BS: Cosmos

Subject: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 02:25 PM

The first episode of the reboot of Cosmos. Aired on Fox Sunday night.

Anyone remember the first. Did it influence you? Any Sagan fans out there? Any Tyson fans? Is it being shown in the UK?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/11/neil-degrasse-tyson-bible_n_4940980.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013&ir=Politics

I agree with this, though I am not sure that is what the show is doing.

Rather than painting science and religion as diametrically opposed to each other, Tyson said that there are plenty of scientists who believe in God. "The issue there is not religion versus non-religion or religion versus science, the issue there is ideas that are different versus dogma," he observed.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 03:40 PM

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/433645/march-10-2014/neil-degrasse-tyson-pt--2?xrs=synd_facebook_031114_cn_52

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: J-boy
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 12:09 AM

I was only nine years old when Sagan's Cosmos first aired but even so it wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that show fundamentally changed the way I view the world. I am enjoying the "new" Cosmos but nothing will ever replace the original in my heart.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: EBarnacle
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 12:35 AM

I felt the first half of the show was overproduced but the second half grabbed me at a gut level. I was actually choking up during the close.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 01:29 AM

I was glued to the TV during the original Cosmos, watched re-runs whenever they were offered, and bought the book. Then read other books by Carl Sagan, including his fiction--and saw the movie, "Contact," based on his novel starring Jody Foster.

Tough shoes to fill, but I've watch Neil Degrasse Tyson whenever he's on, like him a lot, and I think he seems a worthy heir to Sagan.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Musket
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 05:40 AM

I've always been interested in the reasonable logical approach Sagan gave to complex issues. I used to read a lot of Arthur C Clarke and I reckon I first found him through that, as a teenager.

Incidentally, I use a quote from him occasionally. I have a presentation I use when teaching, giving an introduction in how to improve healthcare. Many students want to rush in and redesign the wheel, so after my into talk, I forward to the next slide whilst we debate how to improve services.

The slide says;

"If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe."
Carl Sagan

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 05:41 AM

No nothing of the new one (other than remakes ALWAYS disappoint) but I got the old one on DVD box set a few months back although it shames me to say that for whatever reason I haven't made it very far as yet. Sagan is truly amazing, but the special FX are well creaky & rather quite delightful as a result. His wisdom is a timeless inspiration.

Here it is in the context of my other viewing (I think Auf Wiedersehen won out rather...)

Dalek Derek's Xmas viewing selection 2013

*

So, all reports of Jack the Flamer's untimely demise have been greatly exaggerated, huh? Nice that this present thread concerns one of the great atheist / humanist landmarks of our time though but - an inspiration to militant cause indeed, and a timely call for prevailing common sense that has sadly gone unheeded.

What sayest thou, JtS? Or do you fear Stilly the Slasher has her beady eye on this as well?

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Stu
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 08:23 AM

It's not on here in the UK, but I look forward to seeing it. Neil Degrasse Tyson is a superb communicator of science.

Also, it's pissed the creationists off so it must be good.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 10:23 AM

Who is flaming now Jack B.? Maybe you want to be Jack Flamediver?

Dr. Tyson is doing a wonderful job promoting the series both on TV and social media. He's been on Colbert and some other shows. I see that he is making lots of semi-controversial comments to keep the "buzz" going. I get quotes from him several times a day on my Facebook feed. He is also getting lots of chances to talk about the importance of science.

In the first episode he talks about the influence Sagan had on him when Tyson was 17. Tyson seems to be paying that forward very well.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Lighter
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 12:58 PM

Sagan's "Cosmos" was splendid, but his passion for the subject, plus the worshipful camera work, often made him seem like a somewhat complacent ham in a one-man show.

The style of Tyson's show is entirely different: special effects, cartoons, the works. Tyson even flies around the universe in a specially designed saucer-thing.

Episode I kept me glued to the set, as they used to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 01:51 PM

I've seen trailers of it on cable, stu.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 01:58 PM

Sorry, JtS - just wondering what line of literary research you're up to this time that's all...

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 02:06 PM

Tyson even flies around the universe in a specially designed saucer-thing.

So did Carl! I'm moved to down tools early & watch an episode of it now...

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Stu
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 02:15 PM

"I've seen trailers of it on cable, stu."

I don't know if it will be on over here, but I'll keep my eye out.

Carl Sagan has been a massive influence on me over the years, even more so since I started doing actual research. That ability to communicate complex matters in a way dolts like me can understand is so valuable in an age where reason is beset by a return to superstition and the dominance of unregulated capitalism.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 08:23 PM

Am loving it but wishing he had Morgan Freeman's voice... or Ed McCurdy's. When he sang.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Lighter
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 08:56 PM

Speaking of Morgan Freeman, take a look at Freeman's excellent similar series, "Through the Wormhole," on the Discovery Science Channel.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 10:57 PM

I imagine we'll get it here in time. But lifting the name and applying it to a new series seems wrong to me. And it won't have Carl Sagan talking about us 'yumans', so I might not get to watch it.

I got a bit of a shock when the opening post seemed to suggest Mike Tyson was presenting it. Now that I definitely think I'd have tuned in for, at least briefly.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 12:14 AM

Mike Tyson does not have Morgan Freeman's voice.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Mike in Brunswick
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 12:19 AM

Even though I had seen the ads for the show, I assumed it would be on PBS. By the time I realized my mistake, Tyson was whizzing past Uranus on his way to the asteroid belt and beyond. The content was fine, at least to me with my liberal arts education, if a little too whiz bangy. (Nova on PBS has succumbed to that too.) The tribute to Sagan at the end was nicely done.

But those commercials! I only watch Fox at World Series time, so my delicate sensibilities weren't prepared for all those dopey sitcom promos. One of Ronald Reagan's lesser sins was allowing the networks to cram as many commercials as they wanted into each half hour. I guess the idea was that if they pushed their new freedom too far we would all turn off our sets and go back to reading Proust. That hasn't happened yet. I counted six commercial breaks during the first hour of Cosmos, each one four minutes long. If Tyson's going to do justice to all those billions of galaxies, each with its billions of stars, he's going to need more than 36 minutes per episode.

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 04:38 AM

Watched episode three of the original series last night - a dignified demolition of astrology, a lament on religious oppression and a celebration of eventual triumphs of Kepler with some amazing ancient solar alignments thrown in along the way. Mesmerising! I doubt TV will ever be that good again.

Maybe some Folky should write a song about it?

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 09:11 AM

"if they pushed their new freedom too far we would all turn off our sets and go back to reading Proust"

Not going to happen. There are no commercials for Proust.


Why was Cosmos great?
The ideas they tried to deflate?
Why was Cosmos fun?
The beliefs they tried to piss-on?

No Nay No na na na nay no.

Cosmos was great
because Sagan was a mate
Whose love for science was so spot on
We shared it while the show was on

We loved it while the show was on.
We loved it while the show was on.
We loved it while the show was on.
Now its up to Neil to carry on
Now its up to Neil to carry on
Now its up to Neil to carry on

I happen to think it is a awesome thing that they have rebooted the show and are tying to kindle youth interest is basic science is a positive way.

Mike in Brunswick The Show is also on all of the National Geographic Networks. If you have Cable or Satellite TV. There is a good chance you can see what you missed.

Its also on HULU.COM
http://www.hulu.com/watch/604551

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 10:52 AM

Why was Cosmos great?
The ideas they tried to deflate?
Why was Cosmos fun?
The beliefs they tried to piss-on?

The singular universal wonder of reality concerns us all, bar none. Cosmos is about the spiritual wonder of our diverse uniqueness that transcends religion and 'belief'. No one pisses on beliefs - it's the beliefs that do the pissing, pissing on truth in a propagating lies & superstition in lieu of learning and the quest for an understanding that will, given time, unite us all.

I'm still waiting for the aliens to show up. They are humanity's last best hope for peace and unity. If they are wise, they will enlighten us. If they are a bunch of colonising bastards, we will stand shoulder to shoulder in our fight against them. If they are WISE colonising bastards however, they're already here and we'll never know it.

TV Perfection!

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST,Donuel Webster
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 10:54 AM

I still have and watch Sagan's Cosmos and play it for elementary school kids. The soundtrack uses many of J.S. Bach's finest works. As you know Bach was capable of teaching, writing and performing music that held 2,3,4 and even more similar and contrary musical ideas in the mind simultaneously which is helpful in understanding theoretical Astro-physic concepts.

The new Cosmos will likely prove to be more glitzy but intellectually inferior compared to the great work done in Beyond the Wormhole. Based on advance scripts, the new Cosmos by Rupert Murdoch National Geographic Channels may inspire a younger audience but from an authoritative stance that will not challenge the conventional wisdom nearly as much as they could or should. Still its good for the kids to be reminded what the questions for them to solve in their lifetime might be about.

If you have not seen one of the 33 Beyond the Wormhole episodes, you have not seen the greatest theoretical physics expose's of today that go right to the source of each person and each person's discovery, questions and ideas whether they are alive or dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Lighter
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 01:00 PM

And if you're into psychology, don't miss "Brain Games."

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 01:18 PM

To be quite honest, I could never get past Sagan's pronunciation of the word "Cosmos". He pronounced it, something like, 'Koze-mose' whereas any normal person pronounces it 'Koz-moss'. He should have taken lessons from a normal, British person like me!

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Bettynh
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 03:55 PM

I find my brain won't go as far as "Cosmos" demands - images processed and reprocessed, mindgames about ultimate origins that depend on technology I barely understand.

My favorite shows about physics over the years have been much more hands-on and interesting while still maintaining the scientific view. Phillip Morrison's Ring of Truth" is still a favorite. How can animations of the universe compete with Julia Child cooking a diamond to cinders? He also wrote the text for "Powers of Ten".


Next would have to be Richard Feynman's story "Quest for Tannu Tuva"

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 12:58 AM

Cause Mows on this side of the pond.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 03:40 AM

Yes, Jack, I'm sorry - I was overtaken by a fit of facetiousness!

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: sciencegeek
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 10:09 AM

won't see it any time soon... not until we get a working TV again... but I do remember the original.

Sorry, but I'm glad I never had Sagan for a lecture... his voice would have me snoring in minutes. But since I went to Alfred U and not Cornell, I just had to survive a Finley lecture. A student once wrote on the blackboard "Dr. Finley gives a lecture only his mother could love." He was great in a small class... but that dark lecture hall was deadly.

I enjoy Degrasse Tyson, and he can be the character... lol. I even forgive him for demoting Pluto from planet status.... :D

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 10:17 AM

I enjoy Degrasse Tyson, and he can be the character... lol. I even forgive him for demoting Pluto from planet status.... :D

You can forgive him. But Sheldon Cooper cannot!

big bang

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 02:03 AM

I came across one (again) recently:

"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology."
-- Carl Sagan, American astronomer

You couldn't avoid believing he was trying to fix that.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 01:26 PM

The first episode of Cosmos omitted/censored the 15 seconds that was taped regarding EVOULTION.

Demographics and Murdoch executives have their hand on the switch of this show.

Tyson is a TV media hound as is certainly affable.

Yes evolution will be discussed , just not as originally presented in the script.

In NYC Tyson's Observatory, Planetarium, museum is all about the quality of their gift shop that sells Mugs made in China that has pictures of the planets that rub off in a week. tHE PLACE COULD BE SO MUCH MORE.


I hope the series is better than I predict but there is no real harm making the subject of Cosmology popular TO KIDS AND FANS ALIKE. I continue to think about and study Cosmology at least 4 hours a day and have developed some good tools and perspectives to the subject of inflation in particular.




dAMN TO hELL MY cAS LOCK bUTTOnP

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos in a clesar-minded way.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 05:31 PM

Cosmos is wonderful and Carl Sagan was brilliant in putting the case for reason based on evidence in a devastatingly clear-minded way. It doesn't matter a jot about the alleged dated look of the show (if that's what you think: I don't see it myself). I have the original series on DVD. He was also a brilliant writer. Try "The Demon-Haunted World: Science As A Candle In The Dark".

Rather than painting science and religion as diametrically opposed to each other, Tyson said that there are plenty of scientists who believe in God. "The issue there is not religion versus non-religion or religion versus science, the issue there is ideas that are different versus dogma," he observed.

This is straw-mannism. Religion is scared of science because reason based on evidence, such a powerful mental tool, opposes religion at every juncture and is constantly closing in. Science, on the other hand, cannot concern itself with religion, as religion deliberately puts itself beyond reason. That is territory that science doesn't need to address, except to point to it for what it is. It's perfectly fine for someone to both be a scientist yet "believe in God" and I've never met anyone who says it isn't. Most people of religion are perfectly adept at compartmentalising their religion (let's call them "Sunday Christians", who might be right-wing politicians or bankers or rabid homophobes or misogynists or tax-evaders the rest of the week). Scientists of God-bothering persuasion need be no different.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 05:33 PM

Something funny went on there. I didn't mean to try to alter the thread title.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 06:01 PM

evilushun, evolution, where is that dyslexia dictionary...
But seriously I am very grateful to Max or Joe or whomever is responsible for including a spell check feature, now if I could only improve my vision enough to read the screen.

Bettynh, If you like mysteries of any sort don't be intimidated by Technology, just know what the tools are and what different telescopes can do.

Start with the most basic relationships and characters in E= MC2 and remember energy is mass and that more mass effects time by slowing time down. If your understanding gets to the point that you can clearly see that the past present and future each occupy a place in our universe simultaneously- know then that you are off to the races of wondrous new discoveries in Cosmology.

Impossibly large numbers like 400 trillion billion million are replaced with 10 to the power 34 (10 followed by 34 zeros. Miles are replaced by light years (the distance light travels in a year)
Big is big and small is really small down at what is called the Plank length. So what its big and small, Cosmology waits for you.

Pick a mystery below but realize even one new insight by someone, even you, can and will change the answer.
Enjoy unpeeling the mysterious orange of where we really are.
I guarantee you will be surprised.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html


*My security program blocks using blue ("clicky")

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 07:28 PM

One reason for rebooting the series now not related to CGI and Hi Def TV is forty years of scientific progress. We know a lot of things now that Sagan didn't know.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 08:49 PM

"We", Wacko? The implicit inclusion of yourself in that statement duly noted. In fact, Wackers, Carl Sagan knew a hell of a lot more than you will ever know. That was as true 40 years ago as it is now. You are thoroughly out of your depth.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 05:50 AM

Sky 1 UK today.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Bettynh
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 02:36 PM

Donuel, I don't think I'm particularly intimidated by technology. I don't capitalize the word, though, and when the layers of filter between my senses and the arguments are too many I tend to think of it as just storytelling and my attention wanders. As Feynman says, I'm ok not knowing.

My dad was a draftsman (now a profession completely replaced by CAD). He took ideas from (better-paid) engineers and drew them out. He kept his top-secret status even within the family, but occasional comments such as "You just can't put a fuel line through a wing support," still resonate.

My favorite biology professor made a career of visualizing neurons, mostly via electron microscopy. Dissected cells, in a vacuum, coated with gold vapor. The images were interesting at the time, and he published regularly. However, I became aware that most of the cells were from Homarus americanus. His friends and family had a steady supply of dissected and delicious lobster and he maintained his tenure.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 10:49 PM

As and when we get it in England the chances are it would be on a BBC channel, so no problem with adverts. But we've had a fair among of programmes in that genre, mostly by pin-up boy Brian Cox - Wonders of the Universe and so forth.

They do seem to go in for over- egging the production sometimes. The presenter is always standing on mountain peaks or travelling to some marginally relevant exotic location, or briefly interviewing picturesque scientists. And there's so much reverential talk with portentous music the actual information teds to get drowned out.

I like speaking heads myself. Sit there in a studio and explain things clearly so I can understand them.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 12:39 AM

"The presenter is always standing on mountain peaks or travelling to some marginally relevant exotic location"

I think that may have started with Sagan's Cosmos :-) The sound on Tyson's is digital and superb.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 12:47 AM

""We", Wacko?"

I didn't mean to include you pshaw.

I know that there is a black hole at the center of our galaxy. Sagan didn't when that show was aired. I know that quantum theory is used to design billions and billions of circuits on microchips. Sagan didn't. I know that Steve pshaw is capable of saying an infinite number of infinitely stupid things as he has done on this thread.

I know how the wifi connection works on my personal computer. How about you pshaw?

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Musket
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 06:06 AM

Deuce.

New balls.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 08:38 AM

Ach, that bloody switch. Never even knew it existed. Lurking right next to my SD card slot it is. Could have accessed all this garbage on me iPad, iPhone, Hudl or netbook, of course (let alone my new Windoze 8 laptop which I'm scared of), but I like to keep all the sweary nonsense in the one place. I'm like all those Sunday Christians and religious scientists: I compartmentalise.

As for you, Wackers shitferbrains, you know there's a black hole there, huh? Is your black hole true then? Can you show it to me?

(Oops, sorry, thought I was Snail there for a sec...)

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 09:00 AM

I have brains for brains

phaw can't even google for himself.

He is cooperative though. I call him stupid and he demonstrates his stupidity, again.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 10:43 AM

"Any time you have a doctrine where that is the truth that you assert, and that what you call the truth is unassailable, you've got doctrine, you've got dogma on your hands. And so 'Cosmos' is…an offering of science, and a reminder that dogma does not advance science; it actually regresses it."

Yeah! What Dr. Tyson said!

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 11:32 AM

Er, don't shilly-shally around here, Wacko. If you think that evolution is not true, in other words does not occur, say so. I contend that it is neither doctrine nor dogma to state that the bleedin' obvious is true. That's my way of using that lovely English word "true" and I'm stickin' to it. My head is atop my shoulders, joined to them via a neck, and that, dear boy, is true (this may also be true for you, but you'll need to remove it from up your botty first so that we can check). But there is no doctrine or dogma involved. You misrepresent Mr Tyson by misusing his remark (which, in the correct context, stripped away here by you, I wholeheartedly agree with). I told you that you were out of your depth. You struggle even to interpret popular science articles, it seems, so thanks for confirming my suspicions.

As I feel that I'm in whimsical mode this afternoon, I just had a thought about those people who are perennially scared of saying that something is true. They sometimes seem to feel that truth is, somehow, too extreme a notion for them to embrace. It's a bit like the history teacher we had at school who never gave any piece of work by even the best kids in the class more than eight out of ten. The top end of the ten-point scale was far too scary territory for him. You could say that the ten-point scale was useless for him, but, had we had, say, an eight-point scale instead he probably wouldn't have ever scored anything more than six. I sometimes used to give ten-on-ten for work that was less than perfect yet had represented perfect effort and resourcefulness. So I say that evolution is true even though there are aspects of it still to be ground out by science (which I've said all along). So, no dogma, no doctrine. And the truth don't scare me! Weeeeee!

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 12:23 PM

Shaw dogma from pshaw!

"You misrepresent Mr Tyson by misusing his remark (which, in the correct context, stripped away here by you, I wholeheartedly agree with)."

I actually cut and pasted the whole quote from a
Its a long quote pshaw. The context is pretty clear, though I doubt you have the mental acuity to realize that.

"Any time you have a doctrine where that is the truth that you assert, "

Exactly what is it that you don't understand about the words "Any Time?" Is "truth" the word you misunderstand? "Assert" maybe?

Steve Shaw. You are asserting the "truth" of evolution. You are treating your assertion as if it were unassailable. You are expressing dogma. Why don't you write a little note to Dr. Tyson and ask him how he feels about people who express their dogma with bullying and name calling?

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 01:11 PM

Diverting threads about basically non-contentious stuff such as TV programmes into bad tempered disputes is an odd pastime. A bit like using dinnertime as an occasion for a foodd fight, but without the good natured quality that food fights generally have.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 01:19 PM

Cutting and pasting is just that. Cutting. That's what scripture-quoters do all the time. Just because you've quoted something verbatim does not mean you can't have misused it. You used his quote in an incorrect context in this thread. You actually don't understand his context (nor this one). I've been trying to tell you that you are out of your depth.

Now then. Is evolution true or not? Answer by applying your black-and-white characterisation of "truth" from the Darwin thread!

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 02:43 PM

Frequently "evolution" is used as if it was co-terminous with "natural selection". When the word is applied in a cosmological context, that's not true. Stars don't compete with each other in the same way as living things.

That's pedantic point, not an declaration of war with anybody.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 02:47 PM

Cosmos the series will biology and evolution by natural selection.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 02:58 PM

As you can see McGrath pshaw started the fight on this thread here.

>>>"We", Wacko? The implicit inclusion of yourself in that statement duly noted. In fact, Wackers, Carl Sagan knew a hell of a lot more than you will ever know. That was as true 40 years ago as it is now. You are thoroughly out of your depth. <<<

As the rules are not being enforced and as I have been instructed to "fight my own battles" and as Steve is an irritating trolling asshole trying to get this thread shut down because I started it and as Steve is too stupid lazy to come up with any argument any better than "you are wrong 'whacko'"!

The best I can do is point out his ignorant trollishness and hope that it gets removed. Of course, I am happy to see my posts pointing out his flaws removed. if his trolling is removed. Otherwise I hope he gets drowned out with reasonable discussion. or the thread gets closed and I can open another so that reasonable discussion can occur until he comes back and rubs his feces over the next thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 07:12 PM

Takes two to tango.

The real pain is the practice of carrying over feuds from thread to thread. For one thing that makes it hard to make sense of what the squirmish is all about, but that's the least of the damage. It serves to encourage the participants in building up a level of antagonism that gets quite over the top. And it can be catching.

Squabbles, which we are always going to get, should start in a thread, and die away as the thread sinks out of sight.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: frogprince
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 07:34 PM

It's too bad that it wasn't jts who posted the "Freedom From Religion con" Thread. It would have given Steve Shaw another good opportunity to snort "Now what idiocy are you spouting, Whacko" without looking to see what the thread was actually about.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 08:25 PM

Very self revelatory post.

"I'm a troll, trollywoll - and I'll eat you for supper". Watch out for billy goats gruff.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 08:34 PM

After all, I'm a Liverpool fan. Ad we just slaughtered Man U fer chrissake. To the tune of Amazing Grace:

Three Nil
Three-e-e Nil
Three Nil
Three-e Nil
Three Nil
Three-e-e-nil
Three-e-nil...

Three nil
Three-e-e-nil
Three-e-nil
Three nil
Three nil
Three-e-e-nil
Three-nil [susp]...hil

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 11:27 PM

Today it was announced for the very first time that our Antarctic lab has detected not only gravity wave but primordial gravity waves.

If it is true that two orbiting black hole gravity wave time distortion waves have also been discovered, this is really big news that will tell us more about gravity than ever before.


Search for it anywhere

This is a big f'n deal I kid you not.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 05:05 AM

So that's what was going on in the first trillionth, of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 05:07 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26605974

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 06:40 AM

Insofar as I can understand this at all, it means they now have indications that something completely remarkably peculiar happened, without an inkling of an explanation for how or why it happened, and that's why everything exists.

There was nothing and then there was something and something got much bigger very quickly and then kept getting bigger more slowly...

It's basically metaphysics.
..............
"A low quality of debate" is hardly improved by making it even lower and by gleefully prodding others into doing the same. And carrying on arguments from one thread to another makes a nonsense of any kind of debate for anyone who hasn't been obsessively reading all the previous threads through which the squabblers have been romping.

Starting each thread afresh is far more enjoyable for everyone, I suggest.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 10:17 AM

But no-one's listening, Kevin. Honest!

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 10:18 AM

This is a big f'n deal I kid you not.

It is. Pity us poor mere biologists trying to get our heads round it...

:-(

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: frogprince
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 11:17 AM

I'm not Jack's uncle, but it's been genetically proven that we're eighteen-billionth cousins. And I could give a rip if you happen to holler "Wacko" sometime. But you've blasted off rants any number of times in response to entirely reasonable posts, to the point that it's long since grown tiresome.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 12:30 PM

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/03/science-deniers-cosmos-neil-tyson

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 03:53 PM

Half of this thread is trashed with bickering. Too bad.

If any of you decides to contact a moderator about sanctioning others in the thread, it is really helpful if you haven't been in there calling names and throwing punches yourself.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 05:59 PM

But you've blasted off rants any number of times in response to entirely reasonable posts

Really? Well if you're not Wacko's uncle you must be his dad. I rather thought that I've blasted off rather reasonable responses (with the odd well-deserved piss-take here and there) to any number of rants. Mainly from your nephew/son. I'd love you to demonstrate a "rant" from me that was a response to an "entirely reasonable post", just one would do, not even any number, but I'd rather not put you in the embarrassing position of your not being able to reply.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: frogprince
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 07:07 PM

"One reason for rebooting the series now not related to CGI and Hi Def TV is forty years of scientific progress. We know a lot of things now that Sagan didn't know."

""We", Wacko? The implicit inclusion of yourself in that statement duly noted. In fact, Wackers, Carl Sagan knew a hell of a lot more than you will ever know"

Jack's statement neither demeaned Sagan nor constituted a personal brag; the use of "we" was just a normal part of the simple fact he was noting.

"You are NOT entitled to your opinion" The thread title was just a key line from the article Jack linked. The article was interesting, nothing inflammatory. Your reply: "What in Christ's name are you on about now, Wackers?" indicated, or at least appeared to indicate, that
you had spouted off without paying the least attention to what he was or wasn't "on about".

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 07:23 PM

"We know a lot of things now that Sagan didn't know" is a typical shallow and facile pseudo-sage Jack-remark from a shallow, posturing idiot. Easy enough for you to tug this stuff away from its bigger context. I wouldn't have typed that dismal line in a million years and neither would you. Jack has abundantly demonstrated in dozens of posts that he does not belong in that "we". His form of words there is puffed up and pompous. If you can't see it I can't help it.

"What in Christ's name are you on about now?" is simply a riposte to yet another thread-start coming from a man who seemed to have been going through a phase of spending about twenty obsessive hours a day hovering over his keyboard wondering what he can start a thread about as he hasn't started one for at least an hour or two. Free country, of course. The mods have allegedly told him to fight his own fights. Do allow him to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 08:42 PM

""We know a lot of things now that Sagan didn't know" is patently obvious, and is the justification for redoing the series. Or rather doing a completely new series, and using the name of the older one as a way of drawing attention and viewers, and giving people a good indication of what it's setting out to do. (Which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.)

And it's not a shallow and facile thing to remark, otherwise the bloke presenting the show wouldn't have said pretty well the same thing, and he's a pretty sharp bloke.

"Pretty tiresome" - I think frogprince got it about right.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 08:46 PM

Fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 10:02 PM

Actually, I must say (and I have no connection with Jack Blandiver save that I admire all his postings here) that his comment early in the thread, concerning Carl Sagan,, his wisdom is a timeless inspiration, is an urgent corrective to those glib (and, to my mind, shallow and thoughtless) expressions here that suggest that we've "moved on" and that we are somehow the wiser because "we know a lot of things now that Sagan didn't know" (wouldn't it be just great if the people who adhere to that actually showed any wisdom at all!). Timeless is just that. Darwin's revelations are timeless. He didn't know what "we" know (he knew nothing of modern genetics or biochemistry), but there is not a single idea in Origin that is, in its essence, "dated" in any way. It's the opposite, in fact: it's astonishingly advanced, and could teach many a modern scientist how he should diligently apply himself to his trade. There is nothing whatsoever to be superseded. Carl Sagan, to me, was up there with Darwin: a great communicator ((I mean, how many bloody times have I told pete to read Origins, in which he would find the most clear and elegant - and simple - explanation of, well, something timeless...) whose thinking was as advanced and as modern as anyone else's today. And so clear-minded. You might as well tell me that Tom Finney wouldn't have made it today because football has become so advanced. Bollocks! Do not try to tell me that Cosmos needs "updating". Small-minded people here may concentrate on the clunky effects and the staid presentation. Well I don't need super-duper instant gratification, thanks, even if you do. If you give a shit about that you really don't get science at all. I've got Cosmos on DVD, I love it, and the only dated thing about it is that it don't go right to the edges of my 16:9 telly. Grow up, fer chrissake!

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 10:05 PM

OK, so there's just the one Origin.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 10:22 PM

Saying that "we" know things that wise people before did not know is patently obvious in many fields of knowledge, and is not in any way a claim that this makes us "wiser", which would be completely absurd.

Wisdom isn't about having more information, and isn't bound up with the date we were born. I would suggest that Socrates was a great deal wiser than any of us, regardless of the fact that we know far more about all kinds of things than he did, and many of the things he would have "known" are not true.

Sagan was a great communicator, Cosmos was a great series. Quite a lot of the stuff that scientists are preoccupied with today were not known at the time he presented it, some of the things that were believed to be the case at that time are no longer held to be true. That's how science goes. And of course it's still worth watching, and it's not too likely that the new series will match it, let alone eclipse it.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Stu
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 08:52 AM

Saw the new version, a bit glossy and glitzy (with the usual repetition) but worth it just for Tyson's story of his day out with Sagan, which was inspirational.

Although I'm doing my PhD in vertebrate palaeontology there's no doubt programmes such as Cosmos were a massive influence on me as a boy (I am a mature student, age-wise at least), and Sagan was superb at communicating the wonder, awe and pure joy that science helps us to experience as the process of discovery continues.

Tyson (who is an equally capable communicator) mentioned the power of the scientific method several times and the need to communicate it clearly to everyone, and the importance of this was itself communicated very well by the programme.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: frogprince
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 11:31 AM

Anonymity? Been on this board for a good number of years now and only yesterday did I have cause to suspect that Stilly River Sage may not be a man. There ya go.

There is hiding in anonymity, and there is using a handle; SRS has signed her real name, and mentioned her background, any number of times. The same is true for quite a few of the regulars here.

I'm Dean Elkins, a retired coot living in Michigan.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 02:32 PM

Pleased to meet you. I believe in real names though I accept that exceptions need to be made for a few people. I don't accept that everyone here who uses a pseudonym is not hiding behind it so that they feel more free to say stuff they wouldn't usually say. This end, a coot is a small water-bird.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 02:37 PM

Although I'm doing my PhD in vertebrate palaeontology there's no doubt programmes such as Cosmos were a massive influence on me as a boy (I am a mature student, age-wise at least), and Sagan was superb at communicating the wonder, awe and pure joy that science helps us to experience as the process of discovery continues.

Well said. And he did it so well amid all the clunkiness and relative crudeness of the production. I didn't say in spite of. Look what happens when you dress stuff up to give it a bit of modern gloss. You get Brian Cox.



(I like him a lot, actually, but.)

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: TheSnail
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 04:27 PM

I wasn't going to bother after the other thread was closed but if Steve Shaw insists on issuing a challenge, what am I to do?

If you are right, Steve, you should be able to crush me very easily in one of two ways.
1) Show me some evolution. I don't mean a twenty year experiment in an American lab where bacteria suddenly find out how to eat citrate or an observation that moths change colour in a dirty environment. Something as solid and tangible as the digits on your left hand. Something that Darwin would have been able to observe.
2) Start to talk like a scientist. Instead of responding to every hint of dissent with your "Evolution is true" mantra, generally accompanied by a barrage of schoolyard abuse, try actually addressing the points I raise. There are a few things you cheerfully ignored in these two posts on the Darwin's Witnesses thread.
thread.cfm?threadid=153464&messages=1012#3608503
thread.cfm?threadid=153464&messages=1068#3610544

Just in case you can't get the links to work, they were time stamped 09 Mar 14 - 02:10 PM and 18 Mar 14 - 09:11 AM.

I really think you should watch the video that Jack posted. It is a talk by Prof. Jerry Coyne. In his introduction, Richard Dawkins describes him as "... the principle guru to go to on evolutionary genetics in the world." Here it is again - Why evolution is true. Go on, give it a try unless you're afraid of finding something you don't like.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: frogprince
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 05:21 PM

"I don't accept that everyone here who uses a pseudonym is not hiding behind it so that they feel more free to say stuff they wouldn't usually say"

And I'm sure you're quite right about that. One of the saddest things is, a number of the honest people who just used monikers for fun or fancy have more or less dropped away from the forum from disgust at the way some of the "false fronts" have messed up the discussions.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 06:07 PM

anyone know why or who closed the other thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 06:18 PM

TheSnail linked back to a closed thread and these are featured in two of his links:

What I do have a problem with is turning evolution into a pseudo religious belief system by declaring it to be true. I have said many times, science doesn't do true. . . . Show me some evolution that I can see and touch and smell.

and

The concept of evolution is a human construct not an observable natural phenomenon.

It's like a trick question. Do you have the answer you're waiting to pop on the class after no one gets it right? What is the point of splitting hairs in the way you're attempting? You most of you agree about Evolution but for you Snail, they don't agree enough? Evolution by definition is over time and you don't have enough time in your life to "prove" it by actual observation. It's a science of fossil records, ancient and modern DNA or RNA, and conjecture.

How many evolution supporters can dance on the head of a pin? Do "true" and "fact" not have enough in common to work for you? Too many dictionary definitions of the word "true" make it unacceptable? Coyne says "theory becomes fact" about Evolution. He uses several ways to prove it, but someone simply stating that "evolution is a fact" or "evolution is true" is also accurate. What level of gravitas are you requesting from those who agree with you so that you can really acknowledge that they get it?

Religion is a social construction that, philosophers posit, started as a way to control people and teach them practices for survival. Religions that sprang from remote small settings among indigenous people (autochthonous) are particularly useful for timing the planting of crops, hunting ceremonies, preventing intermarriage between close relatives, and surviving harsh weather. They are markedly different from urban religions that offer illustrations about how to get along with other people, offer commandments of some sort, and (all too often) are parsed by power-brokers to gain riches and exclude those they don't like or agree with. Belief systems tend to dictate ways of living and believing.

"Evolution" isn't a belief system, even though people who do believe in it often (not always!) then tend to dismiss the religious view of how things came to be. One doesn't replace the other part for part. The fact that evolution is true can be proven in many ways and does not require your being able to see it happen in front of you to know it's true. The closest you'll probably come to it personally is if a study of your DNA proves that you have some Neanderthal mixed in with your Homo sapien.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: TheSnail
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 07:14 PM

Stilly River Sage
Evolution by definition is over time and you don't have enough time in your life to "prove" it by actual observation. It's a science of fossil records, ancient and modern DNA or RNA, and conjecture.

Well, you can do it without the DNA and RNA, Darwin did, but that gets the general idea. Now all we've got to do is persuade Steve Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 08:50 PM

an observation that moths change colour in a dirty environment.

Rather sad, Snailie, that you've revealed your deficiencies at last. When I was an assistant chief examiner for "A" Level Biology at the University of London (in charge of a team of assistant examiners for the essay paper), I remember a big conflab that took place at our chief examiners' meeting over an essay question on evolution. We finally agreed with the chief examiner that any answer that used the peppered moth as an example of evolution should be scored out and given nil. I suppose I'm going to have to tell you why, aren't I. Both forms of Biston betularia were already present before the Industrial Revolution. The supposed favouring of the melanic form over the white form due to blackening of tree trunks merely caused a change of proportion in the populations of the two. No new mutation, no speciation. And, when the air was cleaned up, normal service was resumed. It's actually an awful example of anything at all, long discredited, and not even without suspicion of fraud. I wouldn't have used that to promote any notion of mine in a million years, old boy. And I can't think that I've ever mentioned the bacteria which you perpetually burble about. They are not an example of evolution either. You tell me I shouldn't say that evolution is true, yet you don't appear to understand the first thing about it yourself!

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 09:01 PM

Do "true" and "fact" not have enough in common to work for you? Too many dictionary definitions of the word "true" make it unacceptable? Coyne says "theory becomes fact" about Evolution. He uses several ways to prove it, but someone simply stating that "evolution is a fact" or "evolution is true" is also accurate.

Indeed. I think "simply stating" just about nails it. Simply stating that evolution is a fact, or is true, is not a scientific pitch. The science is in the theory. I find "theory becomes fact" to be a tad uncomfortable. I'd rather say that "the theory overwhelmingly underlines the fact" (or the truth, if you like).

Apologies for my confusion over your gender. I must try to concentrate right to the end of every post. You'll possibly acknowledge that that can occasionally be a tribulation here that tends to condition one in inappropriate ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 10:16 PM

My nom de plume is an homage to my grandfather, and I chose a non-gendered moniker because way back when it was harder for women to be left alone to simply participate in forums. Now no one here would know who I am if I changed to my real name. Gender shouldn't matter in a conversation.

Please stop changing people's names and calling people names. Use the acknowledged abbreviations - SRS, JtS, etc. but let's stop the thumb in the eye insults. Thank you.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 03:39 AM

Pointing and laughing is a product of debate, not a precursor.

Not to mention cathartic at times. Even Jack has seen the purity and clarity of the phrase Fuck Off as being an excellent way to demonstrate the integrity of your point.

In a week where possible evidence of the aftermath of the Big Bang has been identified and refinement on a particular type of dinosaur, the ins and outs of evolution are mere detail surely? Organic evolution is being discussed here but Cosmos isn't quite so parochial.

As Carl Sagan once said, we are all stardust.

(But not all are golden eh?)

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 05:03 AM

Yes Steve, I know about the peppered moth. That's why I excluded it from acceptable evidence of evolution happening. Someone on the Darwin's Witnesses thread had mentioned it as an example.

Now, how about either showing me some evolution happening or responding in a rational way to something I actually said rather than something I didn't?

You're a bit selective about your reading of Stilly River Sage as well. How about commenting on -
Evolution by definition is over time and you don't have enough time in your life to "prove" it by actual observation. It's a science of fossil records, ancient and modern DNA or RNA, and conjecture.

Let me pick out a few key words for you -
actual observation
science
conjecture

("you've revealed your deficiencies at last". Since you were wrong about this one, you must now think I have no deficiencies at all. Nice.)

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 06:24 AM

This is rather lovely for Cosmos fans old & new:

National Geographic : Who Was Carl Sagan?

*

Watching the episode on the Ionian Philosophers last night, smiling at Anaximander's ideas on Evolution. That's around 611 - 546 B.C.E.

The Truth of Evolution is measured against other universal evolutionary truths, like the evolution of universe, suns, planets, solar systems and life as a whole. All is process, flux & change - we can see this happening day to day in language, culture, music & technology all of which evolve by steady degrees. We can wander around the Natural History Museum and look at our skeletal analogues throughout the animal kingdom from long before there were humans on the planet to newly discovered primate species in the Amazon basin and see the common threads of respective evolutionary developments right there.   

In any case, the alternatives are unthinking & unthinkable, of interest to Storytellers & Folklorists, but once they become 'True', that is the time to worry:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmdGFWS0m54

*

The concept of evolution is a human construct not an observable natural phenomenon.

Coming from a Folk Enthusiast, this statement is very rich indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 10:58 AM

On the basis of what I have seen so far and my love for the first Cosmos, I think Tyson was a superb choice and I think this will be an extension as well as a remake of the original. Tyson's love and admiration for Sagan assures that I think.

"Ascent of Man" is another great series that needs a rerun if not a remake. If you never saw it or read the book, pick it up sometime.

Carl Sagan inspired many of us to think more creatively with more tools and he led med me eventually to the greatest, Richard Feynman. If I owe anything to Carl Sagan, I owe him that. I think about Carl Sagan a lot anymore because we also have in common a disease which took his life and on bad days I think of him and wonder if he felt the way I feel. Anyway, I am in the best of company! LOL


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 12:20 PM

Would someone please start a nice neutral thread, maybe "Is Darwinism true?"

And move that conversation there. I am afraid that I will cause more problems than I solve if I do that.

pete, Steve, Dave, Snail, everyone. There is no reason not to start a thread to discuss something you are interested in. That technology is available to all.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 12:54 PM

The entire "Ascent of Man" series may be found on youtube. I've never seen it, so look forward to watching them.

I'm sorry for your health travails, Catspaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 01:20 PM

The chicken from Hell. Here's a dynamic combination of parts.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST,Stringsinger
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 01:24 PM

Evolution is an observable and decidedly scientific fact supported by a majority of scientists throughout the world, as immutable as gravity, though some wouldn't support that if they were falling off the edge of a cliff.

Tyson is a hero, debunking the religious objections based on no credible scientific evidence for that position which cites the bible as a reference, a cultist manifesto fraught with inconsistencies, fairy tales and an objectionable main character, who, destroying countless people as a mass murderer is celebrated by a fanatical but decreasing majority.

Maybe, but not optimistic, that Cosmos will wake up some of these religious dogma-drug induced addicts from their intellectual torpor.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 02:01 PM

Please stop changing people's names and calling people names. Use the acknowledged abbreviations - SRS, JtS, etc. but let's stop the thumb in the eye insults. Thank you.

Well they changed their OWN names fer chrissake!! I'm not going to compound the deception of a nom de plume by abbreviating it, largely because I'm broadly sane. If that's your idea of "convention" well it ain't mine. I suggest you would do far better to target the multifarious inanities, disgusting prejudices (including misogyny and homophobia), misrepresentations (of self and others) and lies of some of the participants here rather than attack a bloke who merely falls a little short of charming at times by being a little direct. If someone is being a clot on a public forum they deserve to be called a clot. There is a particularly egregious and long-standing example on this board of a religious fundamentalist who has been indulged and who, as a result, takes the piss out of reasonable people here and beyond here all the time. That's what happens if you call a spade a manual digging implement. I've been sworn at and called names and insulted and misrepresented and lied about far more times than vice versa, in particular by the man who I assume you're trying to defend the most by asking me not to call him names, and I do not complain. And I remind you that you will never find me using the F or C words. I don't recall seeing you having a bash at the people who do that. If you are a mod (I haven't a clue) and you want to clean up this board a bit, you have far more important targets than yours truly. Steve Shaw, or SJS if you like, no p in front of surname, since 1951. Thank YOU.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 02:06 PM

Well, snailie, if you really know that those bacteria and moths are shite examples of evolution, and if I know that, and I've never used them, why try to discredit me by posting this piece of garbage:

If you are right, Steve, you should be able to crush me very easily in one of two ways.
1) Show me some evolution. I don't mean a twenty year experiment in an American lab where bacteria suddenly find out how to eat citrate or an observation that moths change colour in a dirty environment...

Huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 02:11 PM

Would someone please start a nice neutral thread, maybe "Is Darwinism true?"

There is no such thing as Darwinism. It is a pejorative coined by idiots who wish to discredit evolutionary theory. You start the thread, we'll come and get you. Though I'm sure you'll be scurrying for your dictionary first in order to prove me wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 02:14 PM

What is there to bicker about? We are only talking about everything there is, was and will ever be when discussing the cosmos.

Man's notion of god and knowledge are dwarfed by the questions and answers that cosmology poses regarding the seen and unseen, the known and unknowable, and the stored history of everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 03:35 PM

Stilly River Sage
Evolution by definition is over time and you don't have enough time in your life to "prove" it by actual observation. It's a science of fossil records, ancient and modern DNA or RNA, and conjecture.

Steve Shaw
Simply stating that evolution is a fact, or is true, is not a scientific pitch.

Stringsinger
Evolution is an observable and decidedly scientific fact

Some divergence of opinion there.

Steve Shaw
Well, snailie, if you really know that those bacteria and moths are shite examples of evolution, and if I know that, and I've never used them, why try to discredit me by posting this piece of garbage:

Just in case you hadn't noticed, this is a public forum not a private conversation. Bill D mentioned the peppered moths and your personal henchgnome gave a link to the bacteria experiment. I'm surprised that you didn't kniow about it. I'd like to thank you for your profuse apology for trying to discredit me by misrepresenting my understanding on the peppered moth observations. Unfortunately, I can't.

Have you watched the Jerry Coyne video yet?
Can you (or Stringsinger) tell me where I can actually observe some evolution?

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 04:10 PM

isn't it weird ?. I don't know what I,m talking about, if I recall snail correctly, but he insists on the same question, more or less, that I,ve asked so many times before.
stilly says evolution is true, is a valid statement [more or less] then concedes it involves conjecture.
more accurately it is a philosophical/religious statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 04:28 PM

GUEST,pete from seven stars link
he insists on the same question, more or less

No, pete, fundamentally different.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 05:09 PM

"more accurately it is a philosophical/religious statement. "

That is true. That's why a clear headed scientist doesn't put it that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 07:19 PM

Steve Shaw
Well they changed their OWN names fer chrissake!!

You're being a bully. You're calling people names, not the names they chose for themselves. Just back off and be polite. Act like they're sitting across the table from you.

TheSnail, you are being way way too picky with people who actually agree with you. Give it a rest.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 07:28 PM

Pete said:

stilly says evolution is true, is a valid statement [more or less] then concedes it involves conjecture.
more accurately it is a philosophical/religious statement.

You don't understand what I was saying, or you ignore it, Pete. Conjecture doesn't not mean it has to be in the realm of philosophy or religion. I'm not letting you dictate the terms of the discussion, so your myopic argument with no support isn't allowed by me (or many others with sound scientific understanding) to serve as the diametric and equally weighted opposite to the science we're discussing. The religious position as you represent it has no more power than children arguing "yes" "no" "yes" "no" on the playground. It's the old adage, saying it over and over doesn't make it any more correct.

Steve Shaw, you keep calling people names and your posts are going to disappear. You have been warned.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 07:40 PM

I hear the sound of knives being sharpened. Another thread lined up for the chop by our resident thread slasher. No wonder it's beginning to look a little thin around here, or is all this pruning meant to stimulate new growth?

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 09:29 PM

TheSnail, you are being way way too picky with people who actually agree with you. Give it a rest.

He's fine. Leave him alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 09:43 PM

Bejaysus, another deletion. Who will see? Well I'm off to bed as I must be up early to peruse Lidl's wine bargains in the morning, so the night's merriment is over between us, SRS. Let me leave you with an unoriginal thought. So unoriginal that I posted it only a few short hours ago. Just had a quick butcher's at some of the awful, sweary and insulting posts, some replete with dreadful prejudice, that you HAVEN'T deleted in recent weeks. They're easy enough to find. So here's that unoriginal thought. Yours to live with.

I suggest you would do far better to target the multifarious inanities, disgusting prejudices (including misogyny and homophobia), misrepresentations (of self and others) and lies of some of the participants here rather than attack a bloke who merely falls a little short of charming at times by being a little direct. If someone is being a clot on a public forum they deserve to be called a clot. There is a particularly egregious and long-standing example on this board of a religious fundamentalist who has been indulged and who, as a result, takes the piss out of reasonable people here and beyond here all the time. That's what happens if you call a spade a manual digging implement. I've been sworn at and called names and insulted and misrepresented and lied about far more times than vice versa, in particular by the man who I assume you're trying to defend the most by asking me not to call him names, and I do not complain. And I remind you that you will never find me using the F or C words. I don't recall seeing you having a bash at the people who do that. If...you want to clean up this board a bit, you have far more important targets than yours truly. Steve Shaw, or SJS if you like, no p in front of surname, since 1951. Thank YOU.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 10:22 PM

"Pointing and laughing is a product of debate, not a precursor. "

All too often it is destructive of any useful debate. It can in fact terminate them.

Stuff like that belongs in the type of debate which is in no way a discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: TheSnail
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 05:51 AM

Stilly River Sage (to pete)
I'm not letting you dictate the terms of the discussion

Apparently you think that's your job. You seem to have achieved the impossible by creating a measure of empathy between me and Steve Shaw, something only previously achieved by Jack the Sailor. I think you are creating problems for yourself by trying to take part in the discussion and police it at the same time. You are the one coming over as a bully.

P.S. It's TheSnail not Snail if you don't mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 06:23 AM

Where's the like button on Mudcat???

Agree wholehearted with TheSnail there. Stilly River Sage's policing & closure of these threads is noxious in the extreme - far more offensive than the occasional well-intentioned invective.

*

Otherwise...

The facts of the evolutionary case are all around in the diversity of species within basic morphological groups which we can trace back to fossil remains long extinct before other species existed. It's there in the comparison between human necks and that of giraffes, or in comparing our hands with bat wings. This ties in with the history of the universe as a whole, and that of our planet, where life comes into being when the right conditions exist.

Evolution is part & parcel of that process - things begin & develop because there is no other way. All things are the product of long & countless years of evolutionary process. Cultural & Technical Evolution likewise, which most certainly IS observable in the human time-frame, be it over the 10,000 years between Göbekli Tepe and the Large Hadron Collider - or in our own short lifetimes where in my adolescence in the late 70s having a discussion like this using this level of technology was the stuff of Tomorrow's World.

As I said below, the alternatives are both unthinking & unthinkable:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmdGFWS0m54

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 06:37 AM

The concept of "evolution" - change - goes back far before Darwin and Wallace's identification of a natural mechanism for such change in the context of living things.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 08:50 AM

Steve Shaw,

I am so sorry, I had no idea that you were bothered by the p in front of the surname. I thought that for you childishly mocking names was a sign of affection. How about you and I stop doing that from now on?

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 09:06 AM

The concept of "evolution" - change - goes back far before Darwin and Wallace's identification of a natural mechanism for such change in the context of living things.

Indeed. In Episode 7 of the original Cosmos, The Backbone of the Night, Carl Sagan traces it back to the Ionian philosopher Anaximander, 611 - 546 B.C.E.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 10:34 AM

Name-calling escalates the bad feelings in quarrelsome threads. When complaints come in and I take the time to read through such a thread (instead of just closing it) the verbal slugfest is usually the worst part of the problem. My participating in a thread or not is my choice, and with all but the thesis in an M.A. in environmental philosophy, this one is a natural.

If you guys want to keep insulting the intelligence of participants and outsiders who might want to take a look, then we can just keep closing noxious threads. These are the reason a lot of good people have left Mudcat.org, they're tired of the unrestrained nonsense. I suppose my incidentally turning your attention to me instead of insulting each other has brought a small accord amongst some of you. Keep up the good work.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 10:53 AM

Steve Shaw,

I am so sorry, I had no idea that you were bothered by the p in front of the surname. I thought that for you childishly mocking names was a sign of affection. How about you and I stop doing that from now on?

Bothered, moi? Not at all. Just slightly surprised by an apparent double standard being applied. I get a bollocking for calling you Wacko, yet (unless it's all been done by PM, Of course) you escape censure for similar transgressions as well as a load of childish effin' 'n' blindin', which is at least something I've never resorted to. And as for making any sort of agreement with you, well I'd rather make a bloody pact with the devil. If you want me to be nice to you, start posting sensible, well-considered stuff that does not misrepresent either yourself or me or anyone else or contain downright lies, you know, telling me that I claim to be this, that and the other when I've done no such thing, etc. If you try, and I know how damned hard it will be for you, I promise to give you marks for effort. But I'm not holding my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 10:54 AM

of course

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 11:07 AM

>>>I get a bollocking for calling you Wacko, yet (unless it's all been done by PM, Of course) you escape censure for similar transgressions as well as a load of childish effin' 'n' blindin', which is at least something I've never resorted to. <<

Do you not see that the difference is that I am offended by your behavior while you are not by mine?

SRS has said that she does not even look at threads unless there are complaints. I have made it very clear to you and everyone else how tired I am of your bullying and name calling.

I was told by one moderator to "fight my own battles" hence the effen this and that and the "pshaws". That, predictably, had no effect. But I felt that I owed it to the unnamed moderator to give it a try. Lets forget about the past and focus on from now on. Lets try to be civil to one another.   

Lets try to get this effin thread back on track so that we can talk about what I hope will be a cultural watershed.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 11:21 AM

2 hours of writing and editing was lost in a single key stroke again.
Control Z to no avail. It was my singular most serious post in a year.

I hate when that happens.


'''walking way hat in hand.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 11:44 AM

Any way my post began with a not to the ego squabbles of late.

Deletions for malevolent speech do good, depending upon the topic, but do injure egos.

It is ironic that many people do not know that their only true enemy is their own ego. Ego blocks the human potential for understanding and the value of thinking that is far beyond what ego could ever create. Wisdom does not come from exercising ego, ego blocks true potential. Until one reaches that evolutionary stage of understanding we should be patient with those who are yet on the road of wisdom but have in a sense, only begun. To attack those who are afflicted with the exposed raw nerve of ego, need some further travel of their own.
{I am sincerely not being snooty but just honestly stating some psychological truths.}

The rest of my post involved the big important discoveries leading to the new physics that will/could lead to time travel in any direction.
I listed the people and colleagues who have made such theoretical discoveries and described their work.

Perhaps I will present elsewhere the best mysteries and questions of cosmology that are on the cusp of flowering not out of ego, but to link to more easily in case of thread closing and such.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 12:02 PM

There's a lesson here, Donuel - compose the big ones in Word first before copying & pasting 'em over here where only the mods are given powers of saving, editing, censorship & deletion, no doubt in the name of a greater democracy that needs vigilant policing at every turn - hardly an environment in which to nurture enlightened discourse. I know at least three important voices who no longer post here for that very reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 12:09 PM

I know, after fifteen years believe me, I know.
Its the eternal optimism of human spirit or plain ol ignorance I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 12:31 PM

Do you not see that the difference is that I am offended by your behavior while you are not by mine?

I have no right not to be offended. A philosophy that works a treat for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 01:23 PM

If SRS only looks at threads when someone complains, that says a lot about why mine go missing in other threads. If you can't win your argument, try and silence the other guy.

Anyway , back to this.

I did see a bit of it years ago when they showed it over here but on the back of this debate I have ordered the DVD set. Of course, finding time to watch it may be a bit tricky.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 02:19 PM

Some of the worst threads are repellent enough that there is no need to describe why people of sound mind don't want to read them if they don't have to. It's not taking sides, it's occasionally getting really fed up with all of the playground bullies. Musket, you'll have to speculate about someone else deleting your bad behavior, it wasn't me.

Each of you should take some time every day to read threads above the line. You don't need to say anything, just go there to learn what Mudcat is really about. Please don't say anything if you can't be informative, helpful, supportive, and at all times civil.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jeri
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 03:15 PM

Musket, name calling and personal attacks will get your posts deleted. It's not just SRS. These are things that any moderator may delete, IF we see them. I couldn't possibly read all the sick shit posted here, but I see some of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jeri
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 03:31 PM

I came into this thread because the first episode (I believe) of the new series is on NatGeo right now. I hope the show heralds a surge in "smart".

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 03:39 PM

The program has been on for two weeks already, on FOX on Sunday and Natl Geo the next night, and I suspect National Geographic will replay the earlier ones. I noticed that FOX replayed the first episode from Sunday, March 9, on the following Saturday, March 15. There is a huge investment in this type of programming, they need to play it more than once to get their money's worth from it.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jeri
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 03:44 PM

Yep, Stilly. I missed the first one (saw the second) and just happened upon this showing of it. I DO remember the Sagan version, but I probably missed some of those, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 05:01 PM

stilly - the first sentence was referring to your words, the second was my opinion. apparently an opinion you wish to police.
so , what is the scientific definition of "conjecture".
or is it a case of the word stretched to mean whatever you choose it to mean?
thesnail- fundamentally different question.....how so?
and if the above does not deign to reply, does anyone else know what the difference is......?

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 05:41 PM

Sick shit.

I'd say something but whilst suck shit remains in public view whilst those doing a public duty and challenging it gets deleted, my view of moderation cannot be defended through the voluntary and well meaning amateur approach.

Sorry but this is serious legal shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 06:29 PM

Pete, there is no answer that will satisfy you, so why ask? Why hang around on a thread about science? Your god doesn't leave a fossil footprint record, but the signs of the remarkable change and duration involved in the planetary (and beyond) natural world are everywhere - and clearly shown to be not attributable to "one hand" in an overarching dismissive seven-day wonder.

Carl Sagan started a conversation that Neil DeGrasse Tyson is continuing. I think Tyson has the harder job, because he must bring more people up to speed on the state of science today, after decades now of weak and watered-down textbooks in Texas and other bible-belt states. Do you watch the program and consider how amazing it is that we have learned so much about our world, or do you tsk tsk at the story you don't believe? Or are you somewhere in between? You'll accept that witches don't curdle milk but don't want to believe in continental drift or evolution or modern signs of an out-of-balance atmosphere causing global warming? What do you accept about the disposition of the world in scientific terms?

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 07:11 PM

Continental drift is an interesting one. I can remember when it was looked on about as being on a par with theories about flying saucers and the Loch Ness Monster.

Subject: BS: Cosmic Closure
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 04:45 AM

Oh no! Stilly River Sage makes an amazing post then goes and closes the bastarding thread! Someone take these powers away from her before she destroys us all - she'll be deleting herself next...

*

ANYHOO - just wanted to say that I discovered continental drift as a kid whilst looking at a map o' the world on the classroom wall and seeing how it all 'fit together'. My theories were later confirmed by science - or rather the teacher who applauded my reasoning*.

I also invented the peanut butter & jam sandwich (jelly for those Stateside), the diving bell and several recipes for porridge & crumpet toppings from which, if I were more shrewd, I could no doubt make millions. But what care I for the short term gains of capitalism which are steadily destroying this planet for want of a bit of good sense & future vision? I'm too happy munching crumpets & supping porridge as I watch my Carl Sagan's Cosmos DVD boxset.   

I watched episode 9 last night which he begins with the immortal line: 'If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.' What followed blew my tiny mind in a state of smiling & quietly gibbering wonderment. How gratifying it is to live in a mutable & entirely Godless cosmos!

* In the Creationist Mindset of course the continents were torn apart by God after The Flood - the oceans sunk deep, the mountains raised high to accommodate all that water which came from the Vapour Layer around the earth in its Pre Fall Garden o' Eden state, the Earth Mark 1 if you like. By putting the words Biblical Flood Date into Google you can find the following...

...the year in which the Flood came was 1656 AM (Anno Mundi – "year of the world"). From the rest of the Old Testament and other well-documented historical events we understand that creation, as calculated by Ussher, was about 4004 BC. So with a little more math we can calculate the second date.

Calculated BC date for creation:         4004
Calculated AM date for the Flood:         - 1656
Calculated BC date for the Flood:         2348
Current Year (minus one2):         + 2011
Number of years since beginning of Flood:         4359

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmic Closure
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 06:31 AM

I expect this will be short lived too.
yes a very eloquent post from stilly expressing nothing more than her interpretation of data and unproven notions.
and the scientific definition of "conjecture" is   ?.

by the way - the vapour canopy theory is not widely held among creationists now. shock, horror....they too can revise in light of fresh knowledge!

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmic Closure
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 06:48 AM

Pete - I just posted this on another thread, I'll repost it here least you get the impression I'm in anyway sympathetic to your hideously noxious & woefully reactionary cause. Creationism is the mindset of the retarded. That it persists in any shape for form into the 21st century is only evidence of the very worst sort of shit humanity is capable of and the means it uses to justify it. The true wonder of the Cosmos is entirely Godless. You can prove that much by going out and looking at nature.

*

Theories only exist until the available evidence, or understanding of that evidence, changes. It's a process, a tradition if you like, ongoing, born of peer-reviewed dialogue within the rigours of the scientific community. Evidence & understanding of evidence for the 'Big Bang' is evolving all the time & there are many models for how the 'Big Bang' fits into an over-all scheme of universe expansion, single, multiple, but all these models are mutable and must be answerable to reality. It is not a 'belief' - is is born from what is real and known and observable.

This is us, humanity, out there, looking at ourselves in the context of infinity, not pondering a load of fairy stories we dreamt up in the darkness to come to terms with our ignorance. We are embarked. We've been embarked for some time now.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/space/stories/new-big-bang-evidence-also-hints-that-we-may-exist-in-a-multiverse

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmic Closure
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 07:02 AM

It always amuses me that peole who cannot explain how a fridge works can have views about the origins and evolution of the universe, life and everything else.

Much fun hey?

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmic Closure
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 07:25 AM

" ... the vapour canopy theory is not widely held among creationists now. shock, horror....they too can revise in light of fresh knowledge!"

You mean, pete, that they frantically make stuff up in a vain attempt to hold back the tsunami of scientific knowledge. Face it, your ludicrously rickety structures of 'absolute truth' (whatever that is), based on nothing more than some dark age myths in an old book, have long since been swept away!

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmic Closure
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 08:27 AM

A pump, a heat exchange unit and a basic concept of thermodynamics.

Piss easy.

Creationism? Buggered if I can understand irrational bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmic Closure
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 08:40 AM

Sort of liking the general drift here...

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 11:44 AM

They are combined and this is open. The name calling and the trash talk are the problem. Police yourselves by ignoring people who start it and they'll quit. Threads typically close when they have devolved to name calling, personal attacks, and bickering.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 12:04 PM

Who Was Carl Sagan?

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: TheSnail
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 12:10 PM

Good decision SRS. Any chance of re-opening the Darwin's Witnesses thread so that the discussion that saught refuge here can return to where Bill D, Troubador and DMcG (when he returns from holiday) can find it? This thread is supposed to be about the Cosmos programmes.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST,BrendanB
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 06:01 PM

I am as irritated/frustrated/gobsmacked as any rational person by people like pete from the seven stars link (lack of capitals a courtesy to him). I also find other posters tedious/irritating or quite simply irredeemably stupid but I do not feel the need to hurl abuse at them. In his post at 20 March 14 02.01 Steve Shaw claims not to complain even though that whole post reads like a complaint. I really want to respect Musket (I warm to what I perceive to be his views) but to this uninformed outsider his posts too often read like a hostage to fortune. I would love to read a forensic demolition of akenaton's and K of H's posts but it does not seem to have happened so far. I repeat, in the field addressed by this thread I am relatively uninformed ( However, in relation to pete the mere fact that my mind is open to rational argument makes me a great deal more informed than him).
I know that one prolific poster on this and other threads relating to science/evolution/atheism will be desperate to tell me to contribute to the debate or butt out (and anyway whatever I say he knows more and better than me. This will be implied rather than explicitly stated) who the hell am I to pontificate etc. etc. etc.
I am a learner, and an observer - and now a commentator. I used to contribute regularly to below the line posts before I tired of the abuse and pointless acrimony but having had a rest I can cope with a bit of abuse. (SrS please take note, most grown ups can handle foul mouthed -or even non foul mouthed - insults). My view, and that is all it is, is that as a courtesy to the OP contributors to a thread should address the topic of the thread and not use it to pursue their own agendas. Attack the stated views, not the person. If they are truly obnoxious demonstrate it by reference to their postings, convincingly. You live in the same world as them and the apparent desire of some posters to vomit hatred all over a thread - even if they then claim they are above such behaviour - contributes nothing to civilised debate.
I recall one of my first posts as a callow newbie receiving what I considered to be a vituperative response from JtS. In fact, he showed me not to look for courtesy on Mudcat. An irony I feel.
I have no axe to grind, I come to Mudcat to be informed, challenged, even outraged. But sadly the best stuff is now all above the line and intelligent debate below the line has given way to an awful lot of egoistic posturing and a desperate need to be seen to be right. Maybe it is time to close the BS section - float it off as a forum for hardline theorists and hobby-horse jockeys.
I trust I have said enough to mildly irritate almost everyone, now you know what it feels like.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 06:18 PM

Hmmm.I take it that the post of mine that you refer to is this one:

Well they changed their OWN names fer chrissake!! I'm not going to compound the deception of a nom de plume by abbreviating it, largely because I'm broadly sane. If that's your idea of "convention" well it ain't mine. I suggest you would do far better to target the multifarious inanities, disgusting prejudices (including misogyny and homophobia), misrepresentations (of self and others) and lies of some of the participants here rather than attack a bloke who merely falls a little short of charming at times by being a little direct. If someone is being a clot on a public forum they deserve to be called a clot. There is a particularly egregious and long-standing example on this board of a religious fundamentalist who has been indulged and who, as a result, takes the piss out of reasonable people here and beyond here all the time. That's what happens if you call a spade a manual digging implement. I've been sworn at and called names and insulted and misrepresented and lied about far more times than vice versa, in particular by the man who I assume you're trying to defend the most by asking me not to call him names, and I do not complain. And I remind you that you will never find me using the F or C words. I don't recall seeing you having a bash at the people who do that. If you are a mod (I haven't a clue) and you want to clean up this board a bit, you have far more important targets than yours truly. Steve Shaw, or SJS if you like, no p in front of surname, since 1951. Thank YOU.

Kindly note the emphasis. I do not complain. I often fart in the general directions of, but I do not complain. No moderator could ever tell you that I've ever gone offlist to complain about anything or anybody. I do not whinge then get told to fight my own battles, because I don't fight battles. I state my case and call a spade a spade and a twat a twat because there is no other way to deal with fools. Putting the record straight on patently unfair practices is not complaining. I am not victimised and I can't be bullied because my transaction with this place is entirely tangential to my normal life and is predicated only on what time I have available to come here, which is severely limited. I don't live over my keyboard like Jack The Sailor, etc. This place is somebody else's gig, not mine. Go on, whinge on and get the whole bloody place shut down if you can. Alternatively, put some thought into your contributions and stop misrepresenting people.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 08:07 PM

Creationists don't believe in the free market.

Or else they would know that if they could produce a show as good as Cosmos. The networks would PAY them for the privilege of airing it.

They really are seriously reality impaired.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 09:59 PM

Jesus, they put on even better shows. Popes at Vatican windows at Easter. High masses broadcast to the world at Christmas. Festivals of nine carols. Christingle for vulnerable kiddies. And that's just the Christians. They even had Haydn, Bach and Mozart in their pockets. They put on great shows and we just lap 'em up.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 11:59 PM

They don't put on better shows here Steve. Google the 700 Club if you want to see how horrible Television can be. And that isn't the worst of it. Not by a long shot.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: TheSnail
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 06:17 AM

Popes at Vatican windows

http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/26/22454776-angry-birds-peace-doves-attacked-after-release-at-vatican?lite

Could be a metaphor for Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST,BrendanB
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 07:55 AM

'Put some thought into your contributions and stop misrepresenting people'

I said your post reads like a complaint, having looked at it again I still think it reads like a complaint. I am not misrepresenting anyone, simply stating how I responded to your post. Once you have posted readers will draw their own conclusions, not only about what you say but also how you say it. Perhaps you are revealing more about yourself than you realise. Do you think that you might be a little bit in denial? In this period of Lent perhaps a little examination of conscience might be in order? As a lapsed Catholic you will understand that.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 10:08 AM

What is the opposite of Lent?

To relent? and give in to your urges?

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jeri
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 10:14 AM

BrendanB, you put it very well.
I don't think it would be bad to get rid of the BS section (for now, a least) and let those who come here only to fight find some other forum to infest. Although, we might end up with a bunch of flame war threads in the music section that have to be removed.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 03:16 PM

The most powerful nerd in the Universe?

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 04:45 PM

Delicious piece from Brendan.......Mr Mcgrath will have to look to his Laurels in the irony department. :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 05:47 PM

jack blandiver thinks that creationists are retarded. methinks he is in serious denial. there are a good number of scientists and well qualified that don't buy into the evolutionist story.
don't sound very unprejudiced to me, and wasn't it a "retarded" who cracked the enigma code, if I recall correctly?
even the mentally challenged are entitled to a pov, but creation believing scientists are far from mentally deficient.
funny how the militant atheists here dismiss us as not worth taking seriously, and then spend time deriding us.
perhaps they know that there is a danger that joe public might see the poverty of Darwinist arguments if exposed to creation reasoning.
if their assertions were not philosophically driven, atheists might try presenting evidence that might support their belief instead of hurling insults......I wont hold my breath!

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jeri
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 08:44 PM

He wasn't "a retarded" (the word is an adjective, BTW, not a noun), he was a mathematician, and he was likely brilliant. And gay.

As an atheist, I can present evidence: I don't believe in god(s). Anybody, feel free to ask me, and I'm sure I'll say the same thing. It's an irrefutable fact.

It's as idiotic to try to have a reasoned discussion about science with a Christian creationist as it would be to have one with someone who believes the any of the other creation myths. Nobody's going to convince anybody who believes in the myth they're wrong, and the believers will never get non-believers to join them in their certainty. They don't know everything, they just want other people believe they do.

You can't fix "stupid", but I suppose trying offers an alternative to other obsessive and hopeless endeavors. I have no problem with people having beliefs. It's annoying to have them think those beliefs should be considered to be given the same status as knowledge. Now, THAT'S stupid. Arguing about it is nearly as stupid, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 09:32 PM

there are a good number of scientists and well qualified that don't buy into the evolutionist story. "a good number" is meaningless, Pete. Absolutely meaningless. How meaningless?

The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.^{[19][20][21][22][23]} One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists . . . (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists). . . give credence to creation-science".^[24] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[25] A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.^[26][27]

Those little numbers are things called citations, meaning they are the source of the information compiled in this article. Go to that page, scroll down to the subhead "Scientific support" and mouse over each number and a dialog box will appear with the source. You can click on those and go read them yourself. 700 out of 480,000. 00.14 or a small fraction of 1 percent of the scientists identified as such believe in creationism. Compared with the whole this is not, in my estimation, "a good number." Of course your mileage may vary.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 11:54 PM

P.S. I left in the remark about the Gallup poll because it was a bit newer, but Gallup uses a very small sample and extrapolates, and we don't know what the question was that they asked their small sample. Their credibility is equally small.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 05:03 AM

Sadly, SRS, you can be pretty certain that pete won't follow up on your references. He doesn't actually want to know about evolutionary theory - because it contradicts the Bible. He is wilfully ignorant about science and logic too. If he knew anything about the latter he would also know if all of those 480,000 scientists simultaneously slapped their foreheads and shouted: "damn, we got it all wrong" that wouldn't mean that the biblical account of creation is automatically true!

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 05:29 AM

funny how the militant atheists here dismiss us as not worth taking seriously, and then spend time deriding us.

Pete, I take it very seriously because of the right-wing reactive political basis of the creationist world-view. Fundamentalism is maybe the greatest evil there is - that people believe this ineffable twaddle is one thing, that they are part of other extremes is quite another. Creationism is symptomatic of so much else - it is a reactive cultural intransigence that assumes righteousness. I can't think of anything more retarded - or dangerous - than that.

Militant Atheism doesn't exist by the way, it's just the normal default position of collective humanity when viewed as a totality, which is what we are. There are thousands of creation myths (and two quite contradictory ones in Genesis!) each part of thousands of different storytelling traditions. Not a single one of these is any way TRUE, though we might pause to ponder when one chimes in with known scientific data, like ancient Hindu cosmology as touched upon in the particularly mind-scrambling episode of Carl Sagan's Cosmos I watched last night...

Carl Sagan on Hindu Cosmology

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 06:34 AM

Slight thread drift, but may I correct something regarding cracking the enigma code?

I assume that both Pete and Jeri are referring to Alan Turing?

Whilst he made a huge impact in improving the efficiency of such decryptions, and many other contributions to wartime code breaking, he wasn't the first to crack enigma. Mind you, he did a few other things too*

No, the unsung Polish guy who cracked Enigma in 1932 was Marian Rejewski

"A retarded"? You really have no idea at all, do you Pete?

*Inventing Computer Science comes to mind...

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 07:12 AM

Found this on yt searching for current cosmos. Might interest some here. - Itzhak Bentov ~ From Atom To Cosmos - or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Stu
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 08:18 AM

"and wasn't it a "retarded" who cracked the enigma code, if I recall correctly?"

An ultra-right wing religious extremist is invoking the memory of the great Alan Turing (w man he would presumably have stoned for being gay) as an argument defending creationism? Fuck me, that's beyond satire.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 09:37 PM

Neil even made an appearance on the show after Colbert called Midnight. He's too cool to be a nerd, although I'm sure he needed lots of media training.

As for the retarded and retard references, bear in mind there are people here with IQ's of 82 who don't think "you're' too smart either.

The type of person whom you wished to refer to are called savants.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Musket
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 04:59 AM

Hi BrendanB. You wonder why I give myself hostages to fortune?

A combination of dangling worms and spreading ground bait. The only way to get them to bite. Far more interesting reading their irrational bollocks here. If you want facts, stick to the BBC news website. This is a haven for weird people to explore the harmless and harmful aspects of their weirdness. Look at me for instance, typing this when there is paint to watch drying and the real world awaiting my inclusion.

The people you refer to can't be shouted down anyway. They would have to understand why they are being shouted down first. One has no manners and the other no shame.

You try, buggered if I can.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST,Stringsinger
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 11:56 AM

What Jack Blandiver said, I second the motion.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Amos
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 05:12 PM

I thought the first show of the new Cosmos was just smashing. Terrific graphics and good historical material to boot.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 02:28 PM

I agree Amos

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 12:27 AM

Pete: funny how the militant atheists here dismiss us as not worth taking seriously, and then spend time deriding us.

The people pushing the falsehoods, half-truths and general misunderstandings of creationism are well-funded and put out absolute shed-loads of misinformation which, if not challenged, may well "stick" amongst some people who are not very scientifically literate.

Many of the points made are so unworthy of serious discussion that derision is a natural reaction.

A TINY percentage of scientists disagree with the theory of evolution, and almost all who do are disagreeing in areas well outside their working expertise. Those who disagree are mainly those who've been brought up in, or converted to, fundamentalist young-earth creationism and are jumping through hoops to preserve their biblical literalism against reality. They (and you?) seem to HAVE to do this because any *objective* reasoning they did would result in them having to accept the allegorical, as opposed to literal, interpretation of parts of the bible and as their entire world-view is based on literalism, this would destroy their religious belief completely.

I know there's no point arguing with you, Pete, as you always look only to creationist literature for your information. I've time and again here gone into the actual evidence against several of your assertions, whether it be "carbon dating" of diamonds or "soft tissues in dinosaurs" but all you do is say that the articles or papers I've pointed you at are "too difficult as I'm not a scientist" and fall back on your creationist websites to provide "answers" that you can quote without actually doing any real thinking.

I've pointed out on several occasions where prominent creationists (eg Gish, Snelling, Woodmorappe, Hovind etc) have been caught out using arguments that they *knew* to be wrong at the time they used them (called "lying" anywhere else) and you simply won't look at the evidence for that "because they aren't here on the site to defend themselves"!!!

I even pointed you at articles in Christian papers showing that the general claims made by RATE and other creationists re their tests on diamonds and zircons contradicted RATE's own conclusions in their actual analysis....ie saying one thing in their internal literature but letting the general public believe they've said something else (again, called "lying" by most reasonable people).

But you ignore all this. You like to portray yourself as reasonable and tolerant, but in fact you're quite clever in the way you can be snidey and slippery in the way you use or ignore arguments.

I was particularly annoyed last time I went to the Crayside session when you sang your "Mungo Man" song which is a farrago of misinformation and untruths about age determination of bones found in Australia...but I sat there and politely clapped instead of standing up at the end and explaining what a lot of bollocks it was...I really wish I had now!

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: BrendanB
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 05:02 PM

'This is the shittiest post on this thread by a long chalk'

If I am correct, and using Steve Shaw's own posts as a guide, he deems that posts are only acceptable if they contain puerile invective, name calling and fatuous attempts to offend. As I have already said, A lot of his posts tell us a great deal more about him than just the words he uses. What a sad man. Bye, bye Stevie.   I'll leave you to fester in your bitterness and frustrated need for recognition.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jeri
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 06:02 PM

I don't think I'm militant anything, but stupid is stupid, and when someone stands up for the right of stupid to be taken seriously, I think it's good to ignore them.

As for the unpleasantness, no one comes to Mudcat BS threads thinking much of any quality of discourse is going to happen. Sometimes, you can get lucky, but not very often.

People come here to fight.

They troll or they "do" the trolls, and sometimes both. I think they're the sort of person who'd go to a bar to get into a fight, but at Mudcat, they don't get physically hurt or killed, their real life reputation doesn't suffer, and they can go on indefinitely in thread after thread after thread. Every troll on the internet can come here and be sure they'll find a bunch of eager troll groupies.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: BrendanB
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 07:03 PM

Fair enough Jeri, I am duly chastened. I did not intend to act like a troll but in the eyes of some that is apparently what I am. Definitely time to leave.   (Not however to go to bar to get into a fight, the very idea!)

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 08:53 PM

Just piss off then and stop posting. You're just indulging your sorry self now. Bye!

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 03:48 PM

Carl Sagan Quotes to Inspire Us All

And for further inspiration...

33 Unbelievable Places To Visit Before You Die. I Can't Believe These Actually Exist On Earth...

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: frogprince
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 07:22 PM

Cosmic Miracle !

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Mar 14 - 05:35 PM

Amazing pics, jack. Mostly formerly unknown to me.                                                         Frogprince,    Was that the best thing since sliced bread!?