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

Krazysh0t

Fromabove

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Fromabove

 

You call that a mathematical proof yet I see all of ZERO math used. Sure I see a few numbers with the label "years" behind them, but I don't see those numbers being put into calculations to produce a result. I just see biased reasoning aimed to make the idea of abiogenesis and later evolution look silly. Come on, I asked for MATH. Not your faulty logic.

Oh gee wiz..... Come on now.

Is anyone not seeing intelligent design in the programmable dna we call life. Even scientists are beginning to talk of it as computer code. My theory is much more reasonable than evolution because I can prove by science that the genome is programmable. I could even redesign any given creature if I had tools at hand and the science to do it.

And I didn't use zero math, no. I used time progression math where you hypothesize the ability of any given thing to happen randomly without intervention. Have you never applied such theories to any work you do? Industries and the stock market do it all the time as do sports teams and political entities. The world runs on such applications.

Your first paragraph is unrelated to what I was asking for and is just a useless distraction. The second paragraph is just made up math. You didn't do any REAL math work, you just said kept moving your timeline forward then inserted your (faulty) version of events of what you think happened (that doesn't even line up with the abiogenesis hypothesis or evolutionary theory). Where is the statistical analysis? The sampling? The probability calculations? You can't just advance the clock forward and make up random claims of what you think occurred and call it "time progression".

It's called "progression" and science uses it to determine where things in space will be at any given point over time. You can apply it to anything as I did. If you have a reasonable timeline for the spontaneous and complete intelligent life form capable of self sustaining abilities, let me know it. And you can you progression math if you like as well.

But if you do you have to explain the how it knew it should do what it does, such as kill, defend itself from predictors, and reproduce and become complex. But I think the "how to know" part is going to stump you for sure.

reply to post by Fromabove

Even though I don't sound like I do, I do try to do that so that I may form my own opinions. Right now, the Bible wins because what it says is what science proves so far.

Only if you don't take it literally. If a person takes it literally as the complete, infallible word of God, they aren't going to recognize science at all.

Maybe you're agnostic after all???


(Evolution is not 'crap')

What, pray tell, is so hard about "WE DON'T KNOW"?
Because, well, at the end of every day, we still don't. Not really.

BuzzyWigs
reply to post by Fromabove

 

Even though I don't sound like I do, I do try to do that so that I may form my own opinions. Right now, the Bible wins because what it says is what science proves so far.

Only if you don't take it literally. If a person takes it literally as the complete, infallible word of God, they aren't going to recognize science at all.

Maybe you're agnostic after all???


(Evolution is not 'crap')

No, I do believe the entirety of the Bible, but I see where science keeps proving it correct. My open mind is that I respect that others have opinions and I carefully consider them and apply their ideas to mine and make decisions that way. It's a good way to keep from getting roadblocks to new ideas.

reply to post by Fromabove


Then how do you explain the Genesis vs billion-year-old universe problem?

Either you take Genesis literally, or you don't. That's what I meant: cherry-picking and interpretation are too easy with the Bible.
"This part is true, but this other part is a myth, and this part over here is metaphor and allegory and parable."

I don't take the Bible literally, and can never do.
God as in a genderless, non-human Creative Force? Maybe. God a judgmental, tyrannical, homicidal genocidal person? No. etc

Fromabove


We call this theory the theory of intelligent design. It holds more water than chance and rolling the dice.

So you see, evolution is merely a dream, unprovable, and without actual evidence.

Calling it a theory is incorrect.
It's an hypothesis.
And unless your god decides to show itself it will ALWAYS remain an hypothesis as that's the key element in it.
A theory is backed with evidence, "intelligent design" hasn't any at all as it falls completely flat after the "god" bit.

Evolution IS a theory as it satisfies all of the criteria for being one.
It's probably one of, if not THE most tested theory ever and has pretty much been proven as much as it can at this time. Give it a while and it'll be beyond all reasonable doubt too.

But please make the differentiation between evolution and abiogenesis.
They're very different things indeed.
Evolution doesn't explain how life came to be, just how life erm, evolved once it had begun.

Now it's entirely up to you to believe it or not but that doesn't alter the science.


Also, creationists, intelligent design supporters etc etc seem to believe that disproving evolution and/or abiogenesis somehow proves that god did it.
Sorry, that's not how it works.
You don't win by default.
The onus is always to prove what you state.
If you do that well fine, I'm happy to accept it but whilst you're trying to do it the wrong way then sorry I can't.

Fromabove

Krazysh0t

Fromabove

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Fromabove

 

You call that a mathematical proof yet I see all of ZERO math used. Sure I see a few numbers with the label "years" behind them, but I don't see those numbers being put into calculations to produce a result. I just see biased reasoning aimed to make the idea of abiogenesis and later evolution look silly. Come on, I asked for MATH. Not your faulty logic.

Oh gee wiz..... Come on now.

Is anyone not seeing intelligent design in the programmable dna we call life. Even scientists are beginning to talk of it as computer code. My theory is much more reasonable than evolution because I can prove by science that the genome is programmable. I could even redesign any given creature if I had tools at hand and the science to do it.

And I didn't use zero math, no. I used time progression math where you hypothesize the ability of any given thing to happen randomly without intervention. Have you never applied such theories to any work you do? Industries and the stock market do it all the time as do sports teams and political entities. The world runs on such applications.

Your first paragraph is unrelated to what I was asking for and is just a useless distraction. The second paragraph is just made up math. You didn't do any REAL math work, you just said kept moving your timeline forward then inserted your (faulty) version of events of what you think happened (that doesn't even line up with the abiogenesis hypothesis or evolutionary theory). Where is the statistical analysis? The sampling? The probability calculations? You can't just advance the clock forward and make up random claims of what you think occurred and call it "time progression".

It's called "progression" and science uses it to determine where things in space will be at any given point over time. You can apply it to anything as I did. If you have a reasonable timeline for the spontaneous and complete intelligent life form capable of self sustaining abilities, let me know it. And you can you progression math if you like as well.

Yes, science does use it to determine things over time. But they also use evidence and observation to determine how this progression works. Here, some valid scientific progression: Timeline of Human Evolution

But if you do you have to explain the how it knew it should do what it does, such as kill, defend itself from predictors, and reproduce and become complex. But I think the "how to know" part is going to stump you for sure.

edit on 27-3-2014 by Fromabove because: (no reason given)

Sure I guess, but that doesn't change the fact that you have used all of ZERO math to prove your points. Even progression math has to have calculations, probability, and statistical sampling to show it's claims. You have provided NONE of that. Instead, we get your version of events over a period of time. Any yahoo can make up their own version of events for the history of the earth, but that doesn't make it true or real. Give me the mathematical evidence that supports your timeline of events. You made a claim that evolution is a mathematical impossibility, yet you have failed to provide ANY mathematical concepts to back that claim up. Instead you provide me with words and sentences that dance around things and don't actually back up any of your claims.

Here is REAL math. You know the thing I've been asking for for the last two pages? This pdf was written by a REAL doctor and shows through math how many claims from people ON YOUR SIDE of the argument are wrong. How Anti-Evolutionists Abuse Mathematics You don't even have to read far before the good doctor addresses your impossibility claim. It's literally the first point he addresses.

I want to see math like that, not some random paragraphs that are clearly biased and prove nothing. Don't tell me what is and isn't math, I've studied it EXTENSIVELY.

Creationists can demand time on Cosmos all they want to, whether or not they receive it is not up to them however I don't think it's as ridiculous a proposition as many of the posters in this thread seem to think.

I'm a night-owl and have been for most of my working career, I have heard Neil deGrasse Tyson interviewed many, many times on overnight radio shows and when I heard that he was going to be the host of Cosmos I knew right then that I'd never watch an episode. Tyson has a nasty, nasty habit of falling back on "consensus science" when speaking of topics he is not qualified to speak on, in my humble old-school opinion no true man of science should ever use "consensus science" as a crutch. Creationists focusing on Cosmos is partially Tyson's fault, he has been incredibly mouthy, insulting, and dismissive when talking about certain matters of faith and made himself a lightning rod for those people, is the request for time really so unexpected and out of line? Some of you really seem to think a lot of Tyson but let's not put him on too high a pedestal here because some people don't think as highly of him. To me all Tyson is is the Billy Mays of science and the man has been a bit of a media whore, arguing with creationists is something that is actually smack dab in the middle of his wheelhouse.

reply to post by Goteborg

Creationists focusing on Cosmos is partially Tyson's fault, he has been incredibly mouthy, insulting, and dismissive when talking about certain matters of faith and made himself a lightning rod for those people, is the request for time really so unexpected and out of line?

Actually, no. It's not really so unexpected...

I had not much prior knowledge of Tyson, only 'discovered' him in the last few months.
I will say that the vid that flyingfish posted earlier made me think about it, though.

Insulting and dismissive is not a good way to go about these sensitive subjects, if you're a media-lecture-talkshow type.

He isn't respectful, and although I understand why, I can still see your point.

No one truly likes a smug Know-It-All. Only sycophants. And yes, I think of "God The Mysoginist Serial Killer Psycho" as portrayed by Biblists as -- "God: The Ultimate Know-It-All". Doesn't surprise me a bit that it turns people off. I know it did me.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Wish I could double-star you and applaud you for that one.


It seems quite vague, no? The argument didn't hold up for me. Maybe if I was four and asked Papa to tell me. But for adults? Not so much.
(I think religion is for adults - and even then usually misinterpreted - and should remain personal).

reply to post by Pardon?

Also, creationists, intelligent design supporters etc etc seem to believe that disproving evolution and/or abiogenesis somehow proves that god did it.
Sorry, that's not how it works.
You don't win by default.
The onus is always to prove what you state.
If you do that well fine, I'm happy to accept it but whilst you're trying to do it the wrong way then sorry I can't.

Were you just reading my mind?

(Thanks). Sometimes I'm not sure if I've made myself clear.

No one has claimed (among scientists) that they know how life started. The show doesn't either.
As for us being alone in the universe: well for all practical purposes we are, and
As for not knowing why we are here: still correct. Apparently to breed and mess up the planet.

Random? Predetermined? Solitary? Abandoned? We don't know. Cherished? No, cherished doesn't work for me, not without visible, practical support. Competent? Not so much, no.

Fromabove
I used time progression math...

Please provide a link to where the structure of 'time progression math' is explained.

BuzzyWigs
reply to post by Pardon?

 

Also, creationists, intelligent design supporters etc etc seem to believe that disproving evolution and/or abiogenesis somehow proves that god did it.
Sorry, that's not how it works.
You don't win by default.
The onus is always to prove what you state.
If you do that well fine, I'm happy to accept it but whilst you're trying to do it the wrong way then sorry I can't.

Were you just reading my mind?

(Thanks). Sometimes I'm not sure if I've made myself clear.

No one has claimed (among scientists) that they know how life started. The show doesn't either.
As for us being alone in the universe: well for all practical purposes we are, and
As for not knowing why we are here: still correct. Apparently to breed and mess up the planet.

Random? Predetermined? Solitary? Abandoned? We don't know. Cherished? No, cherished doesn't work for me, not without visible, practical support. Competent? Not so much, no.

edit on 3/27/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)

The chances of us being a random or solitary entity is pretty slim when you factor in all of the possible "goldilocks" scenarios not just in our galaxy but in the billions of others out there.
It's extremely short-sighted and outrageously arrogant to suggest that not only are we alone in the universe but that something put us here cosmologically speaking in the middle of nowhere and that in the mind of this something, we are the focus of everything.

If the Bible, especially Genesis, is taken literally which creationists do, then any life other than that on Earth is impossible (unless you class them as demons...).
www.answersingenesis.org...

i have said before that the story of noah displays how the bible should not be taken literally. if noah had one pair of each animal there would be no possible way for the ship described to be able to carry all of them and their food for 40 days.

then the issue of humans. only noah and his 3 sons and their 3 wives were spared. so noah had to have had one son that was african in appearance and one of asian countenance. the last one being caucasian. first cousin had to marry first cousin to repopulate the earth. but if they were all of hebrew stock, then they EVOLVED to the current races since then. and where s the record of their travels to their new lands? asia? the americas? australia? europe? why no written records?

The Cosmos is a science based show, why would they give airtime to creationists?f they don't like it turn the channel. I don't see the creationists offering science a few minutes during their sermons. Silly creationists

blackthorne
i have said before that the story of noah displays how the bible should not be taken literally. if noah had one pair of each animal there would be no possible way for the ship described to be able to carry all of them and their food for 40 days.

then the issue of humans. only noah and his 3 sons and their 3 wives were spared. so noah had to have had one son that was african in appearance and one of asian countenance. the last one being caucasian. first cousin had to marry first cousin to repopulate the earth. but if they were all of hebrew stock, then they EVOLVED to the current races since then. and where s the record of their travels to their new lands? asia? the americas? australia? europe? why no written records?

You expect logic and consistency from a Bronze Age myth???

BuzzyWigs
reply to post by Fromabove

 

Then how do you explain the Genesis vs billion-year-old universe problem?

Either you take Genesis literally, or you don't. That's what I meant: cherry-picking and interpretation are too easy with the Bible.
"This part is true, but this other part is a myth, and this part over here is metaphor and allegory and parable."

I don't take the Bible literally, and can never do.
God as in a genderless, non-human Creative Force? Maybe. God a judgmental, tyrannical, homicidal genocidal person? No. etc

edit on 3/27/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)

The Bible doesn't say in Genesis or anywhere else that the earth is only 6,000 years old. But it does say that it is very old and was formed after the creation of the universe. "In the beginning God created the heavens (universe) and the earth.." The earth comes after but are so old that the term "the beginning" is used because the term billions was not understood as we can understand by math today. But they are very old. We could say at least 4.5 billion years old for the earth and perhaps 13 to 17 billion for the universe at the present time of understanding.

AugustusMasonicus

Fromabove
I used time progression math...

Please provide a link to where the structure of 'time progression math' is explained.

Time progression math is a slang term for calculus. But it's the same term. We calculate what object A will do if it met object B at a velocity of 5kps at a duration of five years. As a byproduct we understand the distance object A was from B and how the laws of thermodynamics revealed the effect of the impact.

If I calculate that to have a viable life form consisting of one cell (call it A) and that such a cell would only be capable of "knowing" to eat to survive, and that that "knowing" would have to happen as a random event (B), and where each step thereafter would need to follow the same rule (1,2,3, ect al the was to 10,...) in random evolutionary processes (C). And if I calculate random de-evolutionary events at the same level as those that occur (D) and add to this environmental probabilities favorable for each successive step of development (E) and use as a standard a period of 50,000 years for each step to happen, repeat and modify and improve, then calculate that "progression" of events I would get the following.

The universe will have become a cold and dark place overtaken by entropy. The earth's sun will have long since expanded and swallow the earth in fire. There is the math. The thing is, if you like, calculate it your own way. Use extreme and always favorable conditions. Make each step a success. shorten the time of each step, and exclude all de-evolutionary processes that may occur. It would still be a very long time before humans ever arrive.

Fromabove

AugustusMasonicus

Fromabove
I used time progression math...

Please provide a link to where the structure of 'time progression math' is explained.

Time progression math is a slang term for calculus. But it's the same term. We calculate what object A will do if it met object B at a velocity of 5kps at a duration of five years. As a byproduct we understand the distance object A was from B and how the laws of thermodynamics revealed the effect of the impact.

If you think that is the case, you haven't studied multi-variable calculus before. Yes, much of calculus (the single variable type) is based on time, but that doesn't mean that all of it is. If you mean to talk about calculus, just say calculus.

If I calculate that to have a viable life form consisting of one cell (call it A) and that such a cell would only be capable of "knowing" to eat to survive, and that that "knowing" would have to happen as a random event (B), and where each step thereafter would need to follow the same rule (1,2,3, ect al the was to 10,...) in random evolutionary processes (C). And if I calculate random de-evolutionary events at the same level as those that occur (D) and add to this environmental probabilities favorable for each successive step of development (E) and use as a standard a period of 50,000 years for each step to happen, repeat and modify and improve, then calculate that "progression" of events I would get the following.

There is no "knowing" when it comes to instinct. There is no such thing as de-evolution either. Something either evolves or it doesn't.

You haven't calculated anything at all. I already posted a link, which you haven't addressed that shows that even if you HAD calculated something, it would be wrong. You also cannot assign random and arbitrary numbers to a period of time. That is stupid. Evolution doesn't work like that. There may be periods of very rapid evolution and development and there may be periods of very slow evolution and development. And neither have to be even either, the fast evolutionary periods could outnumber the slow evolutionary periods or vice-versa. Everything about that above paragraph is not real math and science and if you presented that to any intellectual, you'd be laughed out of the room.

The universe will have become a cold and dark place overtaken by entropy. The earth's sun will have long since expanded and swallow the earth in fire. There is the math. The thing is, if you like, calculate it your own way. Use extreme and always favorable conditions. Make each step a success. shorten the time of each step, and exclude all de-evolutionary processes that may occur. It would still be a very long time before humans ever arrive.

How about actually using number and figures instead of assigning arbitrary values to things you don't know?

I'm still waiting for you to address the (real) math used in this paper and explain why it's not valid, or provide your own math that shows these figures as wrong:

HOW ANTI-EVOLUTIONISTS ABUSE MATHEMATICS

reply to post by Krazysh0t


You do realize that even if I could dance the jig around a three cornered hat for you while balancing a bottle of beer on my nose, I would never convince you that math says evolution is impossible would I.

And there are de-evolutionary processes, they call some cancers, and others mutations that increase the likelihood of failure either by intelligence or structural changes.

And inanimate objects and chemicals do not have sentient knowledge and couldn't tell a hamburger from a rock when and if they experience hunger and a will to continue. Instinct is not the same as knowledge to "know to do" because we are talking about first time events and such that must then be passed on to another generation of like kind in it's entirety.

When the bolt of lightning hits the puddle and wha-la a primordial cell develops all on it's own, it must then desire to live and continue. It must "know" that it must eat to survive. Otherwise it will sit there and deteriorate into the ingredients from which it was formed.

And as for the math, I think I did a good job of explaining why evolution never even gets out of the gates at the bell.

Ooops. Double post.