Creationist Debate Stalls South Carolina State Fossil Bill

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

That being said OP referenced the new Cosmos show as if it were some enlightening science program. I would disagree and say it is total and complete crap that takes extreme detours from actual scientific principles and should itself be avoided like the plague if one were actually interested in learning anything.

That being said you referenced the new Cosmos as crap.....

Are you aware of how many youths in this country are getting NO education about current science at all?
It's been stated from the beginning that Tyson wanted to get youths more interested in science...and math. AS IT SHOULD BE.
You can't put a kindergartner into a college CALCULUS class. They (the uneducated, very young) need to start at the beginning....arithmetic. Multiplication.

Do you realize how many FOX viewers are ill-educated Bible Thumpers who want their kids to reject science??????

Please.

I challenge you to watch the original Cosmos, compare the presentation of information, and honestly say the new Cosmos does anything other then tell people what to believe while distracting them with pretty pictures.

It does nothing to convey the actual reality of the sciences and it certainly does present like a kindergarten level "science" show.

Why don't you provide some evidence concerning the Fox TV station (not to be confused with Fox News) viewers being ill-informed Bible thumpers?

So far the only people advocating the new Cosmos appear to be liberal arts majors and those merely looking for an excuse to bash the religious folks.

The show is garbage and if you don't believe me take stroll down to the local university and ask the STEM professors what they think of it.

-FBB

I find it really interesting how much airtime young earth creationism has been getting recently. It, ironically, tends to be given by those who want to ridicule the beliefs. Also interestingly, "creationism" and "young earth creationism" have started to be used interchangeably. Among other items, its leading me to believe their is some agenda at play here.

I literally dont know a single person, Christian or otherwise, who has even considered young earth creationism to be legitimate.

Regardless of that, Buzzy, you said:

Are you aware of how many youths in this country are getting NO education about current science at all?

IMO, I would rather youths learn how to perform science for themselves FIRST rather than being taught knowledge which will likely be outdated before they even graduate high school. Then again, I am the type that feels it is more important to explore for ourselves rather than buy what is told/sold to us by whatever authority we have faith in. Not everyone feels the same way!

Neither (learning current scientific knowledge or learning how to perform science themselves) is currently a focus right now though. Learning how to perform science (or learning how to learn, in my mind) has never really been a "thing," and is likely one of the sources of the downturn in scientific prowess in nations that used to lead the way.

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

I challenge you to watch the original Cosmos, compare the presentation of information, and honestly say the new Cosmos does anything other then tell people what to believe while distracting them with pretty pictures.

LOL!!!!!
You "challenge me"? Dude, I grew up on the stuff. My family were avid viewers.

I'm not saying Tyson's version is better. I'm saying that today's kids are less exposed to science than we were.

You are failing to understand how many kids are NOT GETTING ANYTHING NEAR Sagan's science. You have to start where the student is. Blame the MSM/Creationists (who love FOX) for refusing to teach their kids modern science.....

I mean really... These men were born into their religion just like everyone else on this planet. Everyone else... Period. What those two men did are completely extraordinary, BUT, unless you are simply dogging the 'Christian Parade', I don't see where their 'personal FAMILY beliefs' had ANYTHING to do with math or anything else we have proven since.

originally posted by: Amarri
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli
So you are truly saying that they 'discovered' god... Everyone just missed it because we learned all that other stuff you wrote so much about...

Actually I never once mentioned it, but kudos for applying your imaginary argument as proof of something that never happened.

Especially when you edited your original comment after I replied to establish such an absurd claim . . . Braaavo.

-FBB

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
It does nothing to convey the actual reality of the sciences and it certainly does present like a kindergarten level "science" show.

Thats probably my biggest issue with the new Cosmos.. It just feels like I am being lectured by my dad when I was five. It carries the tone of "We assume you are an idiot, so we are going to make this as simple and sparkly as possible."

The condescension seems to seep through the screen itself.

I felt the original was far, far superior and still watch it every now and again.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

I challenge you to watch the original Cosmos, compare the presentation of information, and honestly say the new Cosmos does anything other then tell people what to believe while distracting them with pretty pictures.

LOL!!!!!
You challenge me. Dude, I grew up on the stuff. My family were avid viewers.

I'm not saying Tyson's version is better. I'm saying that today's kids are less exposed to science than we were.

You are failing to understand how many kids are NOT GETTING ANYTHING NEAR Sagan's science. You have to start where the student is. Blame the MSM/Creationists (who love FOX) for refusing to teach their kids modern science.....

Sooooooo no evidence then?

I should just take you on your word?

Right . . . . that new Cosmos is really teaching you to apply the scientific method I see.

-FBB

a reply to: Serdgiam

I find it really interesting how much airtime young earth creationism has been getting recently. It, ironically, tends to be given by those who want to ridicule the beliefs. Also interestingly, "creationism" and "young earth creationism" have started to be used interchangeably. Among other items, its leading me to believe their is some agenda at play here.

I totally agree with you.
Why are they getting 'airtime' and MSM-time?

I'm thinking the agenda is distraction, while WW3 gets going.

And yes, there is a huge difference between YOUNG EARTH Creationists, and "Intelligent Design" agnostics.

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli
The only one making an outrageous claim is you... You are asserting more about their beliefs than what kind of paper they used. I bet that would be more interesting.... Actually.

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Sooooooo no evidence then?

I should just take you on your word?

Evidence of what?
I was born in 1958. My dad was a huge fan of Sagan's. I was raised on science.
Would you like to see my birth certificate???

I SAID THAT YOU NEED TO REALIZE that FOX viewers are less educated to begin with, and one needs to start with the 'interest', and then move into the 'science.

You need proof of that, too? That a five-year-old can't understand advanced physics?????

DUDE. A five-year-old DOES NOT understand advanced physics. The show is trying to reach those people who are INTO music, visual stimulation, dramatic pauses......
because they need to start at the interesting beginning.

WTH is your problem?

originally posted by: Amarri
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli
The only one making an outrageous claim is you... You are asserting more about their beliefs than what kind of paper they used. I bet that would be more interesting.... Actually.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Care to expand?

I said it is silly for creationists to appoint such a weird name to a state fossil and you go on some rant about me, or them, proving the existence of God with some metaphor about paper.

-FBB

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
"In God We Trust" (on currency) came along in 1956...

As somewhat of a numismatist I can tell you it appeared much earlier than that in the 1860's on minted currency. It first appeared on printed currency in the 1950's. The motto has appeared continuously on minted currency since 1908.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

All right, I don't argue that. I'm a total novice at (but learning) numismatics, I'm sure you are quite correct.
But on paper money, it's only been since the 50s. Like you said.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
All right, I don't argue that. I'm a total novice at (but learning) numismatics, I'm sure you are quite correct.
But on paper money, it's only been since the 50s. Like you said.

No worries.

The ironic aspect is that the motivating factor was quite similar. In the 1950's it was to show that we were not God-less like the Commies and in the 1860's it was to demonstrate that God was on the side of the North in the Civil War.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

In the 1950's it was to show that we were not God-less like the Commies and in the 1860's it was to demonstrate that God was on the side of the North in the Civil War.

Mmmm...lol...Always an AGENDA.... Interesting, eh?
"We'll show 'em! We'll show 'em ALL! Boo Ya!! Print THIS on our, erm, money!"

If it wasn't so tragic it would be funny.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Mmmm...lol...Always an AGENDA.... Interesting, eh?

Ah, but little did they know that God was waiting around for football season to be created so he could direct field goals through the uprights in answer to that particular team's fans.

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
That being said OP referenced the new Cosmos show as if it were some enlightening science program. I would disagree and say it is total and complete crap that takes extreme detours from actual scientific principles and should itself be avoided like the plague if one were actually interested in learning anything.

Really, calling a guy who preached about a dream he had a martyr of science . . . . GTFO.

-FBB

Is that only reason you think Cosmos is crap, or has to do with Dr. Tyson or perhaps with fact that over and over he present religion as what really is?

As for Bruno and his tragic death, tell us what would you call it.

Dr. Tyson said more than once that his discovery was pure luck, no supportive evidence required by science, but still correct. He was murdered for his belief and those fossils that are incapable to accept dinosaurs existence because they were not mentioned in their book would probably do the same, if given chance.

I assume that Young Earth Creationist are not accepting existence of Kangaroos as well, because they were not mentioned in bible either...

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
That being said OP referenced the new Cosmos show as if it were some enlightening science program. I would disagree and say it is total and complete crap that takes extreme detours from actual scientific principles and should itself be avoided like the plague if one were actually interested in learning anything.

Really, calling a guy who preached about a dream he had a martyr of science . . . . GTFO.

-FBB

Is that only reason you think Cosmos is crap, or has to do with Dr. Tyson or perhaps with fact that over and over he present religion as what really is?

As for Bruno and his tragic death, tell us what would you call it.

Dr. Tyson said more than once that his discovery was pure luck, no supportive evidence required by science, but still correct. He was murdered for his belief and those fossils that are incapable to accept dinosaurs existence because they were not mentioned in their book would probably do the same, if given chance.

I assume that Young Earth Creationist are not accepting existence of Kangaroos as well, because they were not mentioned in bible either...

As for Bruno . . . oh wait I answered that already and it sure as hell was not as a martyr for science. Well, maybe if you don't have a clue what science is . . . eherm ribit.

In the following episode concerning the PREDICTION of the period of celestial of celestial bodies Tyson repeatedly refers to the matter as a Prophesy.

This verbiage is intentional and likely used to confuse the viewers into thinking of science in a religious/ spiritual sense.

prophecy
www.merriam-webster.com...

Full Definition of PROPHECY

1: an inspired utterance of a prophet
2: the function or vocation of a prophet; specifically : the inspired declaration of divine will and purpose
3: a prediction of something to come

prophesy
www.merriam-webster.com...

Full Definition of PROPHESY

transitive verb
1: to utter by or as if by divine inspiration
2: to predict with assurance or on the basis of mystic knowledge

As opposed to the more accurate term;
predict
www.merriam-webster.com...

Full Definition of PREDICT

transitive verb
: to declare or indicate in advance; especially : foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason

They intentionally use the term prophesy as troll bait while disregarding the more accurate term that actually implies the scientific method was being used.

Furthermore the shows fails to acknowledge women in the same magnitude as the original Cosmos which is exclusionary to women whom have made major contributions to the field. Don't give me the BS about other minorities as if you actually looked up the ethnicity of the other scientists mentioned (hint: it wouldn't support your case).

There are many more, but you are really just trolling because you like how the show personifies science as a victim who has triumphed over its bullies.

-FBB

PS
Bears do not hunt in packs . . . right at the beginning of the most recent episode . . . . what a joke


Episode 8 continues evoking the Biblical imagery when comparing sunlight to the 'mana from Heaven.' Before this they use imagery of setting their homes among the stars before the Earth is consumed by the Sun. This is clearly a reference to Obadiah 1:4 ;
www.biblestudytools.com...

Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down , saith the LORD.

The show is simply troll bait for the illiterate. It presents itself as some scientific odyssey while focusing on Biblical imagery and misleading historical pretenses.

To put it in manner which I think you would understand, Star Wars, it uses not rational thought but embraces emotional manipulation like the practitioners of the dark side. It is weak sauce, robin.

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
PS
Bears do not hunt in packs . . . right at the beginning of the most recent episode . . . . what a joke

That is from the Lakota mythology surrounding the Devil's Tower.

Then one day, as the travelers moved cautiously through the rough pine-studded hills, an alarm was hastily relayed through the column. Several little girls had wandered off and now were presumed to be lost. Search parties were hurriedly formed and dispatched in all directions. Finally the little girls were spotted, but alas, they were surrounded by a pack of hungry bears. The frightened children screamed for help. No one was near enough to save them. The rescuers, still too far away, looked on in horror as the growling bears closed in on the girls. Source

originally posted by: gippers
Not all creationists believe the 6,000 year theory. Genesis should not be taken so literally. Evolution is still a theory. I believe that God created our world and that various creation stories are often misinterpreted and taken too literal. The Big Bang theory and the theory of Evolution do not contradict a creator, they just contradict people's interpretation of the creation story.

All they need to say is that geological years may not be the same as biblical years.