Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He doesnt call himself an atheist because he's an agnostic. Athiests disbelieve, agnostics dont think its a valid question, similar to "Do you believe in 5 headed dragons?" -- Religion is just not a compelling hypothesis and the data is so flawed on every level and is highly inconsistent.
beninfl I have 352 posts on the Atheism and Agnosticism forum. Trust me, I have had discussions about the definitions more times than I care to remember.
beninfl I have 352 posts on the Atheism and Agnosticism forum. Trust me, I have had discussions about the definitions more times than I care to remember.
I do wish people would stop comparing science with religion. Two totally different things. (The jester in me wants to state how science is based on repeatable evidence and religion is based on stories, but you get the idea).
I do wish people would stop comparing science with religion. Two totally different things. (The jester in me wants to state how science is based on repeatable evidence and religion is based on stories, but you get the idea).
Finally caught the first 2 episodes on the net. Awesome. The Sagan references and especially Tyson's personal story meeting Sagan as a student was a nice. I've heard Tyson in older interviews speak about Carl, but now hopefully Sagan's legacy will be heard by more people with the shows reboot. It's about time someone with a brain becomes a household recognized name again. Go Neil!
He doesnt call himself an atheist because he's an agnostic. Athiests disbelieve, agnostics dont think its a valid question, similar to "Do you believe in 5 headed dragons?" -- Religion is just not a compelling hypothesis and the data is so flawed on every level and is highly inconsistent.
I must remind folks that this is the science forum and not religion. See the sticky at the top of the mother forum.
As for the program, I found the first episode disappointing on a number of levels. There is no science in wasting screen time wandering around the universe in a vehicle that looks like a combo of Spock's coffin, a magic hat, and an interior viewport from the Death Star. OK, so your animation team needed work. I get it. The "sweeping vista" bridge scene from the ship once segued beautifully into the set for the Capital One ad. Geee...
Now about those asteroids and the Oort cloud - would it have been possible to avoid clumping them so close together that the gravity interactions would have created a proto-planet - just so your fake spaceship could do a Han Solo piloting through the dangerous asteroids? Please?
The Bruno story is fantasy, historically incorrect, and served little purpose. It certainly wasn't science. FWIW, the heliocentric model was known to the Greeks and likely the Babylonians anyway (I'll leave out the Chinese). The "inspiration" and "discovery" of it is a bunch of revisionist history to cover up the fact that everyone was stupid and repressed and sheeplike for a couple thousand years.
A reminder is not an imperative. I am more than happy for those who can't follow the rules on keeping the forum oriented towards science have their run-in with mods and deletion of their posts. The reminder was for those who know that and might not want to go that route but have been caught up in the heat of the discussion.
The idea that a presenter can speak on two different subjects making off-topic posts somehow on-topic is entertaining. Since Michelle Obama has a garden, that means talking politics in the gardening forum must also be allowed.
A reminder is not an imperative. I am more than happy for those who can't follow the rules on keeping the forum oriented towards science have their run-in with mods and deletion of their posts. The reminder was for those who know that and might not want to go that route but have been caught up in the heat of the discussion.
The idea that a presenter can speak on two different subjects making off-topic posts somehow on-topic is entertaining. Since Michelle Obama has a garden, that means talking politics in the gardening forum must also be allowed.
I dont agree with that comparison. Michelle isnt an expert at gardening. Just having something doesnt make you an expert at it.
Neil is an expert and gives continued lectures, presentations, and is properly educated for the topic. He speaks regularly with Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins, and many numerous others.
Similar to how I'm an expert at particle physics, have a PhD in my field, and am employed reviewing other theorists and experimentalists papers for accuracy and publishing. So if someone asks me about chemistry, and I can relate something to quantum electrodynamic, it's a suitable reference. I dont claim to be an expert in gardening, nor does Michelle. :-) (Although, it is quite a simple topic, anyone can do it!)
Either way, we here in the Space forum are generally always on topic and polite. There isnt much of a need (if any) for moderation here. It's quite nice just as it is. :-)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
