Creationists Demand Equal Airtime Over Cosmos Content

[LeviathanZERO]

And, in response to your comment about the speed of light, read this for an explanation of the experiment you cited: http://discovermagazine.com/2003/nov/score-another-win-for-einstein1106

The point I'm making pointing at that experiment is that light can be manipulated and no one can say for certain that it always travels the same speed throughout all time, space and matter. Using just light measurements and algorithms is only educated estimates, we can not verify the speed the galaxy is expanding, and if it is constant or variable. A chaotic environment like a Super Nova, even more so. What kind of vaccum(s) exist? What if there is a black hole nearby? The arithmetic does not account for variability and is slightly flawed. More evidence is needed and not just light calculations, to have any certainty.

 

[Steve01S4]

The point I'm making pointing at that experiment is that light can be manipulated and no one can say for certain that it always travels the same speed throughout all time, space and matter. Using just light measurements and algorithms is only educated estimates, we can not verify the speed the galaxy is expanding, and if it is constant or variable. A chaotic environment like a Super Nova, even more so. What kind of vaccum(s) exist? What if there is a black hole nearby? The arithmetic does not account for variability and is slightly flawed. More evidence is needed and not just light calculations, to have any certainty.

Go back and read about that study again. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means. As for the rest of your claims, provide some evidence. Saying "What if?" about things that you can't show evidence of isn't an argument.

Are you actually trying to argue that it's even remotely plausible that the universe is thousands of years old, rather than billions?

 

[Tawnos]

The point I'm making pointing at that experiment is that light can be manipulated and no one can say for certain that it always travels the same speed throughout all time, space and matter. Using just light measurements and algorithms is only educated estimates, we can not verify the speed the galaxy is expanding, and if it is constant or variable. A chaotic environment like a Super Nova, even more so. What kind of vaccum(s) exist? What if there is a black hole nearby? The arithmetic does not account for variability and is slightly flawed. More evidence is needed and not just light calculations, to have any certainty.

Then you aren't understanding the experiment. The photons of light don't arrive until after the amount of time, determined by c, has passed. While we cannot say that it always travels throughout all space, time, and matter (in fact, it's trivial to show that the last one is false), what we can say is that there has been no demonstrated case which falsifies the speed of light as the ultimate limit on sending information.

 

[kbrickley]

The point I'm making pointing at that experiment is that light can be manipulated and no one can say for certain that it always travels the same speed throughout all time, space and matter. Using just light measurements and algorithms is only educated estimates, we can not verify the speed the galaxy is expanding, and if it is constant or variable. A chaotic environment like a Super Nova, even more so. What kind of vaccum(s) exist? What if there is a black hole nearby? The arithmetic does not account for variability and is slightly flawed. More evidence is needed and not just light calculations, to have any certainty.

To abandon the constant speed of light you have to abandon Einstein's entire Theory of Relativity (since a constant speed of light is a requirement for that) ... since we have actually physically verified the effects of time dilation (due to velocity) and the Theory of General Relativity tracks with too many physical observations and phenomenon it is not so easy to abandon Relativity

 

[DeathFromBelow]

Well, if the Young Earth Creationists were upset by Cosmos before, their heads exploded after last night. Tyson absolutely destroyed Young Earth "theory" in Ep. 4.

According to some beliefs, that 6,500 years is the age of the whole universe. But if the universe were only 6,500 years old, how could we see the light from anything more distant than the Crab Nebula?(which is 6,500 light years away) We couldn't. There wouldn't have been enough time for the light to get to Earth from anywhere farther away than 6,500 light-years in any direction. That's just enough time for light to travel through a tiny portion of our Milky Way galaxy.

To believe in a universe as young as 6 or 7,000 years old is to extinguish the light from most of the galaxy. Not to mention the light from all the hundred billion other galaxies in the observable universe.

They'll find some excuse to rationalize it away. Their god made the universe that way to test us or something.

Episode 4 was magnificent. I thought the first three episodes were enjoyable and complimented the original series, but Ghosts in the Sky really stands with the best episodes in the original series.

The point I'm making pointing at that experiment is that light can be manipulated and no one can say for certain that it always travels the same speed throughout all time

No one can say for certain that the universe wasn't created the way it is five minutes ago and all of our memories are just pre-programmed. Nobody can say for certain there isn't an invisible dragon in my garage, either.

I can imagine a lot of ideas that cannot be proven or disproved. What matters is where the evidence leads us, not what we want to believe. All the evidence we have indicates that the speed of light is and always has been a physical constant. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary you don't have an argument.

 

[chockomonkey]

Watched the third episode last night. More of his silly attacks against a creator. He said that there was no need for a clockmaker when Newton discovered gravity--that gravity is the clockmaker. Makes no sense whatsoever. Newton just wrote down how gravity works.

I really like this show and enjoy the history, but the baseless attacks are not fooling anyone that doesn't want to be fooled.

 

[maverikv]

Watched the third episode last night. More of his silly attacks against a creator. He said that there was no need for a clockmaker when Newton discovered gravity--that gravity is the clockmaker. Makes no sense whatsoever. Newton just wrote down how gravity works.

I really like this show and enjoy the history, but the baseless attacks are not fooling anyone that doesn't want to be fooled.

I think the point is that you are already fooled

 

[mavrocket]

Watched the third episode last night. More of his silly attacks against a creator. He said that there was no need for a clockmaker when Newton discovered gravity--that gravity is the clockmaker. Makes no sense whatsoever. Newton just wrote down how gravity works.

I really like this show and enjoy the history, but the baseless attacks are not fooling anyone that doesn't want to be fooled.

I think it boils down to this said by G. K. Chesterson over a hundred years ago, "“When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything.”

Like I said earlier, it's pointless to try and prove God doesn't exist to the faithful, and it's pointless to try and prove God does exist to the unfaithful.

Going out of his way to disuade anyone from being faithful is a self-serving measure in justifying his own non-belief. The dirty secret of atheism is that an atheist spends more time proving to themselves that God doesn't exist than the faithful spend proving that he does.

 

[maverikv]

I think it boils down to this said by G. K. Chesterson over a hundred years ago, "“When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything.”

Like I said earlier, it's pointless to try and prove God doesn't exist to the faithful, and it's pointless to try and prove God does exist to the unfaithful.

Going out of his way to disuade anyone from being faithful is a self-serving measure in justifying his own non-belief. The dirty secret of atheism is that an atheist spends more time proving to themselves that God doesn't exist than the faithful spend proving that he does.

It's impossible to prove god exists to the unfaithful because it's impossible to prove god exists period.

 

[TwistedAegis]

The dirty secret of atheism is that an atheist spends more time proving to themselves that God doesn't exist than the faithful spend proving that he does.

I must be missing all the fundraising for those atheist missions to go and de-convert the faithful in foreign countries around the world.

 

[Jeremy C]

The dirty secret of atheism is that an atheist spends more time proving to themselves that God doesn't exist than the faithful spend proving that he does.

That's news to me. And here I thought I spent most my time working, doing a good job of looking like I'm working, raising kids, keeping a household, budgeting, etc.

It shows how little you know about Atheists to think that's true. I left my religion because I read the bible end to end, multiple times, and the faults and fallacies of it kept getting bigger and bigger, until I just couldn't hold the story together any longer. After the initial worry about persecution from the religious people around me (irony if I ever saw it), I basically was able to say "fuck it, time to live my life" and began working on the first sentence of my response.

The only time it comes up is in situations where someone is spouting disinformation, such as yourself, about my lifestyle. Now excuse me, I have to go prep some babies for the barbecue tonight.

 

[mavrocket]

It's impossible to prove god exists to the unfaithful because it's impossible to prove god exists period.

By your walls and standards built to disprove it, you are correct, hence my statement.

I must be missing all the fundraising for those atheist missions to go and de-convert the faithful in foreign countries around the world.

You misread. I said, "prove to themselves."

 

[TwistedAegis]

You misread. I said, "prove to themselves."

Oops, I did misread it. My own personal belief is that there is no god or God or gods. That being said, even if there were, I wouldn't care. If there truly is an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being out there and he allows the things to happen in this world that happen (i.e., women in Africa has her baby killed, breasts hacked off, raped...then goes to hell because she didn't accept Jesus! (or even hear of him)) - well, I don't want a damn thing to do with him/her/it/them. There's no convincing or proving needed.

 

[maverikv]

By any standard. No evidence = no proof. You choose to believe it and that's fine. I require proof. In the meantime, I believe nothing, which is the default logical position.

 

[TwistedAegis]

Oh I fully understand atheism is a belief, not a fact.

 

[mavrocket]

The only time it comes up is in situations where someone is spouting disinformation, such as yourself, about my lifestyle. Now excuse me, I have to go prep some babies for the barbecue tonight.

I wasn't attacking your lifestyle. Why are you so quick to take offense if you say you are comfortable and confident in your choice?

I'm actually the opposite of you. I grew up in a religious community, and was a militant atheist for the greater portion of my now 31 years.

I'm not out to "attack" anyone, and I apologize if you take offense to what you say is "disinformation".

 

[mavrocket]

Oops, I did misread it. My own personal belief is that there is no god or God or gods. That being said, even if there were, I wouldn't care. If there truly is an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being out there and he allows the things to happen in this world that happen (i.e., women in Africa has her baby killed, breasts hacked off, raped...then goes to hell because she didn't accept Jesus! (or even hear of him)) - well, I don't want a damn thing to do with him/her/it/them. There's no convincing or proving needed.

Your understanding of Christianity is wrong, but I'll leave it at that because I don't want to proselytize over a forum, especially since I believe it's not wanted.

 

[MavericK]

Just started watching this series recently...awesome show. At times it does border on attacking religion, but it's not arbitrary...he's got reasoning to back it up.

 

[Jeremy C]

I wasn't attacking your lifestyle. Why are you so quick to take offense if you say you are comfortable and confident in your choice?

I'm actually the opposite of you. I grew up in a religious community, and was a militant atheist for the greater portion of my now 31 years.

I'm not out to "attack" anyone, and I apologize if you take offense to what you say is "disinformation".

No offense taken! I didn't even see it as offensive in my response (thus the remark about the babies, since that's always a favorite of mine).

I didn't see it as an attack by yourself either. It's just as I said, disinformation that atheists spend large amounts of time having to prove to ourselves a greater power doesn't exist. Once I got over the shock that I couldn't believe what I was indoctrinated into, I moved on and that was that. I don't bring it up at family gatherings (very dedicated southern baptists who would cause more drama than I want), and generally don't talk about it with anyone unless a topic requires it. I guess I'm more of the apathetic atheist - I know how I feel, but couldn't care less about anyone else's opinion unless it directly effects me. This is about as open about it as I get. A good friend of mine is a militant atheist. Interesting fellow, but I can't muster the dedication to be that fervent. There's video games that need played and books that need read first.

 

[CreepyUncleGoogle]

How is this threadnaught still going? I sooo should have bought the family-sized serving of popcorn.

 

[Frankie]

By your walls and standards built to disprove it, you are correct, hence my statement.




You misread. I said, "prove to themselves."

What complete and utter nonsense.

 

[Mr. K6]

How is this threadnaught still going? I sooo should have bought the family-sized serving of popcorn.

Every once and awhile someone who believes in a god reads it, gets flustered, then tries to prove to everyone else (to little avail) that he's more than just deluding about a big invisible man in the sky. This of course fails, he/she is upset and rants for a few posts, then drops out. Repeat ad nauseam.

 

[ManofGod]

Every once and awhile someone who believes in a god reads it, gets flustered, then tries to prove to everyone else (to little avail) that he's more than just deluding about a big invisible man in the sky. This of course fails, he/she is upset and rants for a few posts, then drops out. Repeat ad nauseam.

Riggghhhhttttt...... Or, someone says their peace and moves on. No delusion, no ranting, no anger, no invisible man in the sky. (Oh, and God is not a man. Also, I do not believe in "a god" but, I have a relationship with the GOD.)

 

[maverikv]

Riggghhhhttttt...... Or, someone says their peace and moves on. No delusion, no ranting, no anger, no invisible man in the sky. (Oh, and God is not a man. Also, I do not believe in "a god" but, I have a relationship with the GOD.)

That's what people from other religions say too

 

[ManofGod]

That's what people from other religions say too

The difference is I do not say it, I actually live it. (You cannot have a relationship with someone who does not exist after all.) Enjoy your tv show with an obvious bias, I know I will not watch it.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

Oh I fully understand atheism is a belief

That's like calling bald a hair color.

I can't disprove the existence of Santa Claus or Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but I wouldn't call my rejection of those things a form of 'belief.' It's not reasonable to believe in something without some line of evidence to support it.

 

[chockomonkey]

I think the point is that you are already fooled

I'm not fooled, I know exactly where I stand. I was raised Christian and so that has affected my position a lot. However, I never stop asking questions. When watching this show Neil will make a claim, and I'll get excited: "Yes! Show me.." but then he ends up saying something lackluster like my gravity/clockmaker example. Writing down an equation for how gravity works doesn't mean there's no clockmaker lol It's quite a leap to take.

Just started watching this series recently...awesome show. At times it does border on attacking religion, but it's not arbitrary...he's got reasoning to back it up.

Even though my religious believes come from my upbringing, I always question everything. They didn't successfully close my mind. So far, Neil hasn't really brought up anything that feels like real evidence of no god... But he sure tries.

How is this threadnaught still going? I sooo should have bought the family-sized serving of popcorn.

Because the show is airing and people like commenting on it. At least that's how i'm using the thread ><

Enjoy your tv show with an obvious bias, I know I will not watch it.

That's a shame. There is a TON of great content in this show.

 

[mavrocket]

Every once and awhile someone who believes in a god reads it, gets flustered, then tries to prove to everyone else (to little avail) that he's more than just deluding about a big invisible man in the sky. This of course fails, he/she is upset and rants for a few posts, then drops out. Repeat ad nauseam.

As opposed to the someone who doesn't believe in a god who reads something about faith or religion, then goes out of their way to prove to everyone else (and especially himself and his ego) that he's enlightened and more intelligent than those cretins who believe in something greater than themselves. This of course fails to sooth his soul (which he does not believe he has anyways), so he gets upset and rants for a few posts about big invisible men in the sky (whatever that is), then drops out. Repeat ad nauseam.

 

[stevedave]

Didn't read all 20 pages so maybe someone else has mentioned this.

Creationist are stupid. Even the pope rejects creationism. The only way for religion to survive is to comply with science. So it has to remain in the realm of the unknown which requires faith to believe in.

Science has literally proven evolution but has yet to prove the origin of life so intelligent religious leaders, like the pope, say evolution is true but the origin of life was caused by god and the universe and big bang were both caused by god. If/when we find the origin of life religion will just adapt its stance on the matter to remain faith based by knowing the unknown.

Things like the origin of life and the vastness of the universe are hard and possibly impossible to comprehend. I have very little problems with people using a God to help them deal with the unknown. For all I know there is a god who created everything. There is no evidence to support that however.

Science is truth.
God is the unknown.
Religion is false.

 

[chockomonkey]

As opposed to the someone who doesn't believe in a god who reads something about faith or religion, then goes out of their way to prove to everyone else (and especially himself and his ego) that he's enlightened and more intelligent than those cretins who believe in something greater than themselves. This of course fails to sooth his soul (which he does not believe he has anyways), so he gets upset and rants for a few posts about big invisible men in the sky (whatever that is), then drops out. Repeat ad nauseam.

I think the problem on BOTH sides of the fence is the stereotype. Indeed there are a lot of Athiests that try to convince people there is no god and then ridicule them when they don't accept what was put forth. Then there are a lot of religious folk who blindly follow what they've been told without asking questions. Then get butt-hurt when someone brings up something which would make them ask a question about their beliefs.

I reckon both groups are the vocal minority. Most religious and non-religious people i've met have quite an open mind and enjoy conversing about these topics with each other.

 

[rflcptr]

Enjoy your tv show with an obvious bias, I know I will not watch it.

head in sand confirmed?

 

[Modred189]

Science is the search for truth in order to ask more questions.
God is the belief in the unknown.
Religion and scientists are infinitely fallible.

FTFY

 

[DeathFromBelow]

Writing down an equation for how gravity works doesn't mean there's no clockmaker lol It's quite a leap to take.

I think you misunderstood the example. It's just like how the discovery of natural selection eliminated the need for a god to design living things. Mathematical laws of gravity and planetary motion undermined our magical explanations for the motions of the planets. No more astrology or crystal spheres moved by angels.

As science advances 'god' gradually becomes a do-nothing king who at best just starts up the universe and retires.

 

[Modred189]

I think the problem on BOTH sides of the fence is the stereotype. Indeed there are a lot of Athiests that try to convince people there is no god and then ridicule them when they don't accept what was put forth. Then there are a lot of religious folk who blindly follow what they've been told without asking questions. Then get butt-hurt when someone brings up something which would make them ask a question about their beliefs.

I reckon both groups are the vocal minority. Most religious and non-religious people i've met have quite an open mind and enjoy conversing about these topics with each other.

THIS.
As with anything involving emotions, the conversation is dominated by the vocal, extremist and crazy minority. Whether it's the WBC or Richard Dawkins, you're not doing yourself any favors by buying into the people with the loudest voices.

 

[stevedave]

FTFY

 

[mavrocket]

I think the problem on BOTH sides of the fence is the stereotype. Indeed there are a lot of Athiests that try to convince people there is no god and then ridicule them when they don't accept what was put forth. Then there are a lot of religious folk who blindly follow what they've been told without asking questions. Then get butt-hurt when someone brings up something which would make them ask a question about their beliefs.

I reckon both groups are the vocal minority. Most religious and non-religious people i've met have quite an open mind and enjoy conversing about these topics with each other.

Agreed. If you go back to some of my posts I've said as much.

One of my favorite Jefferson quotes is, "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."

 

[Trimlock]

Right when this thread is about to die in a fire, it his back with a few more pages in seconds!

 

[ManofGod]

head in sand confirmed?

Just like I will not watch the obviously biased news that knowingly insults my intelligence. I guess if free and complete thinking is having ones head in the sand, then I am guilty as charged.

 

[chockomonkey]

I think you misunderstood the example. It's just like how the discovery of natural selection eliminated the need for a god to design living things. Mathematical laws of gravity and planetary motion undermined our magical explanations for the motions of the planets. No more astrology or crystal spheres moved by angels.

As science advances 'god' gradually becomes a do-nothing king who at best just starts up the universe and retires.

IMO Mathematical laws of gravity and planetary motion didn't undermine anything. Humans simply found out out a way to represent what is going on in a way we can comprehend.

I understand, in a historical context, how having new scientific explanations lessens the chance of us jumping to a conclusion like god to explain why things happen the way they do, but I don't think it removes whatsoever the potential for a god to exist.

 

[Low Roller]

As science advances 'god' gradually becomes a do-nothing king who at best just starts up the universe and retires.

Science has literally proven evolution but has yet to prove the origin of life so intelligent religious leaders, like the pope, say evolution is true but the origin of life was caused by god and the universe and big bang were both caused by god. If/when we find the origin of life religion will just adapt its stance on the matter to remain faith based by knowing the unknown.

It's the problem with the old 'God of the gaps' argument as evidence for the existence of God. In this context, God is reduced to "an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance," as Tyson puts it, as our scientific understanding expands over time.