Creationists Demand Equal Airtime Over Cosmos Content

Status
Not open for further replies.
ManofGod said:
Not everyone who was born was listed in the Book of Genesis. Logic, man, logic. :)
Click to expand...

You know, you're right. There's a lot of things that aren't in the book of Genesis... or the Bible. Like... science. Convenient, amiright? So that's just more of you proving my point. I like this game! ;-)
 
ManofGod said:
Indoctrinated with, good one. :) So, exactly how long have I been a Christian who doesn't understand science? Also, the world is mostly not Christian. Have you actually taken the time to see outside the borders of your only little country, the USA? Perhaps see that more people were persecuted (tortured, maimed, killed) by people who had faith in Christ in the 20th and up until now than in all the rest of history combined? (And lots of other made up facts!)

Look, whether I convince you or not is not my job, just being the messenger is all I can do science and logic are beyond my abilities. However, take the time to look around and see what is going on, you may just be surprised by how much contradiction there is in the absolute word of God in the Bible.
Click to expand...

There, fixed it for you. :cool:
 
tempertantrum said:
There, fixed it for you. :cool:
Click to expand...

Excellent, you showed me just how easy it is to take something man wrote out on his own and change it to fit what he wants to say. Pretty much any school or science texts that are out there do that but eh, what do I know. Oh well, you serve.
 
ManofGod said:
Excellent, you showed me just how easy it is to take something man wrote out on his own and change it to fit what he wants to say. Pretty much any school or science texts that are out there do that but eh, what do I know. Oh well, you serve.
Click to expand...

Or say, a New Testament written hundreds of years after the man leading the apocalyptic cult known as Christianity didn't immediately lead them all up into heaven, as was the expectation; why write a book about it if they were all going to rooms in his Father's house?
 
TwistedAegis said:
Or say, a New Testament written hundreds of years after the man leading the apocalyptic cult known as Christianity didn't immediately lead them all up into heaven, as was the expectation; why write a book about it if they were all going to rooms in his Father's house?
Click to expand...

Besides, what good was Jesus, anyway? His father this, his father that. Can't he do anything on his own?
 
TwistedAegis said:
Or say, a New Testament written hundreds of years after the man leading the apocalyptic cult known as Christianity didn't immediately lead them all up into heaven, as was the expectation; why write a book about it if they were all going to rooms in his Father's house?
Click to expand...

Actually, the entire New Testament was written before AD 95 or there abouts. The last book to be written was the Book of Revelation by John well in exile and that was around AD 95. Oh, and it was known as The Way. I do not know where you got the impression that they were expecting to immediately go up into heaven if I am understanding you correctly.

Jesus said: And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
 
ManofGod said:
I do not know where you got the impression that they were expecting to immediately go up into heaven if I am understanding you correctly.

Jesus said: And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
Click to expand...

From the Jesuit priest who taught my western religion class, but he was probably a closet atheist. :p
 
ManofGod said:
Excellent, you showed me just how easy it is to take something man wrote out on his own and change it to fit what he wants to say. Pretty much any school or science texts that are out there do that but eh, what do I know. Oh well, you serve.
Click to expand...
This just shows your level of ignorance. Whatever Bible you're reading has been re-written in the exact manner your chastising but without any regard, principle or evidence. Archaeologists have discovered ancient Bibles with entirely different books in them as well as different translations that sometimes greatly change the meaning. The fact that you are so ignorant of your own history is more than proof that no one should take you seriously. The other thing that's worth pointing out is your infantile understanding of science and why texts are updated or re-written. As we learn more about our world we come to a better understanding of why things are and how they work. The thing is, it's all backed by evidence and explained openly, and it's peer-reviewed. Anyone who is interested can read the literature and partake in whatever experiments they want to re-enact, there's nothing hidden. Because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's hidden, it just once again shows your ignorance.

This shroud of confidence you try to construct (ah, I'm smarter than all you scientists! You can't get me!) contrasted against your obvious ignorance of both science and your Christian beliefs shows a scared man who's desperately clinging to a (thankfully) dying mindset. Congratulations, you're a dinosaur.
 
ManofGod said:
You cannot pick and choose what you want out of the Bible and throw out the rest. If it is not 100% true, then there is no point in it at all.
Click to expand...
Why not? I'm not a Christian. My wife is, but doesn't believe the Bible is a literal document. I can pick the parts out of the Bible that are good, denounce the parts that are bad, and be a better person for the experience.

Genesis is literal regardless of what someone wants to believe or not. Also, there is not different orders of creation, light was created before the sun, moon and stars.
Click to expand...
Genesis 1, animals are created, then man (male and female). Genesis 2, man (male) is made, it's not good to be alone, female is created, then animals are created.

The comment about light is that it doesn't make sense to separate day and night via light and dark before creating the very thing which generates light.

What makes me claim it is that the Bible fits together like a puzzle.
Click to expand...
What about the books, texts, and oral traditions that were excluded in whatever form of bible you follow, but are included in others?

Jesus came to redeem the lost. However, the lost occurred originally at the beginning of creation due to the first sin. If you make the book of Genesis say something other than what it does, the Jesus did not come to redeem anything at all. The Word of God is unchanging and those who take things out of context to try to disprove it are simply wrong.
Click to expand...
Perfect being makes perfect creation that acts imperfectly... seems a bit odd to me. Scream "free will" all you want, but a free will from a perfect source should make perfect choices. Wherefore is there sin?

As for being unchanging, one only needs to look at the codification of the Bible to realize that's an untrue claim.
 
ManofGod said:
Excellent, you showed me just how easy it is to take something man wrote out on his own and change it to fit what he wants to say. Pretty much any school or science texts that are out there do that but eh, what do I know. Oh well, you serve.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's exactly what people have done with the Bible. And yes, I have to say that most science textbooks teach science are poor because as a series of "Facts," not as the reality that scientists know: science is the practice of looking at evidence to figure out what's happening. (Quite the opposite of religion, which is the practice of imposing an idea of what's happening on the evidence.) They are getting better, just as history books (in the US, at least) are getting better about not being revisionist, and using evidence instead of just telling the story of the ruling group...
 
My favorite bible story is that Adam and Eve are told by God not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then cast out when they do.

How can you punish someone for doing something wrong if what they did was eat a fruit that gave them the ability to know right and wrong? Boink.
 
maverikv said:
My favorite bible story is that Adam and Eve are told by God not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then cast out when they do.

How can you punish someone for doing something wrong if what they did was eat a fruit that gave them the ability to know right and wrong? Boink.
Click to expand...

The omnipotent Lord works in mysterious ways, don'tcha know? ;) ::sarcasm::
 
maverikv said:
My favorite bible story is that Adam and Eve are told by God not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then cast out when they do.

How can you punish someone for doing something wrong if what they did was eat a fruit that gave them the ability to know right and wrong? Boink.
Click to expand...

Actually, one reason they were cast out of the Garden was to keep them away from the Tree of Life. The consequences of their sin was eventual physical death and immediate spiritual death.

Satan said they would be like God, which of course, they were not nor are we.
 
ManofGod said:
Actually, one reason they were cast out of the Garden was to keep them away from the Tree of Life. The consequences of their sin was eventual physical death and immediate spiritual death.

Satan said they would be like God, which of course, they were not nor are we.
Click to expand...
You've so far rebutted 0 of the arguments that tore yours apart, and are instead resorting to interpret the Bible with an elementary grasp of it. Nice job deflecting, now try to stick to the topic.
 
Mr. K6 said:
You've so far rebutted 0 of the arguments that tore yours apart, and are instead resorting to interpret the Bible with an elementary grasp of it. Nice job deflecting, now try to stick to the topic.
Click to expand...

An elementary understanding of Gods Word? :D Yeah, right. :p I will give you that I will never know all of it but, to say I have an elementary understanding of His word is so far off is to just be..........

No deflecting, just you not liking the answers being given. That's cool, have a good weekend.
 
adamevepterosaur.jpg
 
The problem with creationist is not if science is wrong, but if creationism is wrong. If creationism is a lie, that would mean other parts of the bible could be, if not the bible itself a lie.
 
ManofGod said:
An elementary understanding of Gods Word? :D Yeah, right. :p I will give you that I will never know all of it but, to say I have an elementary understanding of His word is so far off is to just be..........

No deflecting, just you not liking the answers being given. That's cool, have a good weekend.
Click to expand...
You haven't given any answers though. And the fact that you're being dismissive shows you can't defend or rebut anything of what's being said and are hoping we'll give up. It's the classic "fingers in my ears, I can't hear you" creationist response where as if someone stops arguing, then the creationist thinks they've "won." That's hilarious, good luck.

Again, the Bible is a bunch of stories that we have no idea of the origin of, and the fact that you don't understand how much the Bible has changed with translations and edits over the millennia shows you're not only ignorant of your own beliefs, you can't even adequately defend them since I've already used your own arguments against you.
 
*Sticks fingers in ears* Lalalalalalala, I can't hear you. :D Once again, have a good weekend.
 
ManofGod said:
*Sticks fingers in ears* Lalalalalalala, I can't hear you. :D Once again, have a good weekend.
Click to expand...
Why be dismissive? Does it bother you that even you're unsure of your faith? If you realize that you're more ignorant of your own faith than some scientist, what else are you unsure of? Maybe that notion that it's all made up actually has some merit. Consider if for awhile this Sunday, about how foolish it must be to waste a life on the fantasy that the Bible sold you, and that millennia later people are still being hoodwinked. You have a good weekend as well. :)
 
Haha coming back after a couple days away and this thread has gotten better! Lets stir some more!

Thanks guys for refining my simple definition of laws and theories. Its much better thought out than what I put.

kbrickley said:
Why can't you pick and choose ... the Council of Nicea did ...
Click to expand...

But here is the main problem with Creationists, or anyone that takes everything in the Bible as literal and don't get me wrong I have faith but not blind, history tells us that a bunch old guys decided what was going to be in the Bible. So how can you take anything in it as exact?

I usually was ridiculed in Sunday school when I pointed this out. Yea I was a history dork when I was little, my parents bought me an encyclopedia set when I was 10 and I spent my free time reading it! lol! It is however great for trivia nights.

I've had to reconcile my faith with my logical mind because the ultimate question is, if there is a God why would he give us the ability to learn, be self aware, and analyze (by far what makes us special vs. all other animals) and then we should willfully deny it and follow without question?!
 
wuzupfoo said:
But here is the main problem with Creationists, or anyone that takes everything in the Bible as literal and don't get me wrong I have faith but not blind, history tells us that a bunch old guys decided what was going to be in the Bible. So how can you take anything in it as exact?

I usually was ridiculed in Sunday school when I pointed this out. Yea I was a history dork when I was little, my parents bought me an encyclopedia set when I was 10 and I spent my free time reading it! lol! It is however great for trivia nights.

I've had to reconcile my faith with my logical mind because the ultimate question is, if there is a God why would he give us the ability to learn, be self aware, and analyze (by far what makes us special vs. all other animals) and then we should willfully deny it and follow without question?!
Click to expand...

The most interesting cross cultural impact on the Bible is Angels ... Prior to the Israelites captivity in Babylon, Angels essentially looked like regular people ... After Babylon they had a nice new feature (wings), a feature common to Babylonian gods ... Unless the big G was going, "Dude, those Babylonian gods are very cool with those buff wings, I am so jelly ... I wish my homies, the angels, had wings like that" it is much more likely the Israelites liked the wings and added them to the angels after that :D
 
TMCM said:
There are still many scientists who are very religious. I think it was a catholic priest that discovered red shift. A good friend of mine is very religious and has a masters in nuclear engineering and is working on his masters in mechanical engineering. To those types of people I think they see science as the logical explanation of how "God did it". He sees big bang theory and evolution not as a denial of god's existence but as proof of it.
Click to expand...

Most engineers are religious. Most research scientists are not. I don't see the Big Bang as proof of God, nor do I see it as proof against God. I do see it as proof against most of the vocal religious types, who seem to take the bible very literally -- at least the parts they like.

Whoever said Newton was religious, is correct, but all of his attempts to prove the existence of God failed miserably.

There will almost certainly always be another question about where somethign came form or what caused something that ultimately led to us. For some the idea of a god gives them comfort. For me it means nothing. I'm OK with both, so long as it's not being used to justify some political position (also known as the God is never wrong argument)
 
mavrocket said:
The only people who believe that science is based on the belief that there is no God is attempting to use "science" as a reason that God doesn't exist.

Religion, faith and science are three different things, and saying that one overrules or silences the other is pointless. Just like a preacher says a scientific theory is wrong because his religion tells him otherwise, an atheist says religion is wrong because his science says otherwise.
Click to expand...

There are some Atheists like that, but most argue against the preacher's position, not against the idea that there could be a god. Anything is possible. I can imagine a scenario where some sort of powerful entity created this universe, but is it true? I don't know. My gut says if such a deity exists, the things in the bible have little to do with it or at least provide a poor description of that deity. Either way, it doesn't matter. If God is as good and great as most believe, then it doesn't need me to believe in it to feel good about itself and it's not going to punish me for not believing. If it doesn't exist, then it still doesn't matter.
 
chockomonkey said:
I just got through the second episode of cosmos last night, and I can see why religious groups would call it out. I'm not saying I agree with them, but the show did directly call out religion. As a religious person it bugged me how they did it. While at the same time saying that religion is the old explanation they go on to talk about how random mutations just happen and that's a fact. They should have said that they still don't know why they happen, because we don't.
Click to expand...

Mutations happen all of the time. That's why we have some types of cancer, downs syndrome and various other conditions. I'm not sure if they've proven what causes the various types of Autism, but it won't surprise me if it's genetic.

The key is that mutations don't become the norm unless there's an advantage. If there is, then that gene becomes more dominant as those with it will breed more than those who don't. And the point of that episode was the crusade against science in the past. It was also about explaining the difference between a belief and a theory.

That was continued in episode 3, which was easily the best of the series, so far. They're hitting this history, because so many people today completely science ignorant. You see it in this thread where people continuously argue that a scientific theory is just a theory, not realizing that things like Gravity are just theories. Honestly, the first 2 eps were a bit of a slog but it's mostly history. And if you want something deeper, it may come later. If it doesn't, there's always Attenborough documentaries like Galapagos...I think another was tiny creatures or something like that. If you need more, there are plenty of journals to read.
 
Yep, they were wrong In no way did AiG ever demand air time on the Cosmos show and have never done so. But hey, what are facts and truth when you can just make stuff up, right?
 
ManofGod said:
Yep, they were wrong In no way did AiG ever demand air time on the Cosmos show and have never done so. But hey, what are facts and truth when you can just make stuff up, right?
Click to expand...

AiG complained that creationists aren't even getting interviewed or allowed to present their views. They do it again in this post you link to, emphasis mine: AiG says that students should learn about evolution because it is a major belief system in society, but to teach it faults and all.

If you look at their previous claims of desires, it doesn't take long to find out what they want : "the new education bill has left every public-school child behind, totally in the dark about (a) the science that contradicts the weak theory of evolution and (b) the way in which the evidence can be interpreted to speak for creation—often more comfortably, naturally and directly. Evolutionary leaders in science and education are seemingly not willing to let their scientific interpretations be the subject of questioning discussion."

They do demand equal time for their views, as absurd as those views are. Yet, as Tyson pointed out, you don't give equal time to a flat-earther just because they refuse to accept that NASA talks about a spherical Earth.
 
Breaking news!

Creationists have been offered equal time at a more appropriate venue: church.
 
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.
Click to expand...
 
Low Roller said:
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.
Click to expand...

The furthest accurate distance man can measure is 20 light years (some textbooks say up to 100), not several billion light years.

Man measures star distances using parallax trigonometry. By choosing two measurable observation points and making an imaginary triangle to a third point, and using simple trigonometry, man calculates the distance to the third point.

The most distant observation points available to an earthbound observer are the positions of the earth in solar orbit six months apart, say June and December. This would create a triangle of 186,000,000 miles, which equals only 16 light minutes. There are 525,948 minutes in a year. Even if the nearest star were only one light year away (and it isn’t), the angle at the third point measures .017 degrees.

In simpler terms, a triangle like this would be the same angle two surveyors would see if they were standing sixteen inches apart and focusing on a third point 525,948 inches or 8.24 miles away. If they stayed 16 inches apart and focused on a dot 824 miles away, they would have the same angle as an astronomer measuring a point 100 light years away.

A point 5 million light years away is impossible to figure with trigonometry. The stars may be that far away but modern man has no way of measuring those great distances. No one can state definitively the distance to the stars.

Several other methods such as luminosity and red shift are employed to try to guess at greater distances but all such methods have serious problems and assumptions involved.

Knowing this, the speed of light is not constant.

"SCIENTISTS claim they have broken the ultimate speed barrier: the speed of light. In research carried out in the United States, particle physicists have shown that light pulses can be accelerated to up to 300 times their normal velocity of 186,000 miles per second."

The work was carried out by Dr. Lijun Wang, of the NEC research institute in Princeton, who transmitted a pulse of light towards a chamber filled with specially treated cesium gas. New York Times May 30, 2000
Click to expand...

It is disingenuous of them to state such a thing when the calculations are not exact in anyway. But, you know, it was on TV so it has to be 100% fact....
 
Not quite, LeviathanZERO. The trigonometric parallax method from earth is accurate to around 100 light years. Satellites, such as Hipparcos, increase that distance to over 1,500 light years. Gaia was recently launched and should increase parallax measuring to 30,000 light years (+- 20%). By comparing parallax measurements with the luminosity measurements, we validate the accuracy of the luminosity via "Standard Candle" measurement.

Knowing this, the speed of light is not constant.
Click to expand...
Also not quite. The absolute speed of light in a vacuum is constant. The maximum signal velocity of light is still c. What was observed in those experiments was a group velocity exceeding c, but the front velocity, and thus the information capacity, did not exceed c.
 
LeviathanZERO said:
The furthest accurate distance man can measure is 20 light years (some textbooks say up to 100), not several billion light years.

Man measures star distances using parallax trigonometry. By choosing two measurable observation points and making an imaginary triangle to a third point, and using simple trigonometry, man calculates the distance to the third point.

The most distant observation points available to an earthbound observer are the positions of the earth in solar orbit six months apart, say June and December. This would create a triangle of 186,000,000 miles, which equals only 16 light minutes. There are 525,948 minutes in a year. Even if the nearest star were only one light year away (and it isn’t), the angle at the third point measures .017 degrees.

In simpler terms, a triangle like this would be the same angle two surveyors would see if they were standing sixteen inches apart and focusing on a third point 525,948 inches or 8.24 miles away. If they stayed 16 inches apart and focused on a dot 824 miles away, they would have the same angle as an astronomer measuring a point 100 light years away.

A point 5 million light years away is impossible to figure with trigonometry. The stars may be that far away but modern man has no way of measuring those great distances. No one can state definitively the distance to the stars.

Several other methods such as luminosity and red shift are employed to try to guess at greater distances but all such methods have serious problems and assumptions involved.

Knowing this, the speed of light is not constant.



It is disingenuous of them to state such a thing when the calculations are not exact in anyway. But, you know, it was on TV so it has to be 100% fact....
Click to expand...

Wow, pretty much everything you said was wrong. You have a basic understanding of how parallax works, but you're way, way off on its precision. Hipparcos, launched in 1989, could measure parallax to 0.001 arcsecond, or 0.00000028 degrees. That was good enough for accurate parallax measurements out to about 1600 light years. Gaia, launched last year, is sufficiently accurate to measure distances within 10% out to 30,000 light years.

Methods to measure larger distances are less accurate than parallax, but do not have "serious problems", as you said. Certainly scientists are always trying to increase the accuracy of long distance measurements, but they're accurate enough to be very useful as it is. Scientists are not "trying to guess" these distances, as you put it. They're measuring them with some degree of uncertainty. There is a vast difference between those two statements.

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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top