Should 'Cosmos' give more airtime to creationists?

[jerryR34]

"To make this journey we'll need imagination, but imagination alone is not enough because the reality of nature is far more wondrous than anything we can imagine. This adventure is made possible by generations of searchers strictly adhering to a simple set of rules. Test ideas by experiment and observation, build on those ideas that pass the test, reject the ones that fail. Follow the evidence wherever it leads and question everything. Accept these terms, and the cosmos is yours."  Neil Degrasse Tyson, COSMOS Part I

[Fez]

"To make this journey we'll need imagination, but imagination alone is not enough because the reality of nature is far more wondrous than anything we can imagine. This adventure is made possible by generations of searchers strictly adhering to a simple set of rules. Test ideas by experiment and observation, build on those ideas that pass the test, reject the ones that fail. Follow the evidence wherever it leads and question everything. Accept these terms, and the cosmos is yours." Neil Degrasse Tyson, COSMOS Part I

"In the beginning"...God

"Amen"....God

[Enoch2021]

"To make this journey we'll need imagination, but imagination alone is not enough because the reality of nature is far more wondrous than anything we can imagine. This adventure is made possible by generations of searchers strictly adhering to a simple set of rules. Test ideas by experiment and observation, build on those ideas that pass the test, reject the ones that fail. Follow the evidence wherever it leads and question everything. Accept these terms, and the cosmos is yours."  Neil Degrasse Tyson, COSMOS Part I

 

 

=======================================================================

 

LOL  Empty Words.

 

Show ONE TEST of what he put forward in his little Vaudeville Act:

 

Big Bang

Nebular Hypothesis

evolution

His stupid Bubble Universe/Multiverse

That Moronic Tiktaalik Bugs Bunny animation coming out of the water

His IMPLIED "Primordial Soup" nonsense

And Little Mammals (Our Ancestors) , "Scurrying Underfoot"

[jerryR34]

 

"To make this journey we'll need imagination, but imagination alone is not enough because the reality of nature is far more wondrous than anything we can imagine. This adventure is made possible by generations of searchers strictly adhering to a simple set of rules. Test ideas by experiment and observation, build on those ideas that pass the test, reject the ones that fail. Follow the evidence wherever it leads and question everything. Accept these terms, and the cosmos is yours."  Neil Degrasse Tyson, COSMOS Part I

 

 

=======================================================================

 

LOL  Empty Words.

 

Show ONE TEST of what he put forward in his little Vaudeville Act:

 

Big Bang

Nebular Hypothesis

evolution

His stupid Bubble Universe/Multiverse

That Moronic Tiktaalik Bugs Bunny animation coming out of the water

His IMPLIED "Primordial Soup" nonsense

And Little Mammals (Our Ancestors) , "Scurrying Underfoot"

 

Can you refute any of these scientifically?  Science would welcome you disproving any of them. 

[Enoch2021]

 

 

"To make this journey we'll need imagination, but imagination alone is not enough because the reality of nature is far more wondrous than anything we can imagine. This adventure is made possible by generations of searchers strictly adhering to a simple set of rules. Test ideas by experiment and observation, build on those ideas that pass the test, reject the ones that fail. Follow the evidence wherever it leads and question everything. Accept these terms, and the cosmos is yours."  Neil Degrasse Tyson, COSMOS Part I

 

 

=======================================================================

 

LOL  Empty Words.

 

Show ONE TEST of what he put forward in his little Vaudeville Act:

 

Big Bang

Nebular Hypothesis

evolution

His stupid Bubble Universe/Multiverse

That Moronic Tiktaalik Bugs Bunny animation coming out of the water

His IMPLIED "Primordial Soup" nonsense

And Little Mammals (Our Ancestors) , "Scurrying Underfoot"

 

Can you refute any of these scientifically?  Science would welcome you disproving any of them. 

 

 

 

=========================================================================

 

I have Multiple Times on many different threads (Some OP Topics) but I really didn't need to...they need to show some actual validity scientifically first to then be refuted.

 

I'll throw another one @ the Big Flop tomorrow.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

"To make this journey we'll need imagination, but imagination alone is not enough because the reality of nature is far more wondrous than anything we can imagine. This adventure is made possible by generations of searchers strictly adhering to a simple set of rules. Test ideas by experiment and observation, build on those ideas that pass the test, reject the ones that fail. Follow the evidence wherever it leads and question everything. Accept these terms, and the cosmos is yours."  Neil Degrasse Tyson, COSMOS Part I

LOL  Empty Words.

 

Show ONE TEST of what he put forward in his little Vaudeville Act:

 

Big Bang

Nebular Hypothesis

evolution

His stupid Bubble Universe/Multiverse

That Moronic Tiktaalik Bugs Bunny animation coming out of the water

His IMPLIED "Primordial Soup" nonsense

And Little Mammals (Our Ancestors) , "Scurrying Underfoot"

Can you refute any of these scientifically?  Science would welcome you disproving any of them. 

 

 

 

 

==========================================================

 

I'll go ahead and speak to those specifically...I need a break from the Obtuse Ridiculousness with the term "Faith" on the other Thread

 

1.  Big Bang (Flop):

 

‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ by 33 leading scientists has been published .....New Scientist (Lerner, E., Bucking the big bang, New Scientist 182(2448)20, 22 May 2004). **Currently over 300 have signed up.

Some Highlights.....

‘The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.’

‘But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. … Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory’s explanation of the origin of the light elements.’

‘In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.'

‘What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.’

aka......"Just So" Stories or "Recovery Hypothesis"

 

Big Bangs Afterglow fails Intergalactic Shadow Test.  Dr. Richard Lieu.... ‘Either it (the microwave background) isn’t coming from behind the clusters, which means the Big Bang is blown away, or … there is something else going on.'

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060905104549.htm

 

 

‘But you don’t see this fluctuation’, said Lieu. ‘There appear to be no lensing effects whatsoever.

Lieu, R. and Mitaz, J.P.D., On the absence of gravitational lensing of the cosmic microwave background, Astrophysical Journal 628:583, 2005.

 

 

2.  Nebular Hypothesis:  

 

3.  evolution: 

 

Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps."

 

Well....

 

"What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories."

(Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.)

"Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series."

(Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.)

 

We don't see "slight successive variations" do we??  We see the exact opposite....  Uh Oh, but don't fret.... And Then......AbraCadabra!!  "Another" Ad Hoc Hypothesis Savior:  Punctuated Equilibrium!!

 

Ad Hoc Hypothesis or "after-the-fact" Hypothesis: is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. They are characteristic of PSEUDOscientific objects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis

 

Evolution's ad hoc hypothesis: (Punctuated Equilibrium, Convergent Evolution...et al)

 

PSEUDO-science: is an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions.

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/pseudoscience

 

"Science is also distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it offers insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research and testing."

Stephen Jay Gould, "Nonoverlapping magisteria", Natural History, March, 1997.

 

Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation and experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method. - See more at: http://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html#sthash.o45VB9bA.dpuf

 

The Scientific Method: "Real" Science (Empirical/Experimental/Operational) is based on the Scientific Method!!

Step 1:  OBSERVATION of a Phenomenon

Step 2: Do Literature Review/Background research

Step 3: Construct Hypothesis (Tentative Assumption/Question/Statement)

Step 4: TEST/Experiment

Step 5: Analyze DATA/Results

Step 6:  Draw Conclusions.....  (Valid Hypothesis or Invalid Hypothesis)

Step 7:  Report Results

If invalidated....Back to the drawing board or STEP 3

 

In Short, Empirical Scientific Evidence Displays 4 Tenets:

 

Observable

Measurable/Testable

Repeatable

Falsifiable

 

Show ONE Empirical "Scientific" Evidence of Evolution!!!!!

 

All you have is an assumption "evolution did it" with Ad Hoc OBSERVATIONS!  The Whole Theory is a classic TEXTBOOK: Affirming the Consequent Logical Fallacy....

If P then Q.

Q.

Therefore P.

The logical fallacy is that P doesn't necessarily follow from Q. 

1. IF Evolution is true: Then Insert any "Darwinian Grab-Bag"  Ad Hoc Observations (Fossils/Homology/Genetic Variation et al)

2. We observe (Ad Hoc Observation)

3. Therefore, Evolution is true.

 

1) If I had just eaten a whole pizza, I would feel very full;

2) I feel very full;

3.) Therefore: I have just eaten a whole pizza.

 

Couldn't I have just Eaten 3 Doner Kebabs??    

 

TOE is an Unverified /Untestable Hypothesis; hence, Unfalsifiable Assumption ... and as we have discovered (SEE: above), is actually a Pseudo-science wrapped inside a Logical Fallacy which is propagated by Science "Priests" with an a priori commitment to a fairytale.  Plain and simple!!

 

 

4.  Bubble Universe/MultiVerse:   Laughing Out Loud!!

 

They don't even know How The Sun Works.....lol. 

 

5.  Tiktaalik Bugs Bunny animation:

 

The Good News: Tiktaalik is dated @ 379 million years old.  The Bad News:  there are tracks of four legged animals dated @ 397 Million years old discovered in Poland (18 Million years older than Tiktaalik).  Which led to these statements....

“We thought we’d pinned down the origin of limbed tetrapods. We have to rethink the whole thing.”

Palaeontologist Jenifer Clack, University of Cambridge, UK; in: Curry, M., Ancient four-legged beasts leave their mark, ScienceNOW Daily News, 6 January 2010

“They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish-tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record.”

Niedzwiedzki, G., Szrek, P., Narkiewicz, K., Narkiewicz, M. and Ahlberg, P., Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland, Nature 463(7227):43–48, 2010 

 

6.  "Primordial Soup"....abiogenesis:

 

To build Specific Complexity ( A "Simple Cell") from the "Building Blocks" (amino acids, nucleotides, sugars et al) you need the Specific: Ingestion-Storage-Energy Converter (Mitochondria/Chloroplast) and Information Program (DNA) *Already Existing First* or you're gonna have yourself a football bat, biochemically speaking.  These molecules do not Polymerize or build up  "naturally".  In fact "naturally", the overwhelming tendency is for things to break down or Increase Entropy (2LOT).  For them to polymerize, to build larger molecules, they have to overcome (2LOT).  You say well the Earth is an Open System, therefore the Sun will provide the energy required but....  The sun's energy is not gonna help, (you don't have the energy converter or the Information Program yet, correct?) it'll break them down. Sunlight destroys Amino and Nucleic Acids.  Water will break them down when they form (hydrolysis) see also: Brownian Motion. Oxygen will Oxidize...break them down.

 

You also have another very serious issue....HomoChirality.  In "nature" when molecules form, you always get a racemic mixture 50/50 (Left and Right Handed or mirror image molecules) These Enantiomers are not only deleterious for formation they are Toxic to Biological Systems: SEE Thalidomide Drug Disaster and basic biochemistry.  But in Biologic Systems all molecules are HomoChiral, that is they have a specific handedness.  Example: all proteins are Left Handed and DNA/RNA have only Right Handed sugars. Speaking of sugars.... the alkaline conditions needed to form sugars are incompatible with acid conditions required to form polypeptides (Enzymes) with condensing agents.

 

Cross Reactions from here to Christmas...Biochemicals would react with each other or with inorganic chemicals. Sugars (and other carbonyl (>C=O) compounds) react destructively with amino acids (and other amino (–NH2) compounds), but both must be present for a cell to form.  Abundant Ca 2+ ions would precipitate fatty acids (necessary for cell membranes) and phosphate (necessary for such vital compounds as DNA, RNA, ATP, etc.). Metal ions readily form complexes with amino acids, hindering them from more important reactions.

 

Moreover, you not only need the right Amino Acids they have to be in Precise Order (most biological proteins are between 250-400 acids in length) and to be "FUNCTIONAL" they have to be folded into their proper 3 Dimensional Structure or...you get another football bat.  What folds Proteins in cells to get that 3 Dimensional Structure?....Chaperonins.  What are Chaperonins.....Proteins.

Question:  What folded the first Proteins without Pre-Existing Chaperonins?

Is it like the Space Shuttle giving Birth to the Space Shuttle Assembly Plant?

As you can see when you peel the onion back to look @ the detailed mechanisms under-girding abiogenesis...it relegates even the thought of it to nothing more than a laughing stalk @ best.

We didn't even talk about what drove the cell into making these Molecular Machines (kinesin, ATP Synthase et al) or How Stupid Atoms wrote their own Software------The origin of coding system of proteins on DNA is an enigma. So is the origin of the message encoded, which is extraneous to the chemistry, as a printed message is to ink molecules. Code translation apparatus and replicating machinery are themselves encoded — a vicious circle. A code cannot self-organize.

 

Or Go ahead and show Life from Non-Life.  In fact, I'll even take ONE DNA/RNA/ "Functional Protein" Self Organizing "Naturally" from their respective Monomers.

[bestrfcplayer]

Creationism is not science, so therefore no.

[Guest shiloh357]

Creationism is not science, so therefore no.

Evolution isn't science, either.  it is a philosophy and an untested hypothesis at the very best. 

[bestrfcplayer]

Creationism is not science, so therefore no.

Evolution isn't science, either.  it is a philosophy and an untested hypothesis at the very best.

Evolution is science. There's a mountain load of evolution, and God could have easily created us using this process. Why do you dispute science?

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

Creationism is not science, so therefore no.

Evolution isn't science, either.  it is a philosophy and an untested hypothesis at the very best.

Evolution is science. There's a mountain load of evolution, and God could have easily created us using this process. Why do you dispute science?

 

You are the hapless victim of a grand lie.  God did not use evolution.  God created man apart from the created order.  The Bible makes it clear that man has no physical relationship with the animall kingdom. 

 

I don't dispute science.  I dispute the lie of evolution.