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

page: 21
28
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 06:30 AM
link   
Last night's episode, about stars, time/light years, black holes....and??

Sorry, I fell asleep at about halfway through. "Dark stars" aka "black holes."

I thought about this thread (obviously) when the show came on and Tyson mentioned the Big Bang...he said, "What came before that? Well, we'll get to that." (Or at least that's what I heard - if anyone has verbatim to correct me, please do so!


Anyway - it made me perk up...but by halftime he hadn't addressed it.
Did he later go on to mention what came before the Big Bang?

Guess I could always watch in online to find out, but wondered what feedback people have this morning. Actually, I'm finding the show a little bit 'elementary' - blows my mind that there are people who don't already know the stuff he was talking about. I've always been 'mind-bent' by the idea of the things we see being past history - like ghosts...
also, I thought the animation of Herschell (sp?) was cheesy.




posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by BuzzyWigs
 


Anyone else notice the guest voice appearance of Patrick Stewart and cameo by Brannon Braga in ep4?

I can't help thinking this collaboration may end up spawning the next Star Trek television series... Well, I live in hope..



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
 


I did not, but I'm watching it again this morning (online free to watch, all four episodes here)

At about 9:00 and a few ticks, he mentions the Crab nebula - which is 6500 light years away, then says that some think the universe is only that old - 6,500 years....but...BUT....
if that were the case, we could only see what's within the circumference of an orb only as far as the Crab...nothing past it, or further away. Therefore - young earth, young universe? Nope. Didn't happen. He says there are some pretty crazy ideas out there, but we'll get to that. In time.

NOW I can see Creationists (Young Earth Creationists) getting uppity....he pretty much shot them down right then. (Between 9:00 and 11:00 minutes in). "To believe in a universe that's only 6,500 years old, is to extinguish the light from most of the galaxy, not the mention [the rest of] the observable universe"...and to be sure, he said "when the [Sombrero galaxy light] actually was originated (what we see now), our ancestors lived in trees, weighed about 5 kilos, and had long tails."

So yes,the show is now about "evolution" - the evolution of the galaxies, the universe, and all life having sprung from the seeding caused by the explosion of the first generation of stars.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 07:47 AM
link   
aHA!!!

That's been my working theory - that black holes are entries; and not just entries into, but the SOURCE of other universes!!!

*sits back feeling like a C student*
edit on 3/31/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 05:40 PM
link   

BuzzyWigs
NOW I can see Creationists (Young Earth Creationists) getting uppity....he pretty much shot them down right then. (Between 9:00 and 11:00 minutes in). "To believe in a universe that's only 6,500 years old, is to extinguish the light from most of the galaxy, not the mention [the rest of] the observable universe"...and to be sure, he said "when the [Sombrero galaxy light] actually was originated (what we see now), our ancestors lived in trees, weighed about 5 kilos, and had long tails."


And so he should. That's exactly the way to treat this nonsense, with ridicule. In fact, he was kind and genial about it, if it was up to me.... well, you get the picture..



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 04:08 AM
link   
Hey here is an idea.




posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 11:19 AM
link   
^ haha!!

Episode 4 was amazing, going to watch it again.
I like how they force their way into the opening of a black hole, and how they say they just don't know. And at the end with the dedication to Carl Sagan. Gave me the shivers!

Is it sunday yet again?

At least he is gentle about it, pointing out the logical fallacy of the young earthers. In a nice way. I think other people wouldn't be so nice. I don't want the light to be extinguished!
edit on 1/4/14 by AzureSky because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by AzureSky
 





At least he is gentle about it, pointing out the logical fallacy of the young earthers. In a nice way. I think other people wouldn't be so nice. I don't want the light to be extinguished!


"Wut?" I would never...I'm sweet as pie to all the creo's, just ask anyone..


And, you sir get a ★ for the avatar alone! LMFAO!



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Not sure if anyone mentioned it yet, but here is the link for all the episodes.

Enjoy!

LINK

Edit: just noticed BW has a Fox link up..

Anyway carry on!
edit on fTuesday141548f153108 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Ok, so I watched the latest episode of COSMOS and it was just more of the same. So they travel to the far reaches of the universe to the edge of time and are simply stumped. They don't know how the universe started, what was before it began, or why anything does what it does. Again, no answers just that they claim God had no part in it, why? Because of the speed of light no less.

Not very long into the show, with a somewhat mysterious sounding voice, he says, "there are some the believe that the universe is only 65 hundred years old... He doesn't care to tell us who those people are. But you probably already know who they are, and that's the bliss of it all. You can poke a little fun at those Christians and not even have to say the word Christian.

You see, light travels at 186 thousand miles per second so that means that Christians are fools right? And they know this because they've been all over the universe and they understand it so well with all of it's twisting gravity waves and all that mass, dark energy, and so on. They are so sure that time and space act the same way everywhere, because, well, because they say so.

Yet, if one were to open up a Bible and look at What God says about the universe they would see something amazing. They would see the universe is very old indeed, and the earth is very old, perhaps billions of years or so old. They would see that it says that the universe was unfolded and stretched out and spread. Something much like expansion. That light was the first thing to exist after the expansion. Sounds like what science is now claiming, Hmmm....

The funniest thing though, and they would have to admit it, is that when the expansion happened and the universe spread out everywhere all at once. They would have to admit that everything expanded at far greater than the speed of light.

In any case, the show was a real disappointment again. pseudo-science with a little philosophical thoughts and jabs aimed at Christianity and God. They should label the show science fantasy. After all he travels about the universe in a magic spaceship that can break all of the laws of science.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 



Again, no answers just that they claim God had no part in it, why? Because of the speed of light no less.

No. They never claimed "God" had no part in it - he still said they don't know.
And he was talking about Gravity -
black holes, and the event horizon. I thought it was pretty cool.

But whatever. I figured you'd show up and once again dismiss it as junk. (Took you at your word).



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Fromabove
The funniest thing though, and they would have to admit it, is that when the expansion happened and the universe spread out everywhere all at once. They would have to admit that everything expanded at far greater than the speed of light.


I don't know of any physicists who deny that expansion occurred faster than light can travel. It's not really that big of a deal. Light travels through space time and therefore is restricted to its constant when traveling through a vacuum. Space time itself, as the medium is not beholden to the limitations of light or special relativity.

physics.about.com...



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


Fail. You didn't disprove anything, all you did was post something that gave three options while not proving anything. I've wondered about the same thing FromAbove asked. I'd like an answer, not some ignorant ask dot com link.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Goteborg
 


Try reading the entire article. After it details the three possibilities for light speed it then goes into a paragraph detailing the known exception. Nice try but you fail at reading comprehension.


The Confirmed Exception There is one way around the speed of light restriction. This restriction only applies to objects that are moving through spacetime, but it's possible for spacetime itself to expand at a rate such that objects within it are separating faster than the speed of light. As an imperfect example, think about two rafts floating down a river at a constant speed. The river forks into two branches, with one raft floating down each of the branches. Though the rafts themselves are each always moving at the same speed, they are moving faster in relation to each other because of the relative flow of the river itself. In this example, the river itself is spacetime. Under the current cosmological model, the distant reaches of the universe is expanding at speeds faster than the speed of light. In the early universe, our universe was expanding at this rate, as well. Still, within any specific region of spacetime, the speed limitations imposed by relativity do hold.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:15 PM
link   

peter vlar
reply to post by Goteborg
 


Try reading the entire article. After it details the three possibilities for light speed it then goes into a paragraph detailing the known exception. Nice try but you fail at reading comprehension.


The Confirmed Exception There is one way around the speed of light restriction. This restriction only applies to objects that are moving through spacetime, but it's possible for spacetime itself to expand at a rate such that objects within it are separating faster than the speed of light. As an imperfect example, think about two rafts floating down a river at a constant speed. The river forks into two branches, with one raft floating down each of the branches. Though the rafts themselves are each always moving at the same speed, they are moving faster in relation to each other because of the relative flow of the river itself. In this example, the river itself is spacetime. Under the current cosmological model, the distant reaches of the universe is expanding at speeds faster than the speed of light. In the early universe, our universe was expanding at this rate, as well. Still, within any specific region of spacetime, the speed limitations imposed by relativity do hold.


I did read the entire article. Try relying on your brain instead of pasting some stupid crap you read on the Internet. M'Kay? What you did was insulting. Own it.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Goteborg
 


Hi.

I've been following the thread, and also the other one about the topic, and I am confused. Could you please explain in clearer terms what your stance is?
I don't see any continuity/consistency. Which camp are you in, please?



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


Wow, I just read that analogy of the rafts on the streams, and it made very good sense.
(Again, are you NdGT?)
Really appreciating your input here. It's helping me put all the puzzle pieces together, seriously.
That helps me get the concept. I'm no physicist, and had to bow out of math when I reached Calculus (in High School, on the "advanced" curriculum).

ETA: Yes! The article you linked (which I looked at just now) is talking about the same thing as the girl on the motorcycle sequence in the show! How anyone can dispute that is beyond me. Thanks to the show and you, I get it much better now.

thanks more
edit on 4/2/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   

BuzzyWigs
reply to post by Goteborg
 


Hi.

I've been following the thread, and also the other one about the topic, and I am confused. Could you please explain in clearer terms what your stance is?
I don't see any continuity/consistency. Which camp are you in, please?


OK, if you do something for me. Stop pretending that you don't understand what has been said. And, stop referring to your thread as "the other thread".



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 



"there are some the believe that the universe is only 65 hundred years old... He doesn't care to tell us who those people are. But you probably already know who they are, and that's the bliss of it all. You can poke a little fun at those Christians and not even have to say the word Christian.


It's quite obvious who those people are - they are the Young Earth Creationists/Answers in Genesis people.

How is that 'bliss'?
The AiG people are, in my opinion, grasping at straws and becoming more stubborn as their walls are being torn down.
No one is lumping the Young Earth Creationists in with your 'normal', 'regular', 'typical' Christians. They are clearly a breed apart.

Now, I don't know how long in advance this show was produced and wrapped and packaged for the network, but this whole thread is based on the alleged 'demands' of the YECs, right after the Bill Nye v Ken Ham debate.

Perhaps you were unaware of that build up? It's tempting to think the entire fracas was orchestrated. And...it's working!
People at each others' throats -
just like they planned it all.


Look; I don't believe in the Young Earth/Biblical Literalist stuff. Lots of other people don't either. The extreme right-wing-conservative-Christians have created this firestorm...and it's escalating.
Are you a member of the Seven Mountain Dominionists? They are a large part of the impetus here.

Anyway....sorry for being long-winded.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Goteborg
 


I'm not sure what your problem is here, again.
This is the thread I started. The other one was started regarding the same topic by boymonkey74. I have read all of your posts in both threads, and I don't seem able to figure out what your stance is about the show COSMOS.

Forgive me for what you perceive as reading comprehension problems, I'm not pretending anything here, I assure you....but I'm asking you all the same.....:

Do you think Tyson is being disingenuous, and that the show COSMOS is some sort of evil agenda against God/Bible? Because I just don't see it.

Also, are you a believer in the Young Earth Creationist theory?





new topics
top topics
 
28
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join