- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: So Cosmos is more atheistic rant than actual cosmos?
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:10 am to GeauxTigerTM
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:10 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
For the time, the Original Cosmos was FAR harsher in it's criticism of religion than I bet this new iteration will be. Sagan trashed the early Church for the sacking of the library at Alexandria, if I recall he had his own piece on Galileo's persecution, etc.
Yeah, I head NdT on the radio the other day, and he said he's going to try as little as possible to reiterate what Sagan said and focus on things he didn't say or didn't know when the original Cosmos was made. He said they wouldn't really be going into Galleo or Copernicus for those reasons.
2
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:13 am to StringedInstruments
StringedInstruments
This guy said it best.
quote:
It's not that it's an atheistic rant, but the show is seemingly focusing on rebuttals used against creationists. The whole human eye segment. It was interesting, but he started it with "Some people say that the human eye is too complex to have formed through natural selection...." If you follow the creationists vs. intelligent design vs. evolution debate at all, you know that the premise that the human eye is too complex for evolution is a big argument put forth by creationists and intelligent design folks. And that's pretty much the feel of the whole show. The first episode defined "some people" as the church with its animated flashback to Bruno. The second episode focused big time on proving that any point put forth by creationists is wrong. I'm completely on board with everything the show is saying except for its delivery. All the show is doing is alienating people who may come in with predisposed notions about life that the show's producers disagree with.
This guy said it best.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:19 am to mizzoukills
quote:
All the show is doing is alienating people who may come in with predisposed notions about life that the show's producers disagree with.
If those people can't open their eyes to scientific fact, solely because the presentation may offend them, then they likely wouldn't accept the facts anyway,
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:22 am to mizzoukills
quote:
This guy said it best.
There's a reason, and a damned good one, to address these things directly.
quote:
I haven't caught last night's episode on life/evolution, but I will say that Sagan did answer criticisms of science back in 1980. It stands to reason, given the climate of distrust of basic science, that Tyson would spend some effort addressing those criticisms. Hell...not three weeks ago a huge topic of discussion in this country...in freaking 2014...was a debate between Bill Nye and Ken Hamm on whether the earth is really 10,000 or so years old. To not address that there's a growing and politically savvy group of people who are pushing these beliefs would be turning a blind eye to it.
Despite the fact that we know more, have more information at our finger tips and have the ability to deliver and spread this information at light speed around the world than we did when Carl Sagan's groundbreaking Cosmos hit the airwaves in 1980, in our own country we have nearly 40% of the public that think the damned universe is 10,000 years old...are there are some folks who are upset that the show DELICATELY addresses those folks? Really?
For my taste, they are not going nearly far enough. But, that speaks to Tyson and what he'll be involved with.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:23 am to mizzoukills
quote:
It's not that it's an atheistic rant, but the show is seemingly focusing on rebuttals used against creationists. The whole human eye segment. It was interesting, but he started it with "Some people say that the human eye is too complex to have formed through natural selection...." If you follow the creationists vs. intelligent design vs. evolution debate at all, you know that the premise that the human eye is too complex for evolution is a big argument put forth by creationists and intelligent design folks. And that's pretty much the feel of the whole show. The first episode defined "some people" as the church with its animated flashback to Bruno. The second episode focused big time on proving that any point put forth by creationists is wrong. I'm completely on board with everything the show is saying except for its delivery. All the show is doing is alienating people who may come in with predisposed notions about life that the show's producers disagree with. This guy said it best.
This is some bullshite.
If he doesn't address the eye argument, the deniers would say he purposely left it out because it proves evolution wrong.
He does address it and he's attacking them and ridiculing their beliefs.
He was in a no-win situation with people like you, and decided to not back down and address your false belief.
Now you're angry.
Tough titty. He did it in a very respectable way. You just want to be offended.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:29 am to magildachunks
quote:
This is some bullshite.
If he doesn't address the eye argument, the deniers would say he purposely left it out because it proves evolution wrong.
He does address it and he's attacking them and ridiculing their beliefs.
He was in a no-win situation with people like you, and decided to not back down and address your false belief.
Now you're angry.
Tough titty. He did it in a very respectable way. You just want to be offended.
You come across as an unintelligent person. I'm sorry you have trouble with reading comprehension.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:29 am to OMLandshark
quote:
Yeah, I head NdT on the radio the other day, and he said he's going to try as little as possible to reiterate what Sagan said and focus on things he didn't say or didn't know when the original Cosmos was made. He said they wouldn't really be going into Galleo or Copernicus for those reasons.
I enjoyed the first episode in that they gave a wonderful nod to Sagan, and even went so far as to re-do the Cosmic Calendar thing...which was one of my favorite parts of the original series and loved seeing it re-done.
Without knowing where the series will go, and having not seen last night's yet, I'd assume it will touch on the various breakthroughs in the breaking of the human genome and genetic advancements, discovery and just how we're now able to find new planets around distance solar systems, advancements in physics, etc.
I think one of the program the new Cosmos has is that we now live in a world that, THANK GOODNESS, has well produced and researched science shows on 24-7 on nearly every topic imaginable. We now live in a world of science programs spawned by Sagan's Cosmos. Hell...Tyson himself has ton a metric shite ton of programs for NOVA alone. So there's no way it can be anywhere near as groundbreaking as the original...but I'm going to enjoy what they come up with.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:30 am to magildachunks
It's funny to me for people to believe in an all powerful God, but to also believe him or his written word are imperfect 
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:31 am to magildachunks
quote:
If he doesn't address the eye argument, the deniers would say he purposely left it out because it proves evolution wrong.
He does address it and he's attacking them and ridiculing their beliefs.
I agree with this. Even if you take it as an attack on religion (it is really just an attack on a horrible argument), it did segue into a very interesting lecture on how the eye has evolved.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:33 am to StringedInstruments
quote:
You come across as an unintelligent person. I'm sorry you have trouble with reading comprehension.
I understood exactly what you said.
I was replying to mizzoukills because he decided to piggyback on your answer.
But, should Tyson have not brought up the eye? What was wrong with what Tyson said?
Some people do believe that and he addressed the belief.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:38 am to magildachunks
quote:
Some people do believe that and he addressed the belief.
Because it's disingenuous. The show is supposed to be a science show to convey and depict scientific discoveries in a visual, entertaining manner much like Planet Earth did a while back. At least, that's how I interpreted the advertisements.
I'm no bible thumper nor a creationist nor an intelligent design supporter. But I am against the brick throwing by both sides when it's obvious neither are going to give in. The show is not an avenue for winning the debate. It's not going to sway staunch creationists or even passive evolution-deniers.
The best path to educating an audience is to just teach and not engage in superfluous debate when it's been proven time and time against that the creationist-side is not going to budge at all. I mean, I live in Alabama. I have plenty of fundie-Facebook friends, and many of the watched the Ken Hall/Nye debate and lit up the news feed that night with plaudits for Hall's owning of Nye and the atheist demons that are trying to persecute Christians.
They're hopeless. Just present the facts in an interesting, entertaining way.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:41 am to StringedInstruments
quote:
Just present the facts in an interesting, entertaining way.
I was greatly entertained by the description of the evolution of the eye. They killed two birds with one stone with that one.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:42 am to StringedInstruments
quote:
They're hopeless. Just present the facts in an interesting, entertaining way.
I thought the eye segment was interesting. And he presented the science behind it.
Was he supposed to ignore that phase of evolution just to not offend people?
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:43 am to StringedInstruments
quote:
Just present the facts in an interesting, entertaining way.
I found the eye segment quite interesting and entertaining...
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:43 am to magildachunks
One thing for sure - this one topic has gotten as much attention on this board in about 1/2 a day than the series thread has gotten in over a week.
Seems like there is an inherent interest in this subject from people with widely divergent opinions.
To me, it can only be a good thing to air these issues out with fact and rational logical discussion. And I'm sure from the people involvled with the show and the network(s), the old saying "any publicity is good publicity" comes into play.
Seems like there is an inherent interest in this subject from people with widely divergent opinions.
To me, it can only be a good thing to air these issues out with fact and rational logical discussion. And I'm sure from the people involvled with the show and the network(s), the old saying "any publicity is good publicity" comes into play.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:45 am to StringedInstruments
quote:
They're hopeless. Just present the facts in an interesting, entertaining way.
I disagree with this. Some certainly are...but not all. To not at least acknowledge the alternate beliefs and address them directly misses an opportunity to speak to those who really ARE open to being swayed. To pass up that opportunity with an actual science program given the atmosphere in which we live in this country would be a wasted one. And if you piss off those that already are closed minded to your view point...who really cares?
Secondly...the first COSMOS (and just as importantly Sagan himself) did this same thing back in 1980 and afterwards. Sagan pulled no punches and took direct shots and religion when he felt it necessary. I'm not quite sure why Tyson, a guy who is nowhere near as outspoken in regards to religion as Sagan was, is being tarred for something that has yet to REALLY be anything more than a wink and a nod.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:45 am to StringedInstruments
quote:
I'm no bible thumper nor a creationist nor an intelligent design supporter. But I am against the brick throwing by both sides when it's obvious neither are going to give in.
Why the hell would science give in when it has all of the factual support in its favor?
quote:
he show is not an avenue for winning the debate.
But it provides the means to reach millions of people who otherwise may not search out information on the issue.
quote:
It's not going to sway staunch creationists
Agreed on that
quote:
or even passive evolution-deniers.
Disagree. Planting a seed of doubt could eventually lead to at least some of these people finally waking up.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:46 am to Salmon
quote:
I found the eye segment quite interesting and entertaining...
So did I.
But he led with "Some people think the human eye couldn't have...." That's what this thread is about.
It's a decent show. Could be better. Worst part about it is that they've purposefully used it as a means of engaging creationists and evolution-deniers in debate. So far, it's felt less like science and more like a one-sided argument.
Creationism isn't science. Those who discredit the findings and conclusions of science shouldn't even be included or mentioned in a science show.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:49 am to StringedInstruments
quote:
But he led with "Some people think the human eye couldn't have...." That's what this thread is about.
I like that the show is aware of certain arguments and seems more casual with it's narration
I like that it doesn't feel like a stagnant science documentary
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:50 am to StringedInstruments
quote:
Creationism isn't science. Those who discredit the findings and conclusions of science shouldn't even be included or mentioned in a science show
These same people are politically powerful and very adept at getting real science banned in schools.
This show should mention them and how they are wrong
Page 5 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News