Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey (Page 2)

No kidding. Just the evolution of eye balls alone was worth it. It just makes me realize how little time I have to study these things. If I won the lottery that's all I would do is go back to school and study stuff. It's so cool. 

I saw the second episode on evolution, and it was great.Not 100% sold on the cartoons, but I thought the narration was well done and see the reasons for having animation. I was especially pleased that he chose the eye as an example of a complex system resulting from natural selection, as it's a favorite for the creation science people.

Looking forward to seeing how the show evolves.

I saw the second episode on evolution, and it was great.Not 100% sold on the cartoons, but I thought the narration was well done and see the reasons for having animation. I was especially pleased that he chose the eye as an example of a complex system resulting from natural selection, as it's a favorite for the creation science people.

Looking forward to seeing how the show evolves.

dang, I keep forgetting to watch these.  Now you've got me even more intrigued.  

I read somewhere the other day that the dude was a little condescending towards creationists but I'll reserve my judgement until I see the shows.

I read somewhere the other day that the dude was a little condescending towards creationists but I'll reserve my judgement until I see the shows.

If you believe that creationism/intelligent design and evolution are equally viable theories that should sit side by side in the discussion of how we came to be on this planet- then yes, you will find Cosmos not only condescending, but directly offensive and incongruous with that belief.  Evolution is a fact, not a theory or a belief.  In the 3rd show, where he goes into comets and the development of the understanding in the movement of the planets by Halley and Newton, I don't find him condescending, but rather understanding towards early and pre-renaissance man.  In that, they had so little knowledge of the stars, that there was nothing else for them to think, but to believe that the objects in the sky were all related to life on earth.  

So- if you watch the show with the measuring stick on how NDT treats those with ancient superstitions, I suggest that it's the wrong way to judge the show.  He is understanding towards why men used to have such beliefs, but they make no sense based on what we now know of the universe.  

What stuck out to me was that statement... evolution is a FACT! He is certainly factually correct.... but he was not talking to inquiring minds... he was talking to those that think it is not a fact.... and to those people... nothing he said changed their mind.

It was noticeable to me when he said it exactly what he meant. I see no need to even go there. The show is amazing enough, and so well done... let it stand on it's own merit... which it does. 

It's that thing... are you trying to inform, or win an argument. Winning an argument is pointless everywhere except on the internet. On the web, winning is everything. So basically... you're wrong. 

As a bit of a follower of NDT, he's a jovial, likable character.  He's not witty acerbic like Richard Dawkins, nor does he create polished complex arguments like Sam Harris.  It doesn't appear that his goal is to convert believers to atheists.  He has a passionate and infectious joy about science, has the gift that Sagan had, and that's to be able to explain complex physics in simple terms (that my 10-year old can understand).  He is there- sharing his passion and joy, and it comes across just like that.  He is a teacher, doing what he loves.  I believe that his infectious, positive personality and his ability to communicate are what will allow watchers to consider what he shares. 

As a bit of a follower of NDT, he's a jovial, likable character.  He's not witty acerbic like Richard Dawkins, nor does he create polished complex arguments like Sam Harris.  It doesn't appear that his goal is to convert believers to atheists.  He has a passionate and infectious joy about science, has the gift that Sagan had, and that's to be able to explain complex physics in simple terms (that my 10-year old can understand).  He is there- sharing his passion and joy, and it comes across just like that.  He is a teacher, doing what he loves.  I believe that his infectious, positive personality and his ability to communicate are what will allow watchers to consider what he shares. 

If you believe that creationism/intelligent design and evolution are equally viable theories that should sit side by side in the discussion of how we came to be on this planet- then yes, you will find Cosmos not only condescending, but directly offensive and incongruous with that belief.  Evolution is a fact, not a theory or a belief.  In the 3rd show, where he goes into comets and the development of the understanding in the movement of the planets by Halley and Newton, I don't find him condescending, but rather understanding towards early and pre-renaissance man.  In that, they had so little knowledge of the stars, that there was nothing else for them to think, but to believe that the objects in the sky were all related to life on earth.  

So- if you watch the show with the measuring stick on how NDT treats those with ancient superstitions, I suggest that it's the wrong way to judge the show.  He is understanding towards why men used to have such beliefs, but they make no sense based on what we now know of the universe.  

Are you trying to say that you don't believe in evolution?  Because if you do, then it's a belief.  

What's funny is so many people use the term "evolution" so broadly but it's really a very complex set of things.  Even within the "scientific fact" portions of evolution there are limitations and places where science does not understand it, nor can replicate it.  So, to say broadly that "evolution is fact" isn't true at all.  Aspects of evolution are absolutely scientific fact, but there are other aspects such as the mechanisms of evolution which are very much theory.  even the term "scientific fact" isn't absolute.  Here's the definition:  an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)
Going way back to the beginning with the primordial soup, it's a theory that cannot be observed, replicated, or proven but it was taught as "fact" for many years and it's what I was taught in High School.  However, just a few years ago the theory has been challenged and now they're talking about volcanic environments in the earth as being the "source".  There's nothing wrong with this from a scientific standpoint because it's how science works.  However, you have to be very careful about throwing things around as fact, especially when it comes to human origins.

Taking religion/creation out of the discussion all together you have to look at it for what it is.  The origins of life require you to believe.  You either believe we came from nothing, or you believe we came from something.  Neither of which are provable with the scientific method and both require faith.

Are you trying to say that you don't believe in evolution?  Because if you do, then it's a belief.  

What's funny is so many people use the term "evolution" so broadly but it's really a very complex set of things.  Even within the "scientific fact" portions of evolution there are limitations and places where science does not understand it, nor can replicate it.  So, to say broadly that "evolution is fact" isn't true at all.  Aspects of evolution are absolutely scientific fact, but there are other aspects such as the mechanisms of evolution which are very much theory.  even the term "scientific fact" isn't absolute.  Here's the definition:  an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)
Going way back to the beginning with the primordial soup, it's a theory that cannot be observed, replicated, or proven but it was taught as "fact" for many years and it's what I was taught in High School.  However, just a few years ago the theory has been challenged and now they're talking about volcanic environments in the earth as being the "source".  There's nothing wrong with this from a scientific standpoint because it's how science works.  However, you have to be very careful about throwing things around as fact, especially when it comes to human origins.

Taking religion/creation out of the discussion all together you have to look at it for what it is.  The origins of life require you to believe.  You either believe we came from nothing, or you believe we came from something.  Neither of which are provable with the scientific method and both require faith.

I hope we're disagreeing on semantics more than anything. Firstly- it sounds like you're bringing up  abiogenesis, which isn't what I (or really, NDT) was referring to as fact.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions, such as how it all started . 

You crack me up CD.  Who the heck said anything about religion and teaching ID in the classroom?  I couldn't agree with you more that science has nothing to do with religion and religion has nothing to do with science.  Remember, the scientific method is to question things right.  If we all just blindly followed what is scientific fact then it would be a religion right.  

I was simply saying that evolution, some of which is scientific fact, encompasses only a part of our existence and there are many aspects of evolutoin.  Biologic evolution does exist and I do not question that in the slightest.  However, to say that because biologic evolution exists we therefore have to believe that everything came from nothing out of a primordial soup (or is it ocean volcanoes now) as fact is not correct.   All theories related to evolution are not automatically true because some are generally accepted.

BTW, on a side note there are many people who believe in creation that also believe the earth is older than 4000 years and I'm in that camp.  Science can't prove how life started any more than I can prove that the flying Spaghetti monster got it going.  The opposite is also true, just because we all share similar DNA and other traits it doesn't prove that we were all created by a deity any more than it proves that we all spontaneously came from nothing and without purpose.  So at the root of it all, they are both belief systems, right?

Well duh... it was aliens. Haven't you seen Prometheus. 

exactly!

I'm still a little torn between Prometheus or if we're just part of a marble in a big alien kids game like at the end of MIB.  

I wish the Architect could give us the answer so we can go back to being happy little batteries powering the machines. 

hehe, it's ok.  I still love you.  

Nearly half of Americans believe in creation, but creation can come in many forms.  I know several very strong Christians who are firm believers in all aspects of evolution but feel that God just got it all started.  Others believe the earth is 4000 years old and everything just appeared in 7 literal days.  Personally, I have no clue but I find the topic fascinating.    I do like the correlation between the "Big Bang" and God creating the heavens and the earth in an instant though.

I do agree that ID has no place in the science classroom because it's simply not science.  Even if ID is 100% true, it's still not science because there's nothing within the scientific method that can observe, test, or replicate it.  I'm a big fan of offering elective classes to discuss various religions and by no means want to restrict it to just Christianity.  I know it's complicated, but there is a balance in there somewhere.

I feel very strongly that Science and God are not competing in any way and personally feel that they compliment each other very well.  I always roll my eyes when people try to use science to prove God and I equally roll my eyes when people try to disprove God with Science.  Neither is possible.  It would be like me saying I figured out how my car works therefore Henry Ford never existed.  

Here's one of my favorite Sagan quotes for you:

“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.”

Throughout my childhood I often wondered if our whole galaxy is just part of an Atom that's part of some plant or something in a world that's infinitely larger than our own.  The MIB reference at the end of the movie illustrated this very well.
If you haven't seen it, here's the scene:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTOBxlFjgc0

It just seems to me that there is a trick being played. Like we are in a hall of mirrors. That the more we look, the more we find, and really we get back to the beginning and do it again. How can everything be made infinitely big by infinitely small things? Because so far, we have not found an end to either end of the spectrum.