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

reply to post by BuzzyWigs


No prob. It's exasperating enough to cover the same ground repeatedly, probably best not to complicate it with the endless bickering that will inevitably result from digging any deeper than creationism.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Okay, I took it out. Got your point.
Can you delete the portion of my quote? That way we won't be off-track, and the evidence of my having done it on my own will be omitted

I don't see anything amiss with the science, but I'm simply a lay person who appreciates it when scientists make the effort to talk to the rest of us in language we can understand.
Like when the subject of 'calculus' came up - my initial reaction: "Oh crap. I don't know JACK about calculus - that was the threshold of my maths ability. Imaginary numbers? No. Can't go there. Does not compute."

I've thought about trying to learn it, but. Well, I tried before, and failed at it.
Wrapping my brain around QM has been challenging enough!

To be fair, Cosmos spoke teleologically about natural selection, that nature selects genetic mutations by some sort of volition, as if nature was capable of selecting at all. This sort of teleological discourse is really no different than saying God chooses which mutations stay, and which of them do not.

reply to post by Aphorism

teleology
A teleology is any philosophical account that holds that final causes exist in nature, meaning that — analogous to purposes found in human actions — nature inherently tends toward definite ends.

Nature may very well be "God at work", and all that we will ever know is how Nature works. I don't see how the show has violated that or suppressed it. or are you saying that by doing that they are indirectly supporting creation?

I also maybe don't quite get your point. I don't see what all the kerfuffle is about. Science and theology don't have to be enemies.
Religion isn't a necessary part of the equation of "why what occurs, occurs".

reply to post by BuzzyWigs


Well, given that creationism is not a scientific theory, and given that Cosmos is a show which is alleged to be about explaining what science has taught us thus far about the universe in which we live (although it does a pretty piss poor job of that, being as horrifically dumbed down as it is when compared with more accomplished documentaries of its type), that demand is pointless, and deliberately inflammatory, and I say this as a Christian, as well as a person who respects and understands scientific principles.

I believe in Jesus, but I also believe that faith and wisdom do not operate in the same part of the brain. When I deal with matters involving Newtonian physics, I do not offer up a prayer to the Saviour of mankind. When I am in the midst of a spiritual fugue, or looking for philosophical guidance, I do not look to the works of Einstein. I also believe that these two mindsets are by no means mutually exclusive. I respect science, because it allows us to peer into the most distant past, to focus on the incredible fine detail of the creation we are a part of, and to get a better and better view, day by day, year by year, of what the big picture, the full span of this marvelous tapestry we call the Universe. If anything, science offers the human race, and in my case, followers of Jesus, and anyone else who cares to have a look, the tools which allow us the best view of the infinite genius that is the work of God.

I also believe that this whole "The Bible, verbatim, is the word. There is no room for interpretation, even though the people who scribed the original texts which were finally bound together into the Testaments were barely educated, and having to cope with concepts beyond their wisdom to comprehend, translate them, and then write them down" thing is utter nonsense.

Creation in seven days? And what does seven days mean for an ageless being, a being which literally created all of time and space? Seven years? Seven thousand years? Seven million years? When the universe in its totality was the same width across as this galaxy, did time operate differently? Was the speed of light higher, lower, or affected in some other way by how close together all the matter and energy was at the time?

I have questions. I am happy for some of them to be answered when I go to meet my maker. However, the one thing I cannot just accept, is the idea that creation itself is but six thousand years old (because human kind has been around much longer than that, and is no where near as old as the universe), and I am HAPPY to say that, and I will scream it in the face of any fundamentalist who cares to challenge it. I believe in God, but I do not believe in the perfection of the writing hands of his emissaries on Earth.

When I look up at the night sky through a telescope, when I see the images from the Hubble space telescope, or the latest data from other sky scanning apparatus, the sheer scale and majesty of the universe astound me, humble me, and inspire me. They do so because not only do I appreciate the monstrous scope of the thing (not to mention that the part we can see is perhaps just a fragment of a larger whole), but I appreciate the power of God. This science is an AID to worship, not a detriment to it.

What these traditionalists fear more than anything else, is that they, as weak, flawed mortal beings, will see their power and prestige dwindle in the face of real belief. The sort of belief that draws people out of the corruption of Churches and congregational, organised religion, and into a more personal and spiritual connection with Jesus Christ. Many people find it odd that I love science and God all at once, but I say that no one who eschews science can appreciate the works, or word of God, in their true majesty. These creationist morons would do well to pay heed to that!

I wonder if these Christian theme parks will explain evolution?
www.christianpost.com...
www.holylandexperience.com...
hmmm...I wonder if they have to pay business taxes?

reply to post by TrueBrit

I also believe that these two mindsets are by no means mutually exclusive.

Absolutely. That's what I've been driving at.
Thanks for reading and contributing to the thread.

Fromabove
Time progression math is a slang term for calculus. But it's the same term.

Please stop making crap up. I've never heard that and I would've heard it if it were real. I just Googled "time progression math" just to be sure and the only thing that was returned was your post in this thread. I'm not exaggerating either, it literally was the only result.

So as a layman, and not a scientist, it appears to me that evolution is a valid theory. So if you were trying to persuade me otherwise...well... When individuals state that evolution couldn't occur, they're not really addressing any specific issue or telling me why it couldn't happen. I think if there are questions about evolution, they need to be addressed and asked separately. You cannot say evolution is false. Period. You can't sway me with that sentence. I need more. You also can't say that God's word in the bible is final because it's been changed so many times...which time was final? Is it final now, or are there more changes to come? ...and leading to all kinds of questions such as "why did God stop speaking to us thousands of years ago? Why doesn't God explain some of the science we've discovered since then in terms that we can now comprehend? Why does the universe appear to be expanding? Then we get into other philosophical questions such as "Why did God only speak to and save the people in the middle east? Why didn't he appear in other continents? Why did the ancient Sumerians get the creation story wrong, if he gave it to them first? Why are the only people proclaiming creation vs cosmos Christians? Persuade me. Talk to me, people.

reply to post by BuzzyWigs

Nature may very well be "God at work", and all that we will ever know is how Nature works. I don't see how the show has violated that or suppressed it. or are you saying that by doing that they are indirectly supporting creation?

I also maybe don't quite get your point. I don't see what all the kerfuffle is about. Science and theology don't have to be enemies.
Religion isn't a necessary part of the equation of "why what occurs, occurs".

Yes I'm saying there is no difference between saying "God created it", "Nature created it" or "The Universe created it". All presuppose creation or volition of some supreme creative force.

The Cosmos spoke in this language, as do creationists.

amazing
Then we get into other philosophical questions such as "Why did God only speak to and save the people in the middle east? Why didn't he appear in other continents? Why did the ancient Sumerians get the creation story wrong, if he gave it to them first? Why are the only people proclaiming creation vs cosmos Christians? Persuade me. Talk to me, people.

You ask too many questions.

You are sooooo going to Hell.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


Crap.

2nd level of hell...I mean line.

reply to post by Aphorism

The Cosmos spoke in this language, as do creationists.

You do understand we're talking specifically about the Young-Earth Creationists in this case, who say the Earth and all else is only 6,000 human years old. Right? Not poetical years, or slang "it took sooo looong" years, or galaxy years, or light years....human years.

No other crowd has made a fuss about the show that I know of.

Otherwise, I agree with you. Nature=God=Universe=All.

amazing
Crap.

2nd level of hell...I mean line.

I had a similar comment made to me in Catechism School.

I asked a bunch of questions and was told, "You ask too many questions."

So I said, "What's wrong with that?"

And she said, "God doesn't like these questions."

So I replied, "But you're not God."

I was promptly sent to the Monsignor's office where I had to wait for my mother to pick me up.

BuzzyWigs
reply to post by Fromabove

 

Now if COSMOS would just do that and not say things against God that would be great. Just say he doesn't know and show us the wonders of the universe.

But they didn't say anything against God! He said "we don't know how life started"!

You seem to be stuck on this evolution and anti-God tack, and on the show there was all of 13.5 seconds of mentioning when humans parted from other primates and began to look up in wonder...(which Oklahoma decided to 'censor' with a 'news break'.)

You confuse me. You say the Bible wouldn't reject evolution, but yet you insist on saying it's a lie, in the face of ample evidence. That, I don't get. It's been established from the OP that it is Ken Ham and the YECs who are pushing for equal airtime....not generalist believers.

Yet you seem very offended and unwilling to consider the century+ of the study of evidence for evolution.

edit on 3/28/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: Remove derailing.

No, there's not confusion. One could easily read the scripture as God allowing the earth to bring forth life forms, thus evolution. What I was saying was that at this point evolution has not been proven. I think I mentioned it before but I used to be an atheist. I was all gung-ho with evolution and the whole nine yards of it. But I kept asking question which led to even more questions, then frustration, and so I no longer accept it as a viable theory. No one has ever show for instance one animal evolving into another except in time gaps covering millions of years. Not in a reasonable time where successive generation could be seen changing over time.

As for the anti-God thing, it's in every show of COSMOS even if he is not saying God, he eludes repeatedly that science is good and religion not.

Fromabove
No, there's not confusion. One could easily read the scripture as God allowing the earth to bring forth life forms, thus evolution.

Oh, there is a great deal of confusion.

Abiogenesis or God induced creation are one topic.

Evolution (which has been repeatedly proved) is another.

They are not related and are mutually exclusive.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Fromabove

 

To date, there is no math or science that can establish evolution. It just hasn't been proven only assumed.

To be clear on this: you're saying evolutionary theory is not based on legitimate science, and that if evolution were to be replaced as the leading theory in its field, the replacement theory would have to be scientifically sound?

And following that, what scientifically sound theory are you proposing in place of evolutionary theory?

No theory is needed. Life exists. Why can't it be said that life just is and study that, and that the universe is, and study all of it's wonders. Then we could leave unanswerable question like where life began and what caused the universe to be as thoughts to ponder. Science cannot answer such questions and until it can it should just admit it doesn't know.

reply to post by BuzzyWigs

You do understand we're talking specifically about the Young-Earth Creationists in this case, who say the Earth and all else is only 6,000 human years old. Right? Not poetical years, or slang, or galaxy years, or light years....human years.

No other crowd has made a fuss about the show that I know of.

Otherwise, I agree with you. Nature=God=Universe=All.

I do understand. I was only trying to show how muddy the waters are in respect to the show.

As for young-earthers, we can dismiss their claims by saying the Bible does not explicitly state the age of the earth.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

I asked a bunch of questions and was told, "You ask too many questions."

So I said, "What's wrong with that?"

LOL!!!
All my life it's been a habit of mine to sit toward the front and raise my hand frequently.
When I went to graduate school, one of the profs happened to intro the class with a statement about how sometimes the quieter type people don't get a chance to speak, so if all you eager outspoken folks can give them a chance to speak.....

Oh well.
Sorry, offtopic.

But yes, I truly don't understand why some people are so determined to hang to ideas that have been shown to be weak (if not mythical).

Maybe it just can't be explained. Like a woman who's a mother not being able to explain or describe accurately what it's like to become a mother.

Anyway, I still vote for science + God = okay. But either way, I have no dog in the fight. I'm mostly here just auditing; and playing 'facilitator'. lol

Goteborg

Fromabove
Time progression math is a slang term for calculus. But it's the same term.

Please stop making crap up. I've never heard that and I would've heard it if it were real. I just Googled "time progression math" just to be sure and the only thing that was returned was your post in this thread. I'm not exaggerating either, it literally was the only result.

edit on 3 28 2014 by Goteborg because: corrected inaccuracy.

I said it was slang. Call it calculus, whatever. For those who need explaining... it is applying math to time in an effort to determine an outcome and an expected result. Have you ever heard of NASA because they use calculus all the time.