So long, waterhill (Posting History)
Hat Tip to F15Eagle, who pinged me
Here's hoping that this is just a suspension
This is not a bad guy
Y'all come back soon now, y'hear!
FReepmail TheOldLady to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list.
Posted on 03/17/2014 11:17:25 AM PDT by EveningStar
Last night, I watched the second episode of "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey" (the reboot of the 1980 series). It was entitled, "Some of the Things That Molecules Do."
One of the things Tyson dealt with in this episode was evolution.
Now, I myself do subscribe to the theory of evolution, but I found Tyson's treatment to be offensive, condescending, and smarmy.
I thought it was an in-your-face chip-on-the-shoulder response against skeptics of evolution.
I thought this was supposed to be a science show, not a political show.
But this is just my opinion. What is your opinion?
If you missed the episode and wish to see it, it will replay on the National Geographic Channel. You can also watch it online at Fox and Hulu.
Eden could have been in a different universe than the post-Garden world, and that in turn possibly in a different universe than the post-Flood world. When you are God and you have metaphysics at your command, the guys who come along and say that physics “shows you wrong” are liable to get chuckled at, if not laughed off.
The best argument I know for expecting the physical sciences to be able to give a larger explanation would be along the lines of Romans 2:1. But they don’t need to explain all in order to fulfill that role.
“Yes, it is, because those things are not what is being claimed.”
Perhaps you’ll need to be more specific.
Lead into gold is tricky, but we’ve been able to turn things like mercury or bismuth into gold using reactors or neutron sources. Granted its far more expensive to do than to just mine gold, but it’s certainly possible and has been done for decades now.
Cancer is a perfect killer. good enough for you ?
Really?
Well, quelle suprise! /S
How many of those molecules aren’t really Lead or Gold? (Hint, that is why they are “elements”).
:: we’ve been able to turn things like mercury or bismuth into gold using reactors or neutron sources ::
Ummm...at the “molecular level”, right?
Yup. And add ‘creepy’ to the list. We started to watch it just to see if the second would redeem the first episode. It was worse. I was howling (no pun intended) with ridiculing laughter at the stupid wolves-to-dogs segment. After that we switched over to a movie in our DVD collection: “First Contact” (equally stupid but rightfully under the category of science FICTION).
Nothing personal, but your comments aren’t coherent.
My mother, too. And my oldest brother, my uncle, and six of my aunts.
“...we don’t know, can’t know
now or may never know the
answer...” is not what’s being claimed.
“We DO know: we just can’t conclusively prove it, or reproducibly demonstrate it” ... is.
hmmmmm...
Tell me, how many “elements” are made of more than one different molecules?
I accidentally caught the first 20 seconds of that episode, attempting to use wolves/dogs to introduce the topic of evolution. My immediate reaction was “Selective breeding is not evolution!”
Bump for later
That it is.
Tigers are better.
I agree with Tyson's view. I just didn't care for his presentation.
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God..." - Psalm 14:1
I’m saving that picture just so I can look at it from time to time. SO cute, LOL.
Be sure to “view image” before you save it. I have it at 800 pixels wide for the zot post, but it is much smaller.
And you’re most welcome to it.
This has been called the "hopeful monster hypothesis" - no joke.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.