Cosmos Reboot: Running Discussion Thread

Potential is a type of energy, like kinetic. I let go of my bow string, all the potential energy turns into kinetic energy. The potential energy came from a tree that grew (from the suns energy initially)
and was cut down and fashioned into a stick, which was bent by pulling on a string thus storing the energy. I can follow that. I just can't fathom where/what/how the initial X factor preceding the singularity came about.

We have plenty of evidence (and apparently even more now) that it happened, figuring out what happened right before is the part we're still working on. We don't know yet, though we have ideas.

mber: 6"]^^^

That's why many people turn to the idea of a creator -- they can't get their mind around how it couldthat just happen on its own. But then, where did thiveis creator originate? What was before that? The idea does not solve the problem.[/quote]
Exactly, a creator requires a creator.[/quote]

Not if that creator is not bound by

A mysterious potential that came from infinity that somehow created sentient life on our little planet. See, to me that just seems a bit too coincidental.

That's the issue, though. We don't know what happened before the Big Bang, but the reasonable thing to say is "we don't know yet." Saying "it must have been an intelligent creator" requires a leap of faith, not a step in logic and reason. "Therefore, God" is not a valid answer in science.

I don't dispute that, John. But there are also a great many scientists who believe the universe is too perfectly designed to be pure happenstance. I'm a supporter of science and the curiosity of humans. I have a ripping new telescope, btw. I just think there's clearly room for both science and God.

Not good ones.
They've got nothing testable up their sleeves.
And don't wait for it to come.
They're people like Michael Behe, who even Stephen Colbert took down.

Considering humans may very well be the only species that has self awareness (and thus imagines caring, an afterlife, etc.) and that imagination may very well a not necessarily mandatory side effect of higher intelligence, the concept of a "god" who rewards and punishes might be a one-time deal.

Really, it's the exact same thing as "we don't know exactly how they built the pyramids...therefore aliens!".

People laugh at the bad logic when it's aliens, but not for God.
God doesn't make bad logic good.
Nor does picking the right one.

So no good scientist can believe in God? That's stunning.

No, no good ones put forth the "it's just too complex", argument.
It's bad science.
It's the argument from personal incredulity, which boils down to the argument from ignorance.
It's logic 101, and any scientist worth a hill of beans learns it in freshman year of college, if not high school.

Dead last in the # of viewers in the 9pm time slot last night. Hopefully it gets a slot on cable going forward.

It's fine right where it is, because it's right where the most viewers can see it. A cable channel would reduce its chance for viewership. As for ratings, when compared with the four major networks, it came in second for viewership in the 9 PM slot. It's doing just fine. It's a show about hard science and, for some, that's a turn-off no matter how well it's produced.

Looks to me like it came in last with 4.9 million viewers. It'll never make it in prime time. You know who I think would have been a far more interesting host (although he's not right for the mass audience)? Brian Cox. Now he makes it interesting.

Brian Cox makes it too cloying and saccharine sweet. Neil deGrasse Tyson is a worthy, and bonified, successor to Carl Sagan. That being said, the show will air all of its episodes. It will likely make a lot of money in DVD sales. I've already pre-ordered.

To each his own, John. Like I said, B.C. isn't for the masses of network tv.

I'm not worried about other people's

I believe God reveals himself in many forms. I don't believe he needs a Starship though.

1. I'm sure some people believe that.
   
   I'm sure many people believe that. (Sorry for the double posts. Typing on a tablet.)

There are a number of theories how that could have happened. String theory has something like 10, some plausible, some not. Of course the nature of the fact is that we'll never, ever be able to prove it conclusively. There is more proof than for (a) god but the rest is more or less a matter of belief.

I try to satisfy the religious types by telling them that they can think of the Big Bang as how God created the universe.

But does it really work?

One thing's for sure, only an act of God can save this show. Lol.

So far it's tanking in the ratings. No wonder, it's boring as whaleshit. I generally like NDT, but even he can't save this Brannon Braga abomination.

My take on it is that it is a bit like a trip to your local science museum--some interesting stuff, but the median target is 12 year olds to appeal to the widest possible group. I haven't seen anything in it that I didn't already know or that hasn't been presented more effectively. Explaining how evolution works? Great. I paid attention in junior high science--although I can see how this kind of stuff would be eye opening to Brannon Braga .

And the problem is, with the short attention span of today's 12 year olds, this show probably doesn't engage them either.

Moar ghosts?

Just finished the second episode. I'm glad it's currently available on the Fox Cosmos page.

The second episodes was more of the same of the first: impressive graphics, silly distracting cartoons, and elementary-level science lessons. I hope there are kids who are getting something out of this show, but a typical non-imbecile adult probably isn't learning anything new.

The point is, it's getting out to people that don't seek it out on the net, or read books.

Of course you and I know all this shit.

I'm watching for the presentation, and to tick off a mental list of "oh, I hope he mentions___...yes! He did! Eat it, creationists!".

You have to remember how long TV has been stupid and worthless since the last Cosmos.

I was hoping he'd cover all of the mass extinctions (or did I fall asleep for that part?). At least they didn't imply too heavily that humans are going to cause the next great extinction because they are behaving in ways some people don't approve of.