earth had little atmospheric oxygen. Third, there has to be the chemicals available for life around to work with. That means 6 indispensable macro-elements- C, H, O, N, P and S have to be around. Again, these are known to be present.

Why not Panspermia? Every cell of every organism is remarkably the same at an elemental level. It doesn’t matter if we are looking at fungi or fish or humans. The percentages of the macro-elements above are very similar. This is exactly what we’d see if life started by using the available chemicals on earth. In fact, the proportions of elements in every organism aligns most closely to river water. This supports abiogenesis occurring here on earth, and is a smoking gun for a natural origin of life.

Forming complex molecules- the environmental conditions above are necessary for abiogenesis but not sufficient to show its feasibility. Since the Miller-Urey experiments of the 1950s, we have shown that the building blocks of a cell will occur naturally. We have shown that amino-acids, sugars, RNA/DNA bases, hydrocarbons, phosphate esters, peptides etc will all be formed under the right abiotic conditions.

The 8 amino-acids that dominate these abiotic conditions are also those most common in proteins. This is another ‘smoking gun’ that life began from abiotic conditions on earth.

The Proto-cell - A cell is basically a package of organic & inorganic molecules surrounded by a double-lipid membrane. We have shown small double-lipid membranes will form in small vesicles that surround organic molecules (since the experiments of Fox in the 1970s). In fact, it is remarkably easy to generate these.

Replicating molecules. Life also needs molecules to be able to replicate. This is also a natural chemical phenomenon. In 1996 the jounal Nature reported the discovery of a self-replicating alpha-helical peptide. This had a 32-amino-acid sequence, and interestingly, had several dipeptides found in the membrane proteins of ancient archaebacteria.

The scientific evidence is consistent with and supports an origin of life on earth out of abiotic conditions. There has been no chemical, biological or physical law that has been discovered in this research that would prevent life emerging. We have discovered so much about the processes of this chemical evolution that recreating life in the test-tube now looks feasible.

The external energy sources for abiogenesis is why Pasteur’s experiments on spontaneous generation don’t apply. Pasteur looked at a closed thermodynamic system. Abiogenesis is about open thermodynamic systems. In order for complex molecules to be formed, local entropy has to be reduced and this is only possible in open-energy systems.


Of course, we should for completeness consider the evidence for a divine creator or intelligent designer. I’ve made a list, but it’s blank.

Now, if I use my deductive reasoning, I would see that the designer hypothesis has more weight to it than the random act hypothesis. I would tend to go with intentional design. And if so, then by whom?

The whom for me is God.

In your opinion, what gives ID more weight?

As for the discussion. I'm not glum, I like good ol fashioned discussion. Some Christians, like those who are evolutionaries tend to get a little disjointed because they feel the need to convince others that they are right. Mr. Ham is one of them. There are a couple in some of the replies here towards me. These people would be upset one way of the other and if a creationist show version of COSMOS were to pop up, you could bet that Stephen Hawkins and Bill Nye would have a few things to say as would Richard Dawkins. As for me, I'm comfortable with what I believe I know and what I believe the science says.

Why would anyone be upset over a show promoting creationist themes? They have several "amusement" parks as well as their own network, CBN which gives them a mouthpiece for their views 7 days per week. Why should they get equal time on a once per week show about science when there is no science behind creation?

Fromabove

And btw, you really weren't asking a question but making a statement.

no, it was a question. Read it again

I can feel the angst in your postings. There's an anger there.

LOL No... there was no anger, it was a question followed with statements of advice. stop with the persecution complex, we're having a dialogue, nothing more.

reply to post by peter vlar


Holy Cow! You should apply to be a stand-in host for Tyson's vacations!!

Or.....Neil? Is that you??

Thanks for that! You made me look up the element table to remember what N, P, and S are. Mmmm. sulphur. always liked the aroma. Yellowstone's sulfur pits terrified but enchanted me when we went there for a family vaca when I was little. I can't believe they still don't have handrails...according to recent images, it's just that path you walk on.

Thank you for the welcome, I sincerely appreciate it. But Im not claiming a god or something of that nature does not exist, in fact I would argue for that. Im just saying if youre a Christian you must believe the bible. And the bible says a snake talked, a man lived in whales stomach for 3 days, god made man from dust, a giant oscillating flaming sword protected the garden of eden, and on and on. And that's just crazy.

Fromabove

mmathers
reply to post by Fromabove

 

I read this whole thread and created an account just to say; ironically, you are one of many great arguments against Christianity. Not even the OJ jurors could read threads like this and come to rule the objective evidence in your favor, good work.

edit on 28-3-2014 by mmathers because: (no reason given)

If no one has yet, let me welcome you to the ATS. Of course people as yourself would say such a thing because they don't understand things about God, life etc. That is unless they can touch it with their hands. So anything I say is just so much foolishness to people like that. It comes with being a Christian and having a Biblical perspective on the world view.

edit on 29-3-2014 by Fromabove because: (no reason given)

Fromabove
reply to post by BuzzyWigs

 

Again, I listed tow possible ideas. Care to comment on either. You can't claim evolution with saying how it begins.

And no, Christians do not need air time on COSMOS.

So was it a zap of electricity in the mud, or a designer intelligence, and why.

Answers anyone, and why. Include science if possible.

Maybe a meteor impact generated a supercell thunderstorm and the resulting chaos proved to be exactly the catalyst necessary for life to begin. After that, all the living animals and creatures were successive generations of genetic pooling and distribution as a result of being properly equipped for survival.

reply to post by mmathers

Im just saying if youre a Christian you must believe the bible. And the bible says a snake talked, a man lived in whales stomach for 3 days, god made man from dust, a giant oscillating flaming sword protected the garden of eden, and on and on. And that's just crazy.

See? That's the thing!!!!

I believe that I follow the suggestions of the guy they call Jesus.....
but I don't believe the obvious myths.

There are lots of members here who will also say to not take the Bible literally. There are only the hardcore thumpers who say it is all literal - and those are the people demanding airtime (but you know that, if you've read the thread),

It can't help but come off as crazy.

reply to post by BuzzyWigs


No, thank YOU. That was one hell of a compliment. Sadly no, I'm not Neil but I very much appreciate the kind words. It's not often people appreciate having to look up information but the whole point of threads like this is to learn something new or add to our knowledge after all.

reply to post by peter vlar

It's not often people appreciate having to look up information but the whole point of threads like this is to learn something new or add to our knowledge after all.

lol!! My father drilled it into us from the time we could read. If we wanted to know what a word meant, or a topic, he'd say "Look it up!" Yes, this is a great place to learn. Lookin' it up on the 'net - my new lifestyle. For better or worse, as long as there's a library at my fingertips, I'm there!

reply to post by BuzzyWigs


My father was a teacher so it was the same for me. My kids hate it because when they ask how to spell something or what the definition is I point to the book shelf and tell them to ask Mr. Webster.

reply to post by BuzzyWigs


To directly address the topic - Cosmos is a science show. That should be the end of the story right there..