Cosmos - Are You Watching?

[strappinglad]

It seems that so far the program is heavy on the " imagination" side and lighter on the experimental/ verifiable side . The astrobiology mantra of " where there is water, there is probably life" gets tenuous unless and until there is actual and not imaginary evidence of such in the cosmos.

[Brian 2.0]

That said, the Adversary has also done some handiwork with the grand assumption many make with secular materialism, namely that the whole universe is only composed of things that science has currently "encountered".

Who believes this?

All scientists I know believe there is plenty out there that could exist that we have yet to encounter.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[thesometimesaint]

Who believes this?

All scientists I know believe there is plenty out there that exists that we have yet to encounter.

 

Only every scientist that I know of. Of course there is still 97% of this universe that we know nothing about, but what we do know, we do know. If we toss in a Multiverse all bets are off.

[Brian 2.0]

Only every scientist that I know of. Of course there is still 97% of this universe that we know nothing about, but what we do know, we do know. If we toss in a Multiverse all bets are off.

But science doesn't believe that everything we will come across as we explore that 97% will be something that we've already encountered.

[thesometimesaint]

But science doesn't believe that everything we will come across as we explore that 97% will be something that we've already encountered.

 

We don't know what it is. So I believe it is best not to make too many assumptions about it.

[strappinglad]

It's like the efforts made to explore the oceans. The difference in budgets for space exploration and ocean exploration are several orders of magnitude. If we've seen 5 % of the ocean bottom then we've seen it all. There is nothing new under the sea. Let's go to space and look for ....LIFE . Like there's no new life here on earth to discover. We are such fickle explorers .

[Brian 2.0]

It's like the efforts made to explore the oceans. The difference in budgets for space exploration and ocean exploration are several orders of magnitude. If we've seen 5 % of the ocean bottom then we've seen it all. There is nothing new under the sea. Let's go to space and look for ....LIFE . Like there's no new life here on earth to discover. We are such fickle explorers .

Seeing that we can't even find a Boeing 777 proves just how hard exploration can be.

[Nofear]

Who believes this?

All scientists I know believe there is plenty out there that could exist that we have yet to encounter.

 

I believe it was Galen Strawsen who gave the caution I suggested, but I can't find a reference.

 

thesometimesaint is right. Secular physicalists really don't look for radical extensions to the Standard Model of Particle Physics. There might be, should be (e.g. dark matter, dark energy), some adjustments but the physical matter we currently experience is pretty much what there is. To them, me, myself, I -- I'm not more than the atoms that compose me. Secular physicalists pretty much reject the idea that there is a significant and not-trivial aspect of me, myself, I that is not currently addressable by the Standard Model. Mormonism on the other hand, expressly states that there is more to the story than our mortal experiences suggest (we see just a leaf of a much grander tree).

[Damien the Leper]

Indeed, the Adversary did some "wonderful" work in his opposition to the truth with his influences on the theology of apostate Christianity -- in particular with respect to the treatment of science.

 

That said, the Adversary has also done some handiwork with the grand assumption many make with secular materialism, namely that the whole universe is only composed of things that science has currently "encountered".

 

Both of these extreme positions are enemies to truth and light. Mormons ought to be careful. In this battle, the enemy of my enemy (go either way) is not our friend.

 

Rome is not apostate. They made some errors and have corrected them. Orthodoxy is the proper and appropriate response to Talmage's dribble in his book on the "great apostasy".

[thesometimesaint]

Rome is not apostate. They made some errors and have corrected them. Orthodoxy is the proper and appropriate response to Talmage's dribble in his book on the "great apostasy".

 

In LDS Theology every other religion, and sect of religion is apostate. Some more than others.

[Damien the Leper]

In LDS Theology every other religion, and sect of religion is apostate. Some more than others.

 

The churches that are out of communion with Orthodoxy and who disregard the 7 Ecumenical Councils are in apostasy. If only we had succeeded in wiping out the Gnostics and the Calvinists...<sigh>.

[thesometimesaint]

The churches that are out of communion with Orthodoxy and who disregard the 7 Ecumenical Councils are in apostasy. If only we had succeeded in wiping out the Gnostics and the Calvinists...<sigh>.

 

The Roman Catholics think the Orthodox churches are in apostasy. The Protestants think the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox churches are in apostasy. Given the history of Christianity sometimes I wonder why Christ wants anything to do with any of us.

[Damien the Leper]

The Roman Catholics think the Orthodox churches are in apostasy. The Protestants think the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox churches are in apostasy. Given the history of Christianity sometimes I wonder why Christ wants anything to do with any of us.

 

The Protestants are of no concern to me. Their heterodoxy and heresy condemn them. And those who created churches as a response to the religious hysteria of the 19th century will be dealt with by God as well. As I explained in a different thread, Rome made the mistake of placing itself above the Ecumenical Councils which it did not have the authority to do so. I pray that the Holy Father will fix this.

[strappinglad]

Rome is not apostate. They made some errors and have corrected them. Orthodoxy is the proper and appropriate response to Talmage's( dribble) in his book on the "great apostasy".

I was unaware that Talmage played BBall.

Edited March 19, 2014 by strappinglad

[Damien the Leper]

I was unaware that Talmage played BBall.

 

I was speaking of his utter rot in his book but you knew that.

[Truth 101]

Love science.  Especially Astronomy. 

 

However, I've been very disappointed in Carl Sagan and now the modern Bill Nye and Neil Degrasse Tyson with their unwarranted snide remarks and attacks on religion which are a huge stumbling block for many in getting to understand and appreciate science.

 

Ya unfortunately science and religion have become counterparts. I'm not a member of any church (well except I am still technically a member of the LDS church, I just don't care enough to have my name removed). But that doesn't mean I don't believe in things that we can't yet not understand or science has yet to explain. Many scientists have the same point of view, most are agnostic or atheist (atheism just depresses me). IMO religion is a means of control, always has been, always will be. To simplify my own philosophy: don't be a douche to others, don't gossip, don't cause problems, contribute to society, and you'll be fine.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Truth 101

[emarkp]

I've watched the second episode now, and it's better, but still stumbled twice.  It's clear that there's an anti-Theist axe to grind.

 

1) Early in, he says that it's tempting to think that humans are special, but aren't.  It's an unneeded shot.  The science stands just fine on its own.

 

2) The (deserved) shot at ID was overreaching.  "Evolution is not just a theory, it's a scientific fact" was terrible, and I can't believe it spilled out of Tyson's face.  He both muddles the terminology and lowers the value of a "scientific theory" -- a fact is an observed event (finding a fossil, observing the sky, etc.) whereas a theory is the idea that ties the fact together in a predictive and descriptive cohesive model.  Very disappointing.

 

I was, however, happy to see much more science in this one.  But they should really stop the paeans to Carl Sagan.  Just show the science, guys.

[Ron Beron]

I get it on Hulu so I've only seen the first episode so far. Though I think it is a far cry in quality from the original, I'll keep watching unless it becomes more chessy (the ship--come on!) than the first episode. It seems much more watered down than I recall the original series, and the host a bit blander, but also comes across as a recruitment tool for tweens to study science (which isn't a bad thing), so maybe it's just supposed to be a family program / classroom discussion vehicle. I did enjoy the tribute to Sagan (Tyson's experience as a youth) at the end.

I get it on Hulu as well and I'm loving it.  Tyson does a great job.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Ron Beron

[thesometimesaint]

I've watched the second episode now, and it's better, but still stumbled twice.  It's clear that there's an anti-Theist axe to grind.

 

1) Early in, he says that it's tempting to think that humans are special, but aren't.  It's an unneeded shot.  The science stands just fine on its own.

 

2) The (deserved) shot at ID was overreaching.  "Evolution is not just a theory, it's a scientific fact" was terrible, and I can't believe it spilled out of Tyson's face.  He both muddles the terminology and lowers the value of a "scientific theory" -- a fact is an observed event (finding a fossil, observing the sky, etc.) whereas a theory is the idea that ties the fact together in a predictive and descriptive cohesive model.  Very disappointing.

 

I was, however, happy to see much more science in this one.  But they should really stop the paeans to Carl Sagan.  Just show the science, guys.

 

I didn't get that from it. We're not "special'' in that we're not related genetically to every other living thing on this planet. He used the metabolization of sugars is the same in plants as it is in animals as an example.

 

I think he used scientific theory in a way that can be understood by the non scientist. He used the example of Bruno to show that while not a scientific theory at the time(Science as we know it had to wait for the age of Enlightenment). It was a lucky good guess. But could have just as easily been wrong.

Edited March 20, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Tiki]

If you haven't yet started watching the new reboot of the old Carl Sagan show, I can't recommend it enough.

http://www.cosmosontv.com

Two episodes have aired. The first going through how amazingly massive and old the known universe is and how we as humans have only been around for a tiny blip of it on our tiny planet. My reaction was much like that of Moses: "I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed."

The 2nd episode deals with evolution and natural selection. One highlight was showing the evolutionary steps of the eye showing how it was far from being "irreducibility complex."

Ah, phooey!

That part of the show is just trying to answer Charles Darwin's own questions about the difficulties of his own theory.

The Origin of Species

Chapter 6: Difficulties on Theory

by Charles Darwin

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html

"Organs of extreme perfection and complication."

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

- Charles Darwin

To make a claim the eye is not complex, only negates Darwin's arguments about the weaknesses of his own theory.

For Sagan, Tyson, Nye, et al, to have to address the weaknesses of the Theory of Evolution, indicates they know it is weak.

They're arguing against themselves.

[Brian 2.0]

Ah, phooey!

That part of the show is just trying to answer Charles Darwin's own questions about the difficulties of his own theory.

The Origin of Species

Chapter 6: Difficulties on Theory

by Charles Darwin

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html

"Organs of extreme perfection and complication."

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

- Charles Darwin

To make a claim the eye is not complex, only negates Darwin's arguments about the weaknesses of his own theory.

For Sagan, Tyson, Nye, et al, to have to address the weaknesses of the Theory of Evolution, indicates they know it is weak.

They're arguing against themselves.

Who said the eye was not complex? And Darwin couldn't see how it could evolve because our eyes are so complex. With the added decades of scientists looking at this we now can answer that question. The theory of evolution isn't stuck back with Darwin's book, it has been researched and researched and what was a weakness in the theory back then has now been shown to have an answer.

You can't argue the weakness of the theory by only looking at the theory back when Darwin introduced it while not looking at the mounds of science since then on the theory.

[thesometimesaint]

Ah, phooey!

That part of the show is just trying to answer Charles Darwin's own questions about the difficulties of his own theory.

The Origin of Species

Chapter 6: Difficulties on Theory

by Charles Darwin

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html

"Organs of extreme perfection and complication."

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

- Charles Darwin

To make a claim the eye is not complex, only negates Darwin's arguments about the weaknesses of his own theory.

For Sagan, Tyson, Nye, et al, to have to address the weaknesses of the Theory of Evolution, indicates they know it is weak.

They're arguing against themselves.

 

Please don't selectively quote. Here is what Charles Darwin said on eye evolution. ...if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

[Rob Osborn]

I tried to watch the Cosmos show but just couldnt get past the whole evolution fairytale dogma. I had to change it to the Disney channel so I could get something a little more true.

[halconero]

I tried to watch the Cosmos show but just couldnt get past the whole evolution fairytale dogma. I had to change it to the Disney channel so I could get something a little more true.

 

Well that explains our debates on this board.

[Brian 2.0]

I tried to watch the Cosmos show but just couldnt get past the whole evolution fairytale dogma. I had to change it to the Disney channel so I could get something a little more true.

Classic. Don't ever change, Rob. I was thinking of you during the evolution episode.