Comedy Central Offers Creationists Weekly Time Slot to Present “Scientific Facts”

creationism-dinosaurPerhaps many of you have heard about the recent controversy over the fact that Neil deGrasse Tyson refuses to allow creationists to present their extremely sound, and not at all ridiculous, system of beliefs on his recent reboot of the science show Cosmos.   You know, “facts” such as how the Earth is 6,000 years old, a guy named Noah built a giant ark that housed millions of animals and the earth was created in 6, 24 hour days.

Some creationists have even demanded that Cosmos grant airtime to creationists so that they can present their scientific evidence.  And by scientific evidence they mean repeating the line, “Well, there’s this book you can buy at Walmart that says…”

Well, it seems one network has heard their calls for fairness and has responded.

Comedy Central is set to offer creationists their own weekly, one-hour feature on the network, called Creationism: No, Seriously, Millions of People Actually Believe This Crap. 

A spokesman for Comedy Central sent out the following press release:

After hearing the extremely compelling, and not at all ridiculous, beliefs by creationists from Answers in Genesis, we’ve decided to offer what we think is the proper platform for these extremely sane and logical individuals to present their scientific evidence.

And by scientific evidence we mean comedy in the form of delusions and probable mental instability.

While the scientific snobs over at Cosmos might not be willing to take these people seriously, we’re willing to take it a step further by giving them one hour per week to provide our audience with pure comedic gold.

We expect such creationist hits as:

  • Were you there when the universe was formed?  So then you don’t really know.
  • Yes, we really believe humans and dinosaurs co-existed.
  • It’s perfectly logical that a 500-year-old man built an ark that housed millions of animals without any apparent waste management system.
  • Of course we have proof!  It’s called the Bible.
  • It’s perfectly acceptable for two daughters to get their father drunk, then have “relations” with him  in hopes that the act will result in them becoming pregnant.

Just to name a few of the hits that we’re hoping the good folks at Answers in Genesis will provide for our audience.  We just felt that after looking over what these people believe, and why, Comedy Central was the right place for them to present their arguments.

As of now we have not yet heard a response from Answers in Genesis about our offer.


I guess only time will tell if the fine folks who apparently believe our ancestors used the tyrannosaurus rex as means of transportation  – and while God made the world in 144 hours he couldn’t provide Noah with an ark – will accept Comedy Central’s offer.

*This is a satirical piece written by Allen Clifton for Forward Progressives.

Image by Francesco Reginato/The Image Bank/Getty Images

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Jim Bean

    I think they should be fair and give equal time to evolutionists to explain why all the measurable evolution in plants and animals (except humans) in the last half million years has been deliberately engineered by man and present their evidence that proves the evolution in man himself is pure random coincidence.

    • Stephen Polasky

      Sigh. Just watch Cosmos and learn something, okay?

    • PRIME79

      Still waiting on ANYTHING from the religious to be proven to be true.

      • Jim Bean

        Still waiting to see something proven false.

      • Darth Robo

        Exactly. You can’t prove the mighty Zeus wrong. That’s why creationism isn’t science. Evidence doesn’t matter.

      • Greg Easton

        Hail Zeus. Yahweh was, at best a lesser deity who just happened to hang around Israel.

      • Pipercat

        Whoops, burden of proof fallacy. Look up Hitchen’s Razor.

      • OK, let’s look at things proven false in the Bible.

        1. Snow and Hail. According to the book of Job, these come from storehouses in the sky, above the firmament that keeps the waters above out. The waters that flooded the Earth at the time of Noah.

        2. The firmament itself, which according to the more detailed account of the tower of Babel in the books of Baruch, is at a distance half the height of the Empire State Building.

        3. The waters above, for that matter.

        4. Stars are not little lamps affixed to the firmament, despite what the Bible says in numerous places.

        The story of Noah requires belief in all of the above. All the Abrahamite religions in their fundamental form rely on the Noah story being an accurate historical account. As Martin Luther put it:

        “Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters…
        It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night… We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding.”
        – Martin Luther, Luther’s Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis, ed. Janoslaw Pelikan, Concordia Pub. House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1958, pp. 30, 42, 43.

      • Darth Robo

        Yet creationism has one saving grace. God can do anything so any time something is shown to be historically inaccurate or in violation of physics or whatever, the power of God doesn’t have to worry about that. Which keeps creo’s happy, but undercuts their claim that creationism is scientific. Because to be scientific something has to be falsifiable. If it doesn’t have that potential then it’s not scientific. Using Godmagic to rescue any and all problems prevents any of their claims from being falsifiable.

      • Roy Jones

        Jim, you need to learn about scientific method. One of the principal demands of all scientific truth-claims is that they be falsifiable.

      • Kthulhu

        YOU BELIEVE IN MAGIC! How the hell am I suppose to take anything you say seriously, Jimmy.

      • Jim Bean

        No, I believe in reality. I’m agnostic. I don’t know whether God exists or not. Neither do you and that’s only one of a multitude of things neither of us know.

      • anon1157

        How about werewolves?

      • Darth Robo

        Jim, it doesn’t matter if you’re an agnostic. The reason science is agnostic towards deities is because so far no-one can make the concept pass the scientific method. What science is NOT “agnostic” on is evolution. And that includes human evolution.

        Theological claims are simply not relevant to science. So it doesn’t have to worry about them. At all.

      • Jim Bean

        First of all, I don’t see how any halfway intelligent and educated person can dispute that evolution occurs, but that’s another subject. The issue I have indirectly been poking around at is intelligent design. You and I both agree evolution occurs. I think we both agree that evolutionary trends in plants and animals can be radically and predictably manipulated via human intervention. I think we both agree that scientific method requires an accounting of all the variables before any scientific conclusion can be drawn, and there’s the rub. There are an estimated 3 or 4 trillion planets in our immediate environment (galaxy) alone with unlimited potential to be influencing things on earth. That’s one of many variables that modern science cannot calculate when assessing human evolution. And when science elects to dismiss a variable because they are unable to calculate it, the resulting conclusion is not scientific, its speculative.
        When you consider the way we’ve radically influenced evolution in domestic plants and animals, and when you consider the radical and rapid evolutionary changes of humanoids, and when you consider the comparatively non-radical slow pace of evolutionary changes in everything else, the notion of some sort of intelligent manipulation of human evolution has more evidentiary support that the notion that it does not. Ben Franklin knew a little bit about electricity but he knew nothing about the internet. He couldn’t see it. But it was out there.

      • Darth Robo

        Okay, so you’ve finally stated your position – you’re a UFO fanatic. Unfortunately your evidence that any other life form (other than humans) have been interfering with the evolution of life on this planet is… well, utterly non-existent.

        Do you know the grand total of SCIENTIFIC evidence for the existence of deities? ZERO.

        Do you know the grand total of SCIENTIFIC evidence for the existence of life on other planets? ZERO.

        That’s not to say they definitely do not exist. It’s just you have zero evidence and zero mechanisms. Not to mention that in the case of alien life there are DRASTIC physical barriers to overcome. Obviously you have no idea how big space IS.

        And then you run into another problem when invoking “Intelligent Design”. From where did your designer originate?

        Either it didn’t NEED to be designed, in which case we did not either. Or it did, in which case you run into an infinite regression of an infinite amount of designers. Which is kinda problematic in a finite universe which has only existed for 13.71 billion years.

        Sure, it’s POSSIBLE that some intelligent life somehow made life on Earth, or affected its evolution. But so far there’s ZERO evidence. You’re gonna have to do MUCH better than just pointing out that there’s a lot of planets in existence.

      • Jim Bean

        No. I don’t.

      • Darth Robo

        You do if you want to be taken seriously. But since you can’t provide the evidence that I asked for you do now at least understand why you are not taken seriously.

        It’s not because of some massive world-wide science conspiracy that’s hiding all the evidence of alien intervention – the President can’t even keep it secret when someone else undoes his zipper. It’s simply that you can’t back up your claims. If only those darn aliens would stop using advanced cloaking devices, eh?

    • Joshua Carter

      I just farted. I was going to respond, but my fart took first chair.

      • Jim Bean

        Either one would have been of equal value.

    • Darth Robo

      Evolution doesn’t claim pure random coincidence so why should they present evidence that creationists demand when they’re too clueless about the subject to be able to criticize it in the first place? Evolution has already had scientific support for decades but creo’s claim it’s all part of the big anti-God satanic science conspiracy. But since science obviously works they should stop using their computers. Among many many many other things.

      • LanceSmith

        It’s the classic approach of the ideologue: mis-state the position of the adversary, and then demand an answer to this mis-stated position.

        I would be fine if these creationists could actually carry on an intelligent, reasoned debate…but when their only answer is “this book tells me so…” then I don’t have much for them. Ok….so dig up an old, religious text from any number of any other religions (all of which were likewise supposedly written by God), and use that.

        That is the beauty of science: in the ideal, we don’t allow dogma cloud judgement. If someone disproves evolution USING SCIENCE tomorrow, that person would have a ticket to Stockholm.

        The sad thing is, the deluded creationists are really simply displaying the weakness of their religion and potentially their spirituality. Strong religious people that are also (real) scientists don’t need science to conform to their faith. Having faith in God absolutely does not preclude one from being a good scientist. Just look at the Catholic Church: they have LONG accepted evolution. This revival-creationism is just a last gasp…I hope.

      • Pipercat

        Jim loves straw men!

    • Phil Toole

      “Deliberately engineered”? HAHAHAHAHAHA. That’s ripe. The entirety of religion itself was deliberately engineered.

      • Jim Bean

        You think Dachshunds and Black Angus’ just naturally evolved in to what they are?

      • Darth Robo

        You think natural selection and artificial selection are the same?

      • Jim Bean

        My comment would seem to suggest I don’t, does it not? And your comment seems to suggest that you agree with my point that all measureable evolutionary changes (except in humans, mysteriously) were NOT the result of natural selection. Does it not?

      • LanceSmith

        Why aren’t they the same “thing”? That is if by thing they are the same mechanism. Absolutely they are. Natural selection and artificial selection are both selection, and they can both drive evolution. Nothing wrong with that and it certainly does nothing to disprove evolution (actually, just the opposite).

      • Darth Robo

        It’s correct that dog breeding for example does nothing to disprove evolution. There is however one important distinction between the two. Artificial selection is about limiting genetic variation in order to produce particularly desired traits. Natural selection thrives on variability.

      • Jim Bean

        “Particularly desired traits?” You mean like thumbs and big brains?

      • LanceSmith

        We don’t really use the distinction you are trying to make when we discuss evolution. True, we talk about natural vs. artificial selection, however they are both functionally the same vis-a-vie evolution. One of the first examples we learn about way back in undergrad is the moths in London (if I remember correctly) that went from white to black due to greater soot in the air.

        As for your argument about natural selection thriving on variability (implying that artificial does not), I come back to dogs. The plethora of dogs came from a handful types of wolves. Artificial or natural selection exist in concert and they are both wholly and completely consistent with the theory of evolution. While mutations are random, selection – whether natural or artificial – is not random.

        My point with Jim is that by trying to draw this distinction he is undercutting his own argument…. Artificial selection DOES NOT preclude or disprove evolution. Just the opposite.

      • Darth Robo

        You’re right, neither natural nor artificial selection are random. But the plethora of dogs come by RESTRICTING variation. From an evolutionary standpoint this is not a great survival technique, and may lead domesticated dogs down an evolutionary dead end. But yes, artificial selection doesn’t undercut evolution in any way.

      • LanceSmith

        How would the plethora of dogs come by restricting variation??? That doesn’t make sense. We went from one (or a handful) of wolves and turned in to an amazing diversity of dogs. That is anything but restricting variation. In fact, just the opposite. (Poor) example: people wanted dogs that they can fit in their hand bag and low and behold, a chiwawa was bred. The idea that this came from a wolf-like canine is amazing.

        Look, I am a biologist….this is what I do for a living. You’re going to either have to provide a lot more data to support that statement, or at least some better definitions of why you mean by variability.

        Now it could be that you are taking a political bent. I realize there is a political belief that humans are and will always be a bad influence, but you should understand that is politics and has no place in science.

      • Pipercat

        Damned inconvenient being told how to conduct your business!

      • LanceSmith

        Hahaha…Oh, I’m fine being told how to conduct my business….by folks in the know and who can provide me with insights. It is entirely possible that he/she is defining “variation” in an unusual way.

        For example, he/she may see the chiwawa as a specialization, however he/she should keep in mind that a chiwawa can mate with a rottweiler (now that would be something to see).

        The dog is extremely varied vs. the wolf. Why? Because we made the dog that way. We wanted dogs that could do all sorts of things (all while not ripping our hands off).

      • Pipercat

        No, no.. look at the irony! Personally, I hate chihuahuas…

      • LanceSmith

        Oh me too…no doubt… 🙂

        (I can’t even spell chihuahua right!)

      • Pipercat

        Too funny!!

      • Darth Robo

        Their outward visual characteristics may be more variable in dogs, but their genetics aren’t as varied. Apes (of which humans are a part of) have more variation as a whole than just humans or just chimps. Canines (of which dogs are a part of) have more variation as a whole than just dogs. If you look at the biological classification system, if you look upwards you’re looking at a greater whole of genetic variability. As you look downwards on the scale at particular species, subspecies and breeds, etc, you’re looking at a lesser genetic variability on the whole.

      • LanceSmith

        “Canines (of which dogs are a part of) have more variation as a whole than just dogs.”

        Exactly…precisely my point. Canids have greater diversity then they would have had without the “invention” (for want of a better term) of dogs.

        Again, this is the way things work and have always worked (with or without humans). Why do we have a myriad of beetles, birds, etc? Because these populations specialize according to specific environmental stimuli, and if something isn’t deleterious – whether because of nature or the human – it won’t end up killing the individual (and removing his/her genes from circulation).

      • Darth Robo

        Of course it makes sense. Artificial selection. Eugenics. You want (for example) big dogs? You get two big dogs and have them breed. From their litter you isolate the ones that have the traits you desire. Get rid of the small ones and only use the big ones for breeding. The hypothesis being that they will carry the “big” gene and not the “small” genes you’re not interested in. Have them mate with other big dogs. Lather, rinse, repeat. Eventually that line of breeding leads to only big dogs. Every now and then the small gene pops up again, skips a generation, or a natural mutation will result in a small gene. Again that offspring is not allowed to breed with the dogs of the desired characteristics. You are REDUCING variation to get PARTICULAR and DESIRED traits. That is what artificial selection is all about. Doesn’t have to be big or small dogs, it works for any characteristic. And it works this way for every species we apply artificial selection too, whether it be cats, plants, birds or whatever.

        There is nothing political about this so I don’t understand why you would think this. I do at least understand the creationist predilection to equate scientific reality with “liberalism” because it’s their political tactic to invent a boogey-man.

        Problem with artificial selection is that because of a reduction in genetic variation it can eventually lead to health problems. For instance there’s a breed of dog which is illegal because of the way it’s been bred which leads it to have severe breathing problems all its life. Just like some big cats in Africa suffer from breeding problems due to a low population, so there’s a fair amount of incestuous breeding. They have been subject to a kind of artificial selection due to being hunted.

        Natural selection doesn’t have this problem as it has a habit of weeding out species that wind up with survival disadvantages. It’s no good breeding a blonde-haired blue eyed Aryan muscle-man when some virus comes along that just so happens to find strong blondes very tasty, as a variation in genetics gives an increased chance of survival.

      • LanceSmith

        Ah, but you are forgetting that even the most domesticated dog can mate with a wolf (e.g. Canid Hybrids).

        Remember, populations evolve….not individuals.

        So yes, certainly individual breeds can be more specialized, but as a whole the canid population is more diverse.

        And yes, this happens all the time in natural selection. A population of an organism can evolve according to a specific set of environmental stimuli, and for whatever reason, that environment can change and suddenly something can become deleterious.

        Or, random mutations likewise can cause problems that end up killing the individual offspring (weeding the gene out of circulation).

        So actually, the example you underscore – severe breathing problems – is an example of INCREASED diversity, not less. Why? Because in nature, without a human to take care of it, the individual would have died. Since the gene remains in circulation, its existence results in greater variation.

        (the political reference was me trying to understand your point)

      • Darth Robo

        Yes, the canid population is more diverse than dogs. The dog population is more diverse than chihuahuas. Precisely my point. Therefore in order to deliberately get chihuahuas we have to RESTRICT variability to achieve those particular traits. But if you count the whole of dogs, or the whole group of canids, then there is greater variety as a whole.

      • Dizcuzted

        Actually, it’s a huge evolutionary benefit to the dog as a species. The fact that ta companion animal is taking care of that dog’s needs, because of its traits, is in itself an evolutionary advantage so strong that it overcomes other disadvantages such as bad hips, etc. The same holds true for the thousands of plant species that man has been selecting, breeding, harvesting, and planting for the last few thousands of years.

      • Darth Robo

        Yes, there is that. Certainly an advantage to dogs as individuals. In fact there’s even an idea floating around that it was not man who domesticated dogs, but the other way around. But as a whole it reduces genetic diversity, and can lead to health problems in some breeds. It might not affect dogs as a whole however. But then there is the other problem, if something wipes out the humans. War, famine, disease, whatever. Then those dogs that rely on us are in trouble. Just like in cases of parallel evolution, where some flower species for example are reliant on only one particular species of bird or bees to distribute its pollen. If something bad happens to one, the other will fall with it.

        That’s the problem with evolution. It doesn’t care if it leads to extinction. In fact 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct.

      • Dizcuzted

        It’s not a problem, it’s a feature. It’s the whole driving force, actually. The point being, what we as humans are doing is selection, and is in fact just as natural as any other external selecting force (climate, electromagnetic radiation, presence or absence of chemical compounds, etc.) We are not separate from nature, we are part of it. We are, indeed a natural source of evolutionary selective pressure. Should we die, certainly many species would die out, which is how it works.

      • Darth Robo

        That is a good point. We humans are a part of nature, but have a tendency of viewing things from an ego-centric point of view. Everything we do is “natural”, in the sense that it is verifiable using our natural senses via the scientific method. While we call our ability to make skyscrapers “artificial”, we would call a bird’s nest “natural”, even though technically speaking it’s just as artificial as any of our buildings. We view eugenics now as “artificial”, but looking back millions of years later there’s no reason why any civilisation at the time would not regard that also as “natural selection”, is it is what the natural human species were doing naturally at the time. So if our eugenics happened to wipe out a current species it would be looked at as natural selection just as a lion hunting its primary prey into extinction if that were to happen too.

      • Jim Bean

        No, it does not disprove evolution. What it DOES prove is that the most dramatic instances of ‘evolution’ are the result of outside intervention rather than naturally occurring mutations.

      • LanceSmith

        How do you figure – it doesn’t “prove” anything of the sort. You would need to present a huge amount of rate and genetic data….you have shown neither.

        Life over billions of years came from nothing to what we see today. After all, the eye, brain, etc…etc…etc… all evolved prior. Those are pretty BIG things.

        Again, you are making a distinction where none exists. ALL selection is “outside intervention”…whether human or not.

        If anything, because geologically we are in an amazingly calm period of time, I would hypothesize that we have probably “witnessed” less evolution then in eons past. Remember there are 5 major extinction events. These lead to explosions in evolution.

      • Pipercat

        No Jimbo, all it proves is artificial intervention.

      • surfjac

        Artificial selection acts on a population not a species. You can breed characteristics into a population artificially. Natural Selection occurs due to changes in the DNA sequence of a gene resulting in subtle changes that are or are not selected depending on the environment and the species ability to survive while carrying the modified gene.

        Moths in England before the Industrial Revolution where mostly white. The environment was full of white trees and so the moths were “camouflaged”. That’s not to say there were no black moths; there were. However, when the new factories started spewing soot, turning the trees black, the white moths were no longer safe from predators. As a result, the recessive gene that gave the moths a dark color was now the dominant gene as numbers of white moths dwindled. No mutations involved merely the expression of a phenotype being selected for artificially. That’s the difference and there is a difference. You are referring to husbandry or common sense breeding methods that will allow for faster growers, or certain colors, or the expression of some trait favorable to exploitation of the species.

      • Jim Bean

        Which selection process caused the primate species, with the exception of the human population, to remain comparatively static in past half million years?

      • surfjac

        500,000 years in evolutionary terms is nothing.
        Modern man could breed successfully with prehistoric man; we are of the same genotype.
        Why haven’t sharks evolved? The answer is, why do they need to? They are a successful apex species and are under no environmental pressure to change.
        The answer to your question lies in a species ability to adapt to its environment. If there is no pressure to change, there usually will be no major change. Of course a significant change in the environment, i.e., soot, CO2, temperature, would be considered pressure on the species to adapt and the mutations in the individual’s genome will aid or retard the individual’s ability to adapt. If a certain individual survives the changing environment, it breeds passing along the genes for survival (If that explanation was any more simplistic, I could’ve done it with animal noises.) Mutations aren’t always successful and they might not even be passed on to future generations or they are recessive and stay hidden for a generation or two or more. It is a dance between the species, the environment and the environment’s effect on the species’ genotype and how all this plays into survival.

      • Phil Toole

        I think Darth answered your inquiry pretty well.

      • Jim Bean

        Darth offered a principle that makes it all the tougher to attribute the rapid changes in humans to evolution as it occurs in every one of millions of other instances.

      • Darth Robo

        I don’t agree with you, no. Humans are subject to evolution just as other organisms are. We’re all born with around 125 to 175 mutations on average. These changes accumulate with each generation. The inevitable consequence is evolution.

      • ldoone

        Jim Bean, do you think dachshunds and black angus have been around for the last half-million years? Seriously? For that matter, can you name one plant or animal that we have evidence of Man engineering half a million years ago?

      • Jim Bean

        Neither of us knows what your talking about. Let me put you back on track. We know that the dachshunds and black angus (and virtually all domesticated plants and animals) evolved into their current form as the result of human intervention (selective breeding). We know where humans didn’t intervene, opossums, turtles, etc, that we know have been around for the last half million years, no measureable evolution occurred in the same time frame. That leaves humans as the only unaccounted for instance of measurable evolution. Liberals will agree that all instances of measureable evolution required outside intervention except the most spectacular evolution of all – humans. See? They’re not making any sense.

      • topoopon

        Liberals?! How about scientists? Science is devoid of politics. Science is built on measurable facts, gathered by numerous scientists over many generations of scientific method. Testing, retesting, control, etc.

      • Tom Payne

        Are you kidding? You THINK there’s no evidence of evolution outside the human race and influence? Ever heard of pinnipeds, caniformias or echipus? No…I imagine not. You belong on Comedy Central with willful ignorance like that.

      • Drew-Jordan Maharaj

        after reading more of this than I would like to admit, its clear that the difficulty is that some individuals posting believe that there has been no evolution in the past 500 000 years except for artificial selection by humans, and refuses to listen to explanations and examples of why that’s simply false. The logic is clear, if human exerted pressures can lead to speciation then of course environmental pressures can too.

      • Darth Robo

        Jim, as I already pointed out you’re pontificating on a subject you’ve had zero education in. First, science doesn’t care who you vote for. So liberals or conservatives, that’s all irrelevant. Second, your idea of “measurable” evolution is faulty. For instance if we look at human mutation rates this puts us with shared common ancestry with chimps approximately 6-8 million years ago. This is consistent with what’s observed in the fossil record. This IS measurable. We have just over 3 billion bases in our genome so now you have the numbers you can even crunch them yourself if you like.

        Yes, you can go back half a million years and not see much of a difference in fossils (though you will see some). But go back further and you will see a greater difference. And again the further back you go. Perhaps not to your eyes because you’re not an expert at comparative anatomy. But it is there. The mechanisms of DNA replication are known to biologists, which is why DNA is a measure of how closely related organisms are. This is why some creationists find Young Earthism so attractive, as that would prevent humans being related to chimps for example. But since you’ve mentioned millions of years you don’t even have that. Meaning any barrier you put in place of common ancestry is arbitrary.

        The simple fact of the matter is that there IS no debate over the validity of evolution in the scientific community. The only “debate” is political, and it was invented for political reasons. Primarily by creationists. Anyone who claims otherwise is either lying or simply isn’t informed on the subject. But scientists aren’t worried about evolutionary biology collapsing any time soon.

      • Jim Bean

        I don’t want to go back further. I want you to, using your settled science, define for me exactly why humans mutated so rapidly while none of the thousands of other animals species did during that same time frame. There’s got to be a reason and I want you to show me the proof that you’ve isolated it. I don’t want you to offer theories or possibilities. This is science, you’ve got home field advantage, give me the undisputable proof. Don’t ask me to take anything on faith.

      • Darth Robo

        Who said humans mutated more rapidly than other species? That’s your assumption and your claim to back up. I on the other hand gave you the general mutation rates and pointed out how they converge with chimps roughly 7 million years ago. Their ancestry is not in dispute, and I can provide further evidence if you wish. Who says other species haven’t evolved? Saber-tooth cats for example were in existence merely 10 to 11,000 years ago. Birds also demonstrate evolution over the past few million years.

        And then there are other factors to consider. All species do not necessarily have the same mutation rate. Different species have been put under different environmental stresses, causing some branches to have been wiped out in some cases (saber-tooth cats, mammoths) so their relative lineages APPEAR to the untrained eye to have had a “higher rate” of evolution.

        Or perhaps you’re referring to the existence of ‘living fossils’, such as coelecanth, shrimp, or even sharks? As their body plans have changed little in many many millions of years. Despite this however experts in comparative anatomy can still point out the differences to show them to be different species. Megaladon is very similar to our modern great whites, albeit whites now being much smaller. But if their environment doesn’t change much there is little impetus for drastic changes to occur. However changes do occur anyway due to natural genetic drift.

        I’m not asking you to take anything on faith. The fact is Jim is that your assumptions in regards to evolution show you don’t know all that much about it. Therefore in order for you to reject evolution, faith is exactly what you need. And apparently what you have.

      • Darth Robo

        Just checking Jim, with this thing you have about humans in particular being the “most spectacular” examples of evolution, you’re not one of those UFO conspiracy theorists who think aliens have come down to interfere with our development are you?

      • ldoone

        Before you go pontificating at least learn the difference between you’re and your. Your reply does a better job of making the point you were apparently trying to make in your first comment. You’re the one who said that ALL of the measurable evolution in the last half million years was deliberately engineered by man, implying that humans have been intervening in evolution for 500,000 years. So what you’re actually saying is that NO measurable evolution has occurred in the last half million years, other than man or what has been engineered by man. There’s a difference. However, even if that statement were accurate, what would it prove? If humanity went through a period of rapid evolution from the time we began to walk upright (requiring changes to our brains) and from that process we learned to domesticate animals and breed for specific characteristics, speeding up the evolutionary process for some species, that does not prove that other species haven’t continued to evolve at a pace that takes more than half a million years to be measurable. In a multi-million-year process, you can’t assume a steady pace of evolutionary changes among and across all species. And your claim that “Liberals will agree” to your last sentence is just absurd. I’m a liberal. I disagree. Theory disproven. At any rate, if you’re talking about evolution and millions of years, you’re not one of the creationists demanding “equal time” with Cosmos. The idea of a 6500-year-old Earth that was created in 6 days as an “alternate theory” is insulting, and it is comedy. It’s not the “evolutionists” who are demanding equal time to disprove the existence of an external “divine will” behind the evolution of man. Until you can find a way to apply the scientific method to determine the veracity of religious beliefs, the Creator theories stay in the realm of religion. I don’t think scientists have been requesting equal time in churches.

      • surfjac

        Actually, yes I do. However, along the way previous generations with similar genotypes were bred to produce the phenotypes you are familiar with.

      • disqus_mmZU8TPsvi

        No, but none of the species we have bred was done a half a million years ago. At best selection for wolves (the 1st domesticated animal) was at best 50K ago according to the evidence we have. It wasn’t until we started practicing agriculture around 12-14K ago that we started selecting other forms of life to be bred for what we wanted.
        And that selection (check out the experiments that Gregor Mendel did) help prove evolution, that traits can be selected and passed down through the offspring.
        Even granting that we don’t have a precise time, it most certainly wasn’t a half million years ago. We have found no evidence of dachshunds or black angus that far back.
        And we have measurably evolution that was not done by man, not just man, but many other species. In fact we watch now and see how various life evolves w/o any help or interference from man. One only has to look at how flu vaccinations have to be changed every year because new strains keep popping up faster than we can adapt new flu vaccinations. The same is true of other species.
        Skip Moreland

      • Jim Bean

        At no point have I been questioning evolution. I’ve been trying to illustrate that we have evidence indicating it occurs naturally. And, we have proof it can be manipulated by man. The combined evidence shows that all instances of comparatively rapid and radical evolutionary changes are limited to the ones manipulated by man. Well, all but one.

      • disqus_mmZU8TPsvi

        I don’t see man evolving any faster than any other long lived species. Short lived species tend to evolve very rapidly w/o any manipulation by man. Our species has been estimated to have been here about 200K, not that there have been no changes, but for the most part slight.
        Now some species, once they are adapted to a particular environment don’t evolve much at all. If the environment doesn’t change, then the need to adapt which drives evolution doesn’t happen. Any mutation would need to adapt to the environment better or it will not survive.
        Skip Moreland

      • Jim Bean

        So one day 200k years ago, POOF! Suddenly there appeared humans not much different than us?

      • disqus_mmZU8TPsvi

        No, it means that is when we have the evidence that one hominoid became another and there was a new species. Evolution is a slow process, nothing just suddenly becomes a new species, it is a bit by bit process, the jaw shrinks down, the legs lengthen, become less bow legged, the brain enlarges, etc.
        Fossils are rare, the process to fossilize anything is difficult. So many stages of evolution are never found.
        Which is why your comment about how fast man evolves was nonsense. It took 8 million yrs for us to reach what we are now. The human race is still evolving and always will unless there is no need to adapt anymore.
        We are a very adaptable race in the first place which is why any evolution has been minor among us. Some of us evolved to live in the tropics, while others evolved to live in northern climes. But we are all the same species no matter where we live.
        Life has changed greatly for the human race in the past few hundred years and we are evolving to that new life. Since we are adaptable, the need to evolve drastically hasn’t been necessary for our survival. Plus we have the ability to alter our environment to suit our needs.
        But we didn’t suddenly become anything, it took a long time to reach being what we term human.
        Skip Moreland

      • Sean Bradley

        If you truly believe that one species can evolve into another you need to have your head examined.

      • disqus_mmZU8TPsvi

        Join Jim, obviously you don’t accept science. Because that is precisely what evolution does through time. It is not a belief, it is using facts to come up with an answer that fits all the facts. If evolution didn’t work, then we wouldn’t have so many species of life on this planet. Because there has to be some mechanism that populated the earth, unless you believe that some all powerful being just snapped his fingers and created all of them. Which I find more preposterous than any other explanation. Especially since there is no evidence of that happening and far more evidence for evolution.
        Skip Moreland

      • Darth Robo

        Sean, I’ve already presented the evidence which unequivocally demonstrated that humans and chimps share common ancestry around 6-8 million years ago. If you can provide evidence that something else happened then by all means do so. If not, you need to examine some science books.

      • Jim Bean

        Look again. Point out the changes in opossum in the last 200k for me, (Or use the non-human creature of your choosing.

      • disqus_mmZU8TPsvi

        As I pointed out before, life evolves to adapt to their environment. If they are adapted so well that any changes would be counter-productive. However if they are not suitable for the environment they will evolve or die. Opossums needed to adapt or as a species they would have died out.
        Now are you saying that man is responsible for the opossum’s evolving? A wild animal with little contact with man? Because that would be absurd, man has had nothing to do with an opossum evolving at all. We have never domesticated opossums at all.
        You are really flailing about to try to prove whatever the point is that you hold. Yes, man has been responsible for domesticated animals through artificial selection. No, man is not responsible at all for the natural selection of animals that are wild. They evolved on their own. That is the difference between natural and artificial selection. One w/o man, the other with. And never the tween shall meet.
        Skip Moreland

      • Darth Robo

        Jimbo, humans partaking in eugenics or genetic engineering does not preclude the fact that humans, or the rest of life evolved from prior ancestors.

        Naturally too.

        There is no evidence of any other outside intervention of deities, alien life, or any Earth-bound species.

      • Jim Bean

        There is also no evidence that there isn’t anything left that we haven’t already discovered.

      • TomMoe

        You know that how??

    • LanceSmith

      That’s in episode two of Cosmos where Tyson specifically discusses natural selection vs. artificial selection as evidenced by dogs (e.g. humans engineered dogs over time).

      The thing about evolution that the deluded creationists don’t seem to get is that while mutation IS random, natural selection is anything but random. In this case, whether it is nature or man doing the selecting, the mechanism is identical.

      As for “measurable evolution”, I’m not even sure what that means. Populations are always evolving. As for “half million years”, compared to BILLIONS of years, that’s a blink of an eye. That too is what the deluded creations don’t understand: we are talking almost unimaginable time scales.

      There is absolutely zero logic to creationism. Arguing against evolution using an ancient book is akin to arguing against the theory of gravity. The bible was never meant to be a science text book.

      Putting it in scientific terms: anytime you let dogma – any dogma – drive what you can and can not accept, you cease to be a scientist. The beauty and power of science is the fact that tomorrow someone could discover something that rewrites the theories of evolution or gravity….and on top of that, instead of burning that person at the stake, we would give them a Nobel Prize.

      • Joe Bloggs

        > The thing about evolution that the deluded creationists don’t seem to get is that while mutation IS random, natural selection is anything but random. In this case, whether it is nature or man doing the selecting, the mechanism is identical.

        Exactly. Genetic mutation is to natural selection what shuffling a deck of cards and drawing 10 is to taking the highest 3 cards from your hand and discarding the rest.

    • Mr. Black

      Evolution is not random coincidence. That right there tells me you don’t even know how evolution works. Why should the experts cater to someone who won’t even learn the basics?

    • fizbanic

      There are more then enough channels out there that are totally and seriously dedicated to their teachings. I don’t see why people need to bug the folks at Cosmos and whine to them about air time.

    • 2Smart2bGOP

      You obviously didn’t watch the show; that was explained in the last installment.

      • Jim Bean

        You are correct, actually. I’m not in the habit of getting my scientific information from comedic sources. How did you know?

      • 2Smart2bGOP

        Your “intellect” indicates a stronger leaning towards fairy tales, actually. I wouldn’t expect you to understand the show; children, or the weak minded, do become bored rather easily.

    • Ted Govostis

      Since your statement is not true, there is no need to explain it.

      • Jim Bean

        I don’t know which statement you are referring to.

      • Ted Govostis

        “all the measurable evolution in plants and animals (except humans) in the last half million years has been deliberately engineered by man” and ” the evolution in man himself is pure random coincidence”

        No biologist would agree that either of those premises are true, so why would they present evidence within that framework? The fact that you think either of those are positions that people who support evolution would take indicates how little you know about the topic.

      • Darth Robo

        Forget it. Jim has already admitted to being a UFO fan.

    • Billy Howell

      That portion of evolution was discussed on the show. Instead of natural selection, it is called artificial selection. Cosmos doesn’t deny that some of that has been done. It just doesn’t falsely state that all evolutionary changes came from man.

    • Sheila Rowbotham-Coon

      Man may engineer things but he can’t make anything. He has to use things that already are to make what he wants.

  • Hersh

    Years ago I did a musical entitled “Two by Two”, the story of Noah. I played Noah. It was my most favorite play to ever be in. In that version, Noah was just too old to do all that work so God zapped him back down to 90. Everyone was happy because this was no trick for a 90 year old. The only problem was that he suddenly had a preoccupation about sex and his wife, Esther, was still around that 600 year mark. Noah sang a song entitled “I feel like I’m 90 Again.” It was hilarious and we did it in Western Oklahoma community theater. It met a little criticism also.

    • Duncan

      “I feel like I’m 90 Again.” Lol!!

    • JNWesner

      Oh, my! Where in Western Oklahoma? I lived in Clinton (grades 9-10) and Elk City (11-12) before going to college in wild, liberal — Oklahoma City. This was not long after the flood.

    • Rich_Olszewski

      A little criticism? In Oklahoma? Be thankful you weren’t lynched.

  • AngryAndConsiderate

    There’s nothing wrong with believing any of this. It’s when you try to convey it as fact and argue by saying, “The bible says…”. That’s when it becomes a problem. Seriously though, people that bash these guys like this are raging assholes. Yeah, it makes me cringe when they try to argue to ATHEISTS about how they are wrong by using the BIBLE (of all things) as “proof” of this or that…it makes no sense, atheists don’t believe in god and they definitely don’t believe in the bible…so how the crap do they think they are going to prove anything to one of them by quoting a book that they dont’ believe?

    And quite frankly, it’s embarrassing to me because I share a lot of these beliefs but in a very VERY different and more open minded way. IE: Is the earth 6,000 years old? -shrugs- maybe, but it’s unlikely I think. Is it over 4.7 billion years old? -shrugs- maybe, but while I actually lean more towards the almost 5 billions years old age, I do have to question what we “know”. Facts are facts only because they add up and fit in with other pieces of the puzzle. It’s entirely possible that one day we will discover something that throws everything out of whack and makes us have to question what we thought we knew. I actually don’t like Bill Nye or Neil for the very reason that they are stubborn. I guess I can’t blame them when people start trying to prove this or that with “facts” from a book that neither bill or Neil believe in anyway. But still, they come off as assholes to me….just like the person that wrote this article and just like the people that are producing this show.

    I think that if we stopped being assholes to these people, things would get better. All we do is attack them back and it only makes things worse. What should be done, instead, is to tell them that while we respect their beliefs, we do not share them, and that we follow scientific evidence wherever it takes us. And we try to not be biased and examine all the facts as we know them. But that doesn’t’ mean we are right, it just means what we study makes sense to us. The pieces of the puzzle fall together and everything works. It’s why scientist don’t believe in creationism, or god, or anything like that. Because it simply doesn’t make sense when you try to fit it into what we think we know. I say what we think we know, because we are still very young and, while we’ve learned a lot, we still know very little. So it is entirely possible that a monkey wrench is thrown into everything we thought we knew one day, but it’s equally possible that something like that never happens, and scientist are just flat out right. Just keep an open mind and try not to be an asshole about it.

    • Pipercat

      When you turn the other cheek with these guys, they kick it!

    • Darth Robo

      You misunderstand. Creationists don’t CARE about education, period. And they have in fact fought against it tooth and nail for CENTURIES. That includes the past 150 years. And especially in the US, where they have no problem in violating the Constitution and misrepresenting the scientific method. They have attacked public school education for DECADES, but apparently anyone who defends education is just “mean”.

      Science is okay with the potential for new evidence to come along that forces us to modify our theories to take new evidence into account, or in rare cases throw out theories entirely. That is what separates science from religious dogma. If you feel that telling someone the Earth is not flat makes them an “ah*le” then that’s your prerogative. But the simple fact is that anyone who believes the Earth is flat is wrong, period. Just as creationists are wrong, period. As Comedy Central has offered, they are more than welcome to present their side of the story. They are more than welcome to demonstrate how creationism passes the scientific method and does a better job of explaining biodiversity than evolution. In fact they’ve had a few thousand years head start.

      There’s a reason why science overtook them in just a few centuries.

      • Bryan

        The fact is, nobody can “prove” anything about the creation of the earth or the universe. This will be a never ending argument.

      • Jeo143

        Bryan, in that sense, no one can prove anything. You can’t even prove that you’re sitting in front of a computer now.

        But, science has a lot of evidence on it’s side, while religion has none. So just like I’m going to assume that I exist, I’m going to assume that an overwhelming amount of evidence is close enough to proof to stand behind that theory rather than the creationist theory.

      • TomMoe

        If you can presume that you exist why can’t others presume that God exists? Do we need your permission?

      • Brian

        Insomuch as we accept the reality we exist in, we CAN prove that each of exists via testing and verification using our five senses in addition to a variety of other scientific instruments.

        No such testing can be done to prove the existence of a supernatural super being.

      • TomMoe

        So long as we accept the reality we exist in, is kind of a big step. If, “I think therefore I am” is evidence then, “It impacts me, therefore it is.”
        On the other hand, what difference does it make? For example, ask the person who is resolving grief while talking to his dad along side his dad’s grave. Does it matter if there is anyone hearing?

      • Brian

        Well, we don’t have much other choice than to accept the reality we experience. It is possible that all of this is just a holographic image being projected from some other source so we aren’t really “real.” But since this is the arena we experience, any other “nature of the Universe” is hypothetical and, at present, unprovable just as “god” is.

        As for “what difference does it make,” it only does when religious zealots attempt to turn their unsubstantiated beliefs, hopes, and fears into actual legislation that impacts everyone else. In other words, you’re free to believe anything you’d like in the privacy of your own home, but you don’t have the right to force others to believe as you do nor live according to your beliefs. Thus is the entire point of the First Amendment. You can think it and believe it and even act out according to those beliefs within certain parameters without a challenge from “government” and “Government” (i.e. laws, regulations) has no right to impose any religious belief nor behavior on others.

        So if someone thinks that talking to invisible people in the sky helps them in some way, yippee for them. We all appreciate placebos as the crutches they are. But extrapolating such beliefs into ideas and policies that run counter to scientific discovery and/or the tenets of the US Constitution are out of bounds.

      • TomMoe

        yes we do. Our religious beliefs are our moral beliefs. The God who said, “thou shalt not kill” very much influences how we vote.

      • Darth Robo

        The god of the Bible also said “thou shalt kill”. All depends on how he was feeling at the time. So not a great source of morals really.

        Of course all morals are invented by people. Just like religions.

      • TomMoe

        For a person pretending to be scientific, you sure express a lot of unsubstantiated beliefs.
        Your terrible lack of understanding of the Bible amazed me. A seek and destroy journey is not an understanding.

      • Darth Robo

        What beliefs have I expressed that are unsubstantiated? What is it you think that I am attempting to seek and destroy? How is my understanding of the Bible any worse than your understanding of the Bible? How is your understanding of the Bible any better than ANYONE else’s understanding of the Bible? How does anyone’s understanding of the Bible make them understand God any better?

        Come to think of it, are you a Biblical scholar in any way? And even if you are, can you demonstrate that this deity of yours even exists?

        Until you can, your baseless religious opinions are utterly irrelevant to science. Since I am NOT offering any baseless religious opinions, I do not have to worry about contradicting science.

        Still waiting for you to demonstrate what’s wrong with biology, or what your “scientific alternative” is.

        Just like with many other forums, I’ll STILL be waiting YEARS later.

      • Brian

        Uh, no, not entirely. Values are one thing. Claiming that you KNOW that a supernatural “god” exists is quite another.

        If someone claims that they KNOW that a supernatural God exists, they then justify overlaying their own man-made rules claiming that “God” demands that these rules be followed, then that zealot justifies his/her behavior (i.e. votes) by claiming that “God” demands such. And all follows from the erroneous assumption that a god does indeed exist without question.

        Because if there is ANY doubt about the existence of a god, that calls into question all of those man-made rules that zealots claim come from god. And if those rules are questioned, then we can justify questioning “morality” and “ethics.” At least that’s the zealot “logic.”

        Of course modern Conservatives live Hypocrisy and not their true faith in that they hate gays and fight against abortion…but they simultaneously applaud unfettered Capitalism (which creates poverty) and war (which obviously is not something any religious deity condones).

      • TomMoe

        I know many, many Christians and none are as you describe. If it could be determined that God did not exist it would not change our values because Biblical values remain the most moral available. Of course, if one is on a seek and destroy mission as you continually are, even these values can be twisted to look bad. I am referring to Biblical values.

      • Brian

        Ahhh, Biblical values.

        Like this one that inspired Cain to murder Abel?

        “And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering: but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect.”

        Or this one, tale of mass genocide:

        “And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered…. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth.”

        Or this oldie but goody where Abraham moves to murder his own son with a blade:

        “And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of…. And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.”

        This is a long-time favorite, when God murders infants:

        “And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.”

        Should I keep going? I’m sure there are lots more “Biblical Values” to discuss.

      • TomMoe

        There is a serious flaw to everything you write. You are in seek and destroy mode which makes you way too subjective to be scientific. With an ounce of objectivity you will note that nothing God said caused the murder. That is like saying, “Mom liked my brother’s report card better than mine so she made me murder him.”
        With an ounce of objectivity you would note that the flood account was the best the writer could determine what happened. With an ounce of objectivity you would note that everyone is going to be an act of genocide. Does that make God a mass murderer or a mass healer by allowing death to be the bridge to something better? You have no tools to even ask the questions but you don’t let that slow you down to have all the answers. There is NOTHING scientific about you.

      • Darth Robo

        Um, Tom, perhaps you have FORGOTTEN all the God-sanctioned genocide.

        And even if you say that God DIDN’T sanction it, being an all-powerful all-knowing omnipotent omniscient entity that it is, it already KNEW what was gonna happen BEFORE it even happened. If ANYTHING happens on Earth, it’s because God allows it. If it didn’t, it would be an EXTREMELY simply matter for it to click its fingers (as it were) and prevent whatever it is that it didn’t approve. This leaves us with three possibilities:

        1 – God approved.

        2 – God doesn’t give a crud.

        3 – God doesn’t exist and all those genocides were the result of human actions.

        But remember, since the “God” concept doesn’t pass the scientific method in the first place there is no reason to take your objections seriously.

        You have quite simply not put your theology under critical scrutiny. Hence your objections here are fallacious.

      • TomMoe

        My theology lacks scrutiny?? You just gave an immature approach to theology that one would expect from a teen in Sunday School.
        Let’s take your thinking further. The United States has been involved in a number of genocides, including the American Indian. Therefore, the US Constitution is for genocide.
        How about another option to your genocide theory. That God does approve but has given option to human choice and that there are reasons beyond human understanding. You do accept that you aren’t able to understand everything, don’t you.

      • TomMoe

        You should qualify, the God concept doesn’t pass YOUR scientific method.

      • Gary Menten

        Another fail. Scientific method is not personal. It’s the same for everybody.

      • Darth Robo

        It’s not “our” scientific method. Science works whether you believe in it or not. That’s why it’s NOT subjective like you claim.

      • Gary Menten

        I was wondering how long it would take you to come out with the old Creationist cop-out of “God does things that are beyond human understanding.”

        It’s for certain that if we say “God works in mysterious ways” and stop our inquiries there, we go nowhere further. This is why there were certain things about the motions of the planets in the solar system that Isaac Newton, as smart a guy who ever lived, just couldn’t figure out. He inserted God into the equation. But what Newton couldn’t figure out precisely because he attributed it to God, Pierre-Simon, Marquis de Laplace was able to explain through SCIENCE and mathematics precisely because he excluded God from the mechanics.

        There are many things in the universe that we don’t understand at present, but we never will by saying that they are beyond human understanding. That maybe okay for you, but it isn’t okay in science.

      • TomMoe

        We like our God better than your’s. Our’s is honest.

      • Gary Menten

        Not to mention invisible, ethereal, incorporeal and inaudible.

      • Darth Robo

        That it may be, but it’s followers aren’t.

      • Darth Robo

        Your logic does not follow. The US Constitution guarantees citizens rights. Of course it cannot prevent individuals ignoring the Constitution, especially when those events occurred before the Constitution was institutionalised.

        As for human choice, such a thing does not exist under the premise of an all-powerful all-knowing omniscient omnipotent deity. For there is literally NO outcome where “choice” in such a scenario would not be rendered completely and utterly redundant.

        Kinda obvious really if you think about it.

        I do accept that I am not able to understand everything. But I also accept that you are not even capable of understanding your own theology. Such is the nature of religious fundamentalism – it ABHORS critical scrutiny of the prevailing theology.

      • Darth Robo

        Biblical values are the most moral available? Burn witches? Burn gays? Keep slaves? Rape, pillage and slaughter all non-believers? Follow your deity blindly because it doesn’t like secks from behind?

        There’s no such thing as “morality” in the Bible, unless the word means do whatever the invisible Jew tells you to.

        Just because.

        Oh, and ignore the fact that it was MEN who told you what the invisible Jew likes and what it doesn’t. Just ignore the fact they didn’t even have a clue what the shape of the Earth was, which is why they continually got it wrong. Those bits weren’t meant to be taken literally. The guys who wrote it might disagree, but it doesn’t matter since they’ve been buried for 3,000 years.

      • Gary Menten

        That would be more believable if the biblical God you speak of wasn’t also a mass murderer who wipes out most of the life the planet including innocent babies, because he’s pissed off his very imperfect creation (man) is not behaving as he wishes.

        The only consolation God (and creationists) must have is that since there is no evidence whatsoever that any of this ever happened, he’d never be convicted of murder.

      • TomMoe

        You are so entertaining. Your mind is the stuff Alfred Hitchcock makes movies over. Please continue talking for our entertainment.

      • Gary Menten

        So are you then denying the accuracy of the Bible or are you denying that a God who drowns babies for the crimes of their parents would have to be mass murderer? Please do explain.

      • TomMoe

        “accuracy” is a very vague term of which any Bible scholar will answer both yes and know. One assumes that you don’t mean by accurate that God dictated every letter.
        There are so many things you can do with the account other than see a genocide God. Of course, since the omnipotent one made the universe I suppose it would be in order for that same God to end it. Hard to recall omnipotent ones when.
        You might find Jeremiah 31:30 helpful. No one dies for their parent’s sins. However, rather than focus on this account, which gives you little detail on the issue, don’t you have more concern about the babies that die each day while God seems to do nothing? It certainly mattered to me when my baby died with no reason. Science was totally useless. Does a scientific explanation of immature lungs give any parent comfort? Not like anyone is going to say, “Knowing that I feel so much better.”

      • Gary Menten

        With no disrespect intended for your loss which must have been traumatic, science does not exist to give us comfort. It exists to give us answers. Sometimes those answers are very discomforting to us. That’s just the way it works.

        There is no guarantee in science that you will find an answer incidentally, but if you decide that “man is not meant to understand this,” or that something must be the work of God as Newton did with a problem that he had more than the intellect to solve, then you guarantee that you will not find the answer. Nor is there any discipline which has the predictive accuracy of science. None. Yes, many hypotheses are proven wrong through testing…again that’s how the process works. I say it again, science is a self-correcting mechanism that works on empirical evidence, the bible argues from authority, and a sketchy one of unknown authorship at that. It’s accuracy is at best dubious and there is no convincing scientific evidence to support any of what it says.

        So it’s fine if you prefer the answers in your holy scriptures to the answers that science provides; no-one has any problems with that. What we have a problem with is creationists sticking the creationism in our science classrooms. Got it?

      • Darth Robo

        Oh yes indeed, accuracy HAS to be vague when it comes to the Bible. That’s why whenever it gets the shape of the Earth wrong, for example, (which is often) then some passages are apparently meant to be parable or allegorical, while others not. And the problem is that none of the believers can agree over which parts of the Bible needs translation and which don’t. And this is long after it’s ALREADY been translated into English.

        Which is why it’s not a reliable historical or scientific document.

        As for your child, you are not alone in such losses. However I doubt science was TOTALLY useless, because for while it can’t save all, it CAN save SOME. Plus you’re forgetting that in some cases an investigation into why someone died may lead to ways of avoiding such occurrences in the future.

        But one problem in today’s world is that the promotion of pseudo-science is rife, and that DOES lead to unnecessary deaths. This includes such things as “alternative medicine” pushers, anti-vaxxers like Jenny McCarthy, or faith healing which actually stops some people from getting necessary medical treatment that would save their life.

        Science is not about giving you warm fuzzy feelings inside. It is merely a tool. Don’t blame a parachute for not opening when you refuse to pull the ripcord.

      • crackerMF

        i understand the pain of a lost child. but your claim the baby died for no reason is contradicted 2 sentences later when you say the child was born with immature lungs. that is a “reason”, like it or not. science did what it does, explained what happened. how is that totally useless? as for comfort, i personally would feel much better knowing what really happened to my child, didn’t you? would you rather have gone through the rest of your life wondering? maybe even blaming yourself because your religion tells you that bad things happening to you is your fault, punishment for your past sins? you yourself ask the question, why does god seem to do nothing? what was the answer you found?

      • Gary Menten

        It’s funny how the God who says “Though shalt not kill” doesn’t get around to this until he’s passed several other commandments ordering his followers to respect authority. Interesting how respecting authority takes precedence over not committing murder.

        But then again, the God who says “though shalt not kill” wipes out most life on the planet at one point. Does he also violate other commandments of his own? When he impregnates the Virgin Mary, is that not somehow adultery? Was he coveting another man’s wife? Why didn’t he simply create a saviour in the same way the same way he created Adam and Eve?

      • TomMoe

        So it is ok for Koch Brothers to spend billions to impose their values in electing candidates and for unions to do the same in electing opposing candidates. All in the process of fracturing facts. However, religious people do not have that right. Sorry, not too many buying it.

      • Brian

        First of all, no, it is NOT ok for the Koch Brothers to spend billions attempting to impose their policies upon the rest of the population. The problem in this case is not one of values, but of democracy. No single person should be permitted to utilize his wealth/power to overrule the common collective greater good.

        Which leads us to Unions, which are nothing more than a large collection of ordinary working people banding together to have a unified voice with the goal of fair wages and safe working conditions which benefits the greater common collective good. In this case, it IS not only ok, but recommended that all people “Unionize” in regard to working conditions and pay so that the majority benefits instead of just a scant few (i.e. Koch) live lives of obscene opulence at everyone else’s expense and peril.

        And no, religious people do not have the right to impose any of their so-called “values” upon the majority if those “values” are specifically and inherently derived from said religious beliefs. Religious people can choose to obey whatever rules they impose upon themselves, but they are not free to impose those rules on other individuals nor upon society. You don’t see Jews trying to force everyone to keep meat and cheese in separate refrigerators, do you? So why should “Christian” zealots be permitted to strip women of their rights and to discriminate against gay people, both of which are in violation of Constitutional mandates and Amendments?

      • TomMoe

        Keep in mind that this is not only Christians doing these things. The Christian community is quite mixed on those issues. I really don’t see the hatred that results in sexual violence coming from people reading too much Bible passages. Too much beer, yes, but not too much Bible.

      • Bonnie Wilson

        I know more religious nuts who have harmed people, than a drunk.

      • TomMoe

        Of course, nutty atheists don’t harm people.

      • Darth Robo

        Sure they do. But atheists are a minority in the US. Especially nutty atheists.

        Even if all atheists were nutty bar none, they would still be far outnumbered by nutty creationists.

        Remember they are a doomsday cult who look forward to the apocalypse. If you consider the fact that potentially half the US reject scientific reality, and that they nearly put Sarah Palin in charge of the big red button, that’s quite a scary thought.

      • TomMoe

        Fortunately, you are not king of the universe. Until then, we will vote our conscience.

      • Brian

        Given the Sociopathic nature of modern Conservatives, I’m sure that Jesus would reject everything so-called “Christian conscious” tells you to vote for.

      • TomMoe

        I keep saying to myself, “How unscientific these people are.” You make a judgment without any possible knowledge of how I vote. If Jesus isn’t God, what difference should it make what he thinks?

      • Darth Robo

        Pity you have no concept of science.

        But then if you’re a creationist there isn’t any need, is there.

      • Darth Robo

        Your conscience is irrelevant to the validity of science, Tom.

        Sorry, are you still under the mistaken opinion that your opinions were important?

      • Darth Robo

        You are entitled to your own beliefs, TomMoe. But you aren’t entitled to your own facts.

        Remember, whether you choose for your theistic beliefs to encompass or deny reality, is entirely up to you.

        No-one on the planet can show whether (a) God(s) exist or not. But if it/they does/do, it/they used evolution. Yes, and that includes human evolution.

      • TomMoe

        You have your own facts. Every action needs a cause. Big Bang occurred with no cause. That is a faith statement with no facts to support it.

        What if God did use evolution as a form of creation? How does that change anything?

      • Darth Robo

        Actually the universe being uncaused is only a hypothesis with no evidence. Just as the universe being caused is only a hypothesis with no evidence. Under quantum physics however, uncaused events are not a problem. It’s just that currently, while the Big Bang has plenty of evidence, what is uncertain is the specifics of what happened at the point of singularity.

        Though I do find it amusing the hypocrisy of creationists rejecting uncaused phenomena when the EXACT same thing applies to their god.

        Of course none of this is relevant to the validity of evolution.

        Did God use evolution? Possibly. Does it change anything? No. Because evolution occurred, whether a God exists or not. Unless God is a liar.

        At this point we leave it to creationists to assign their own particular limits on an allegedly all-powerful deity. And then I will ask them how those limitations were determined in an objective manner via the scientific method.

      • Bonnie Wilson

        You sir, are freaking amazing!

      • Darth Robo

        Appreciated Bonnie, but any knowledge I have I’ve garnered myself from reading the posts of various smart people over the years. Some of whom with genuine science credentials. I don’t expect to change the minds of many who support anti-science, especially religious fundamentalists, but if I can show even just one person how the fallacies of anti-science supporters are wrong-headed in their thinking then I’ve done my job!

      • TomMoe

        The issue is that Creationists can understand and develop their thinking based upon science. You, however, are limited to provable events which are few and far between. Who is narrow in their thinking?

      • Darth Robo

        Creationists CAN develop their thinking based upon science, yes. Unfortunately most don’t. That being said, there are a few creationists who happen to be scientists.

        It’s just that not one of them can back up their theology via the scientific method.

        But if you disagree then I repeat my offer for you to demonstrate how invisible Jewish magic passes the scientific method.

        Remember, I already pointed out you had a 3,000 year head start.

      • TomMoe

        ‘A few creationists who happen to be scientists?” Are you ever out of touch!
        This whole page continually is like dialoguing with religious cults. The only valid thinking is that which is approved by your cultic leaders. Your leaders determine what is right. My goodness, and that is supposed to be scientific? You have no concept of religion or creation. That is very obvious. Yet you talk as if you are experts. That is scientific?

      • Gary Menten

        It doesn’t matter one bit of there are 10 scientists who happen to be creationists or 10 thousand, or 10 million. The only thing that matters is the evidence, and so far, the evidence for creationist arguments for the origins of the universe and mankind are pretty crappy.

      • TomMoe

        Crappy to you! Very meaningful to us. Religion is full of evidence. In Matthew 11 Jesus was asked if he was the right one or not? He answered, ” The blind see, the lame walk…” Two thousand years later millions more who call on His name are evidence. Those who, in unscientific manner, isolate themselves from the evidence still say, “I don’t see any evidence.”

      • Gary Menten

        By “evidence”, we mean empirical evidence gathered by scientific method, not hearsay from a book of unknown authorship.

      • TomMoe

        So go to a church and gather it like the rest of us do. How difficult is that for a scientific mind?

      • Gary Menten

        Been there, done that: no valid evidence presented; just hearsay and arguments from (religious) authority. Same old stories, same old lack of evidence.

      • TomMoe

        What would you say to someone who states, “Been to college and didn’t find anything worthy of study?”
        So someone who goes from meaningless to a life of purpose is not worthy of study? Nor thousands others?

      • Gary Menten

        You can start making comparison between churches and college when when clergymen start backing up the stories in their sermons with hard evidence that meets the criteria of modern science.

      • TomMoe

        You are right. Churches just are a bit above your understanding.

      • Gary Menten

        This is why we don’t take creationists seriously. You make bold statements, then when we challenge you to present your evidence, you always do one of two things;

        A. Present arguments that have no scientific validity whatsoever or;
        B. Retreat into evasion, saying things like “there are things beyond man’s understanding,” or “your too dumb to understand.”

        Both are intellectually dishonest as is creationism. This is not how science works. In science, you prove your point by making a better argument, and yours consistently fall short. One thing we never hear from a creationist is “You make a really good argument. My position is mistaken.”

      • Darth Robo

        It’s not difficult at all. It’s easy to take preachers at their word. Less so to apply critical thinking.

      • Darth Robo

        So you claim Tom, but for DAYS now I’ve asked you to present the evidence which you claim we have “isolated” ourselves from.

        You can’t.

        So continue on with your rhetorical responses.

        It’s not unscientific to reject the claims of someone who is incapable of backing themselves up. That’s you.

      • TomMoe

        Yeah. Have I mentioned how much I care about your inability to understand.

      • Darth Robo

        Tom, the only thing you’ve provided an understanding of is the propensity for creationists to make claims they can’t back up. It’s not that I can’t understand your position. I simply reject it because it’s BS.

        The difference between us is that I back up my claims while you are first incapable, and then, therefore, unwilling.

      • Darth Robo

        If you disagree with my position Tom, then feel free to refute me. The fact you can’t speaks volumes.

        I would wager you’ve never heard of the concept of projection.

      • TomMoe

        As usual, you are wrong. Oh well.

      • Darth Robo

        If I’m usually wrong, Tom, then why do you have great difficulty in showing it? I certainly don’t with you.

      • TomMoe

        Science didn’t exist 3,000 years ago? Oh, you invented it. How scientific!

      • Darth Robo

        Nice caricature you’re beating up, Tom. I notice that while you’re still focused on rhetorical responses to my posts you are still unable to provide anything of substance.

        I merely pointed out that while creationism was a prevalent view 3,000 years ago, it is not now. Despite this the concept itself has changed little over the millenia. While science was slowly developed over the centuries, and had to fight the theocratic establishment every step of the way.

      • TomMoe

        That, as typical, is only partially true. Religion founded many to most of the schools of which science came. The biggest enemy of progressive thinking has never been religion. Religious people usually balance between being very supportive and being very non-supportive. Opposition is found between the ignorant, of which some can be religious but also mixed. Major opposition to progressive thinking continually comes from within.

      • Greg Simon

        Isn’t all of science based on theories?

      • Darth Robo

        I feel I now have to explain what the term “theory” means in a scientific context, so that it is not misunderstood, or in turn later misrepresented by anyone in the anti-science crowd:

        There is a misconception that “theories” constitute “wild guesses”. That may be true in an every day speech context, but not in science. Also theories NEVER get “proven” as to be promoted to a “law” when firmly established. Theory is as high as it gets in science. If something becomes a scientific theory then it means it is an explanatory model made up of a collection of facts and evidence which is capable of making testable scientific predictions.

        So people can forget what they think they learned about Newton’s so-called “Law of Gravity”. It got replaced by Einstein’s THEORY of Relativity, which describes gravity more accurately. Which in turn is now being replaced by quantum physics which does an even better job.

        Because man, if I hear someone say “It’s ONLY a theory!” one more time…

      • Greg Simon

        That makes sense. But wasn’t the Theory of Relativity, thought of as the highest in science, proven to not be capable of making testable scientific predictions by quantum physics? Before quantum physics would scientists have balked at the thought of the Theory of Relativity being wrong with in the micro world much like you are balking at Creationists are now?

      • Darth Robo

        No, Greg. Even Newton’s Law of gravity made scientific predictions. We used it to send probes into space. The theory of relativity is also used to describe the effects of gravity. It just does so with more accuracy than Newton. And then again, quantum physics does the same only with more accuracy than relativity. The previous theories were not utterly falsified by the subsequent ones (although that’s always a possibility), it’s just our thoughts on gravity were refined as more data, more evidence came in, and we came up with better ways of explaining them. And this is how science works. It is what distinguishes science from dogma.

        In fact Newton is still taught today, as for all practical purposes here on Earth, it works perfectly. There is no need to use relativity for the most part unless you’re going into space.

        Creationism on the other hand is not science, period. It is not testable. It makes no scientific predictions. Creationism is purely about attempting to justify religious dogma. Which is fine if that is your interest, but it has nothing to do with science.

      • TomMoe

        You use an interesting term, “anti science crowd.” You talk like you own science. Simply because someone doesn’t agree with your conclusions doesn’t make them anti science. This is why we, in the middle ground, find the two extremes like mirror images of each other. The language on either side is that of Westboro Baptist Church: each side ridiculing anyone who disagrees with them.

      • Darth Robo

        Actually when my opinions match that of the scientific community in general and yours don’t, that makes you a part of the anti-science crowd by definition.

        But hark! There is still hope for you! If you think our current scientific theories are incorrect then all you need to do is submit a scientific paper for peer-review demonstrating your claims. It may even take a while (it took a while for plate tectonics to be accepted at first) but as long as your hypotheses hold out and is supported by the evidence, you will win out in the end.

        There is nothing stopping you.

      • TomMoe

        So who determines which one of us matches the scientific community? Can I presume you?

      • Darth Robo

        What do you think, Tom?

        Do you accept the theory of evolution? I do.

        If you don’t, then my position is more in line with the scientific community.

        And do you wanna know who determines what’s scientific? SCIENTISTS. You know how? By performing actual tests and research.

        Ironically, by presenting their BS in public schools, that would only prevent evolutionary biology from ever being falsified in any valid scientific manner.

      • TomMoe

        Do you really consider your ideas as wisdom? It is so vague it can neither be proven or disproven. “who determines whats scientific? Scientist” Ok and do you determine who is a scientist? The difference between you and me is that I can accept science and faith. You are limited in your ability to understand. The other difference is that you think your limits are superior.

      • Gary Menten

        Science requires evidence. Faith does not.

      • TomMoe

        Gosh you say dumb things. There is a difference between faith and blind faith. Like somehow there is no faith in science nor ever hoaxes as your God, science is perfect.

      • Gary Menten

        Prove me wrong. Stop evading and show us all the evidence that backs up your faith. No more bullshit from you. Put up or shut up.

      • Darth Robo

        No, science is not perfect. But your faith is quite obviously blind, or otherwise you would be able to provide evidence. But then, that’s the definition of faith – acceptance despite a lack of evidence.

        Hence evidence makes faith superfluous.

      • Darth Robo

        What specifically can’t be proven or disproven? Remember, science doesn’t deal with “proof”. It deals with facts and evidence. You NEVER have “100% proof” in science because the potential for falsification is required for a concept to be scientific. So science uses the scientific method to demonstrate or falsify hypotheses.

        I may be limited in my ability to understand, nothing wrong with that. It applies to every person on the planet. Nobody knows everything. However your abilities to understand are even more limited because you do not understand the scientific method, nor care to.

        But whether you like it or not, science works. You are using a computer after all.

      • Gary Menten

        There is no middle ground in science. An experiment yields results. The results either bear out the hypothesis or they don’t. If the evidence does not bear out the hypothesis, is is disproved and science moves on.

      • TomMoe

        Not so. Every the results of every experiment is accepted by some and rejected by others. It is strictly subjective.

      • Gary Menten

        That is why science works and is a self-correcting mechanism. If an experiment supports a conclusion, attempts are made by other scientiststo replicate it , and also to disprove it. Many hypotheses in science are ultimately proven to be incorrect, but usually by other scientists. And it happens every day in science that someone realizes that their position was mistaken and the old view is dropped and never heard from again. Again….this is why science works and religion usually fails.

        Eventually however, the body of evidence supporting a hypothesis can become so massive that it becomes generally accepted as fact within the scientific community and progresses the “scientific theory” stage. Evolutionary theory reached that stage a long time ago and the body of evidence supporting it has only grown still.

        So yes, we all know that creationists reject it, though not out of valid scientific research; every bit of so-called “scientific” research by creationists attempting to disprove evolution has been thoroughly debunked. But we know you’ll keep trying.

      • TomMoe

        If you took some time to be scientific and actually studied religion you would discover that your descriptions of hypothesis is exactly what happens in religion.
        You might even discover that your statement, “We all know that creationists reject it” is totally stupid. Some Creationists do and some don’t.

      • Gary Menten

        No…some Christians accept evolution. Creationists…that’s another matter. Oh, and yes, I’m familiar with the Ken Ham sponsored BS that there WAS evolution AFTER god created everything, but that too is debunked by the facts. Frankly, it’s still a rejection of Evolutionary theory slightly adjusted for uncomfortable realities that can’t be addressed by the 6000 year timescale proposed by creationists.

        What hypotheses has been put forward about religion, by religion that have been scientifically tested by religion and disproved by religion? None. This isn’t to say that some very interesting arguments aren’t made from time to time by theologians; St-Thomas Aquinas “proved” that God cannot make another god, commit suicide, make a man without a soul or even draw an equilateral triangle whose interior angles did not equal 180 degrees though Bolyai and Lobachevskly accomplished this last feat in the 19th C (drawing on a curved surface) and they were not even close to being gods. They weren’t theologians either.

      • TomMoe

        Ken Ham is not creation any more than alchemy is medicine.
        You might want to actually get scientific and study religion. You wouldn’t ask questions that show your lack of understanding. For example, on a daily basis we ask ourselves, “What is the spiritual need of this person? How can we provide care? ” At the end we evaluate?
        Every doctoral religious study is based upon a hypothesis. Really, you are seriously clueless in your understanding.
        If someone spoke of another ethnic group with the lack of understanding that you have of religion, you would be reported. Appalling is not a strong enough word for your lack of scientific effort.

      • Gary Menten

        None of that has anything to do with science, the scientific validity (or lack thereof) of your beliefs, the topic at hand, which to refresh your memory, is about the scientific validity of creationist pseudo-science. Nor do the questions you are mentioning in any way question and challenge your religious dogmas or theological positions.

        Now as to doctoral theses in religious study, let’s just examine a sampling of a few recent ones from Harvard:

        Post-WWII American Judaism: How Judaism Became an American Religion

        Exemplarity and its Limits in the Hagiographical Corpus of Thomas of Cantimpre

        Martyrdom, War, and Memory in the Jesuit Missions of Northwestern New Spain, 1687-1767

        Silent Statements: Narrative Representations of Speech and Silence in the Gospel of Luke

        Stoning in the Islamic Tradition: The Case of Northern Nigeria

        Beyond the Religious Pursuit of Race: A Genealogy of Secularization within Scientific Theories of Human Difference

        Contesting the Theo-ethical Rhetoric of Home: Feminist, Postcolonial Politics of Space

        Patrul Rinpoch on Self-Cultivation: The Rhetoric of Nineteenth-Century Tibetan Buddhist Spiritual Advice

        ‘Is the LORD in Our Midst or Not?’ Conceptions of Divine Presence in Ancient Jewish and Christian Interpretations of the Calf Incident

        It doesn’t seem to me as though any though any of these have anything to do with pure and applied sciences or are likely to provide any valid scientific evidence for any creationist beliefs.

      • TomMoe

        Your closed mine is appalling and unscientific. Everyone of those thesis involves an hypothesis. You simply can’t figure it out.
        You have no idea what challenges me. I find your assumptions lacking anything scientific. If you can’t figure this out, I have no regard for your criticism. Those offering me my doctorate, master’s and both bachelor’s seemed to not need your approval to accept my hypothesis. I need your self focused and unscientific approval even less. Have a good day.

      • Darth Robo

        Your opinions of our criticism do not matter.

        At all.

        Never have.

        They are simply NOT that important.

        Fact is that science is NOT your bag in the slightest. You don’t know anything about it, and you don’t care either. All you’re interested in is your baseless religious opinions. Fact is that your religious opinions are no more valid than the Muslim’s, the Hindu’s, your next-door neighbour’s cat, or the guy who delivers your pizza. Period.

        And since you are utterly clueless about science, that is the reason why science does not care about your scientific opinions either. If you don’t believe me, you might want to contact Harvard and ask them if any of the creationist criticisms of evolutionary biology are in any way valid. I’d say you might get an unpleasant surprise, but let’s be honest – there’d be nothing surprising about it.

      • Gary Menten

        And the half-time score is:

        Darth Robo. 432
        TomMoe. 0

      • Gary Menten

        Which of those hypotheses proposed above deals with the scientific validity of creationism claims? None. That is what this discussion is about. Please try to stay on topic.

      • crackerMF

        tommoe, perhaps you could edify us as to the institutions of higher learning you attended and earned all these degrees at? you might want to return for a refresher course in composition, your writing style does a disservice to your touted education.

      • TomMoe

        You might want to contact Harvard and let them know that their doctoral thesis doesn’t pass your approval. I am sure they will care as much as I do.

      • Gary Menten

        Again, you just aren’t getting it and I suppose you probably never will; nothing that you have said, nothing that you have argued, nothing being studied at Harvard in any way offers scientifically gathered empirical data supporting creationist claims. They are at best, historical theses. Nothing wrong with that; my first degree was in history, but they are not science. Thanks again for your input, but your persistent cognitive dissonance is rendering this discussion increasingly pointless.

      • Darth Robo

        Actually since religious claims are YOUR bag it’s YOUR job to back them up scientifically. So you’ll have to excuse us for finding your accusation of our investigations being “not scientific” to YOUR satisfaction particularly ironic.

        Like I said, all you have to do is present ONE example of how invisible Jewish wizardry passes the scientific method. WE don’t have to back up YOUR claims.

        As usual, we do our homework but creationists want us to do THEIRS as well.

      • Darth Robo

        By the way, Tom. Ken Ham’s religious opinions are JUST as valid as your own. How do you know that he isn’t interpreting the Bible correctly as it should have been all along?

        Science on the other hand couldn’t give a damm either way. All it cares is what you can demonstrate.

        In your case, that’s not much.

      • Darth Robo

        No, religions don’t HAVE hypotheses. Hypotheses are scientific. If something contradicts fundamentalist religion then excuses are found. But whether or not they are valid doesn’t matter. This is what’s known as apologetics.

        Remember, evidence is UTTERLY irrelevant to the creationist position.

      • TomMoe

        I have no clue what planet you are on but sure am glad it isn’t earth. Religion doesn’t have hypothesis on your planet? Evidence supports creation on this planet. You can’t have an action without a cause. Life never comes from non-life. Nothing ever goes from simple to complex on its own. Not on this planet.

      • crackerMF

        uh, tom… you started out as one simple cell and grew to be a very complex organism. but maybe you’re speaking about the planet you’re on.

      • Darth Robo

        Indeed. But then it’s possible that Tom’s biological makeup is only in possession of a single cell…

      • Darth Robo

        No, religions don’t have hypotheses because hypotheses tend to make scientific predictions. Religions do not because any claim that’s shown wrong can easily be fixed by Godmagic. Your position is no different to that of the Young Earthers. Is the Earth young? Then God made it that way. Old? Then God made it that way? Young but made to LOOK old? Then God made it that way. Young but all the evilutionists still say it’s old? Deception by Satan. That’s why evidence is not relevant to creationism. And why evidence does not support it. Creationism does not pass the scientific method.

        Although I do find it funny when you claim everything must have a cause, when your own God violates that VERY SAME rule.

        By the way, everything in your body was once made of NON-living material. Therefore life comes from non-life EVERY DAY. ALL OVER the ENTIRE PLANET.

        So then you claim that it always requires a PREVIOUS life. However that’s not possible in a universe that’s finite and had a beginning. Which is WHY geology shows us that life did indeed come from non-life, approximately 3.5 billion years ago.

        Remember, all your silly objections to scientific reality do not stand under scrutiny. And on every single occasion, you are required to break the very same rules you attempt to place on us. This is why creationist apologetics is not taken very seriously by most others except for creationists.

      • Darth Robo

        Wrong, Tom. The outcomes of experiments are NOT subjective. If you don’t believe me then go boil a kettle full of water, stick your hand in it, then tell me it’s freezing cold.

        Now if you want to say it’s darn cold compared to the surface temperature of the sun while you grasp your hand in pain, then okay, cool. It IS cool compared to that. But it is STILL boiled water and we can STILL explain the reasons as to how it got that way.

        This is why your computer WORKS. This is why evolutionary biology WORKS. This is why science WORKS.

        Science is NOT subjective. BECAUSE it TESTS things.

        The creationist predilection for attempting to portray this “debate” as two equal but opposing views of “beliefs” has been an abject utter failure on your part. But then, this appeal to the gullible is how creationism has been so successful. Not in any kind of valid practical scientific way, but as a political movement. All it is for creationists is about power. They look at the fundies in the Middle East and say “We want some of that.” And that is why they desire a return to the Dark Ages.

      • TomMoe

        Seriously??? A good scientist knows that results are not subjective but the implications are. Thus, we understand Big Bang. The implications are very subjective, leading some to atheism, some to Creation and many in the middle. Since you question my scientific skills do note that I have much more intelligence than to presume why you believe in science. You definitely will always be an inferior scientist until you do so.

      • Darth Robo

        I don’t believe in science. I accept it. Like I accept the existence of a hammer. They are both tools. And no, the implications are NOT subjective, UNLESS the data is ambiguous.

        As in the case of whether the Big Bang was caused by a deity or was not. That’s because there is no data AT ALL to support either one.

        But unless something REALLY radical is discovered in the future, then so far, all the evidence shows that the Big Bang most certainly did occur.

        So seriously, I do NOT take you seriously when you claim to be a better scientist. I am not one. But you are most DEFINITELY not. The difference between us however is that you don’t care, because your interest is not in science. It’s in philosophy and theology. So you go right ahead and enjoy that instead.

      • gtg092x

        Yeah but science takes the harder route and places the burden of proof on the thinkers, not the deniers. No one gets a nobel prize for demanding that everyone disprove their idea.

      • Darth Robo

        Actually Bryan, no-one can “prove” anything. Proof is for maths and alcohol. So science does not deal with “proof”. It deals with facts and evidence.

        Also, the evolution of life doesn’t have to worry about how the universe, the Earth, or even how life got here. All the theory of evolution deals with is biodiversity. And the facts show that evolution has and does occur. Cosmology is the one that has to worry about the Earth and the universe. At which point creationists have a habit of offering philosophical/theological arguments against whatever they don’t like, then call ALL of it “evolution”. So even when Cosmos talks about subjects other than evolution, they’ll accuse it of being “evolutionist philosophy”.

      • Brian

        Science is a tool of discovery that asks questions and tests and verifies whereas religion predetermines conclusions based on hope and supposition.

      • Glenn Pierce

        Come on Y`ALL You Know that the Bible which is true from first word to the last supports the big bang theory Yes the Bible Says and God Spoke and all things that were created were created . THERE IS YOUR BIG BANG . YES THE VOICE OF GOD WAS THE BANG!!! People who believe all these crazy views of evolution and such foolishness are believing in fools gold!! Heck It takes a Lot more FAITH to believe in evolution , than it does to believe in God , Truthfully it is not that I believe in God I KNOW . I Thank your Lord Jesus in all things .

      • Darth Robo

        Actually Glenn since evolution has evidence, evidence makes faith superfluous. Since you have faith in your deity then that only implies you have no evidence.

        You are welcome to believe that your god was responsible for the Big Bang, and perhaps maybe it was. There is no way to tell scientifically. However if it can do that then there’s no reason that it could not have used evolution.

        But if your theology says it could not, then I’m afraid your theology has already lost.

        I have little interest in whether someone is a theist or atheist or whatever. Science is only interested in what you can demonstrate. One thing I certainly don’t recall in the Bible is how it was able to predict Cosmic Background Radiation to an accuracy of three parts per million, like the Big Bang theory can…

      • TomMoe

        Really??? And you think have a problem with Creationists not doing their studies? Basic 101 would let you know that Flat Earth and Creation are as far apart as alchemy and modern medicine.
        Yes, we Creationists can be a hoot but at least understand more than this before you make an accusation.

      • Darth Robo

        TomMoe, I understand just fine. Creationism is not a scientific position, period. Young Earth Creationism especially, as their position is SO anti-scientific it may as well be arguing for a flat Earth. This is not an accusation. A spade is a spade.

        Belief in God is called theism. But belief in God at the expense of denying reality, that’s called creationism.

      • TomMoe

        Do you ever wonder why so many universities give degrees in religion called Bachelor of Science?

      • Wil Hutton

        Because it’s BS?

      • Wil Hutton

        Actually, it’s because religious studies are done on an objective level. Or do you think that to get a BS in religious studies they are actually teaching Young Earth theory as science?

      • Duncan

        Your question is not relevant to the discussion and has no meaning.

      • TomMoe

        I think this group has met God and it is themselves. However, you are at a great discovery. Not all religion believes in young earth.
        Hear your own statement, “Creationists don’t care about education.” Ironic that so many of us have gotten education.

      • Darth Robo

        But in your case Tom, not in science.

      • Duncan

        The likes of you – hardly one to provide me with a cathartic “great discovery”. History shows two broad mentalities; those who learn from experience, who are curious and enjoy using their minds to solve problems, who believe that science and reason provides the means to provide a better society.

        Then there are people like you – afraid, resentful, terrified of change. Full of entitlement and fighting tooth and nail against any change that challenges your creation myth and narrow vision.

        I feel sorry for you, but there is really no excuse for your level of ignorance and denial of scientific progress and knowledge. Not when you have instant access to a worldwide library of human knowledge and experience. Instead, you use that access to publish your whining and complaining about how science upsets your easily threatened and infantile beliefs.

        What a waste. A pity.

      • TomMoe

        And people think that Christians are judgmental? How could you possibly know any of these as facts? It is your terrible judgmental ism that makes me so glad I am not a narrow minded atheist.

      • Darth Robo

        Actually TomMoe, an atheist he may be, but there was nothing in his post that necessitated him being an atheist.

        Remember that the next time you accuse someone of being narrow-minded.

      • JNWesner

        Tom, many Creationists have been “educated” in “universities” established by their own religion, and accredited by an agency they set up themselves. They are only educated in what it’s OK for them to believe. The rest of us find all that pretty silly.

      • crackerMF

        a quick google search finds 3 universities that do. all 3 are private christian schools. what was your point?

    • Rod

      I agree with you. I am a Christian but I do not believe the earth is young at all, and i do enjoy watching cosmos. Whether the creationists get time on his show is not a matter worth troubling anyone over.

      • TomMoe

        If you are a Christian than aren’t you a Creationist?

      • raytheist

        Not all Christians are Young Earth Creationists. For example, Catholics accept the Big Bang, and evolution. Actually, I think only a small percentage of committed Christians are of the YEC sort, a la Ken Ham/Ray Comfort. Many of them try to reconcile the issue with something like “The Bible says what God did; science/evolution explains HOW he did it,” or some variation of that.

      • TomMoe

        If I am not mistaken, a Catholic came up with Big Bang.

      • Darth Robo

        TomMoe, that depends on how you define “creationist”. If by “creationist” you mean theist, then yes, a Christian may be considered a creationist. But in the context of creationism vs science, the term “creationist” generally refers to the anti-science crowd of YEC’s and OEC’s who reject science because it does not fit with their religious beliefs.

        Therefore many theists may not describe themselves as “creationists” in the traditional sense, as they feel that science merely reveals how their God made the world. And if it used evolution, then so be it.

        So here’s how it works – if your theology doesn’t require you to deny science, then your theology remains unaffected. If your theology DOES require you to deny science, your theology will lose.

        Every. Single. Time.

      • TomMoe

        Which is my point and complete frustration with these writings. They continually make Christianity=Creation=Young Earth. Asking if you believe in science or faith is like saying, “Do you believe in science or medicine?”

      • Darth Robo

        And if you’d noticed Tom, I have NOT equated Christianity with any one view in particular. There are Christians who accept science. And there are Christians who don’t like many Old Earth Creationists. And even more so with Young Earth Creationism.

        But the bottom line is that NONE of these views are relevant to the validity of science. Science and religion are two different topics. If you wanna be a theist who accepts science then good for you. If you wanna be an OEC who rejects biology then you are a reality denier who will eventually come across scientific inconsistencies with your position. If you’re a YEC then you are most certainly a reality denier, and must cling to the hope that you were smart enough to catch on to God’s tricks.

    • Jeo143

      Angry, I get where you’re coming from, but the religious belief system is actually the polar opposite of scientific thinking. Where you are correctly questioning everything, the religious system finds it’s base in “do not question the work of god” and there fore just the act of questioning anything is considered heretical.

      Beyond that, the difference lies in the default assumption and burden of proof. Amoung scientists, the belief is always prove yourself right, then we’ll believe you. While with the religious side, it’s until you prove me wrong at every turn, I can claim to be right, while presenting no evidence to support myself. Science relies on fact, Religion relies on absence of fact. That is not a debate that can be had in honesty since they’re playing by two different rules.

      A perfect example. People say god made the earth 6,000 years ago. Scientiests prove things older than 6,000 years old exist here through carbon dating. Religious people say god created them as already old. Of course you can always make things up. But while science lives by the burden of proof, religion only lives by imagination, as made clear by the fact that they’ve yet to prove that the earth isn’t older than 6,000 years.

      • TomMoe

        Really you need to understand more than this if you make such accusations in the name of science. Not all Creationists believe that the earth is 6,000 years old. Your understanding of a religion that lives on imagination while science lives on proof is far from accurate.

      • Martin Tucker

        In the context given Creationist means “Young Earth Creationist”.

      • TomMoe

        That would be like saying, “All evolutionists are stupid.” Context being evolutionists who are assholes. You simply cannot take an identity and make it mean what you would like.
        Please note the comment made by Darth Robo just above. He clearly speaks of all theology.

      • Darth Robo

        Actually I can take the claims of each theology as they arise. However so far you have not shown yourself to be any different from any anti-science creationist, whether you be a Young or Old Earth creationist. Or you may be a UFO fanatic. So far you’ve been rather coy with your position, other than the fact you have a beef with biology. But it doesn’t matter. The good thing about science is that it works whether people believe in it or not.

      • TomMoe

        I believe in both. Both seem to do fine without your approval.

      • Darth Robo

        Your approval is irrelevant to me, and to science. As are your beliefs.

      • Darth Robo

        Yes, there are Young Earth Creationists. YEC’s. These guys are basically Biblical literalists who think the Flinstones is a science documentary and quite literally reject every single field of science there is.

        And there are Old Earth Creationists. OEC’s. And their primary beef, for the most part, is the idea that humans evolved. This is because it goes against, in their minds, what the Bible teaches as humans being specially created. Their rejection of the sciences tend to vary, but ultimately they do not realise that by rejecting biology as they do, eventually all the other sciences will go with it.

        Theology has nothing to do with science as theology does not pass the scientific method. Science on the other hand deals with what is demonstrable. It NEVER deals with “100% proof”, as it requires the potential for falsification to be scientific. Therefore science makes use of facts and evidence and uses them to make testable scientific predictions.

      • TomMoe

        If psychology is a science then so is theology. They operate the same. If you only focus on the psychologist who are unscientific you can say the same thing. The problem is that you are being unscientific in limiting your sample to those who will prove your point.

      • Darth Robo

        Wrong. Psychology is a science in that it can conduct repeatable tests with predictable outcomes. Go around being aggressive to everybody and most psychologists will tell you that you will either not be treated very well, or if you are it’s out of fear.

        The study of theology may be an interesting subject for historians, but the theologies themselves? Not relevant to science, period. As they have a habit of making claims which are not amenable to the scientific method.

        Theology may be your bag Tom, but it’s not science. Teach it in a comparative religions class. Not science class.

    • Cal Kane

      With respect, you’re wrong. There is something wrong with believing that creationism is true and that’s because it’s not and this has been easily demonstrated countless times. Creationism has only one purpose and that is to lie, cheat and misrepresent science. Not because they have better alternatives but because they want to destroy science and the bible to be the only source of morality and authority. Creationists are some of the most dangerous people in the world because they read the bible in a literal way and they believe that God is infallible and everything he does is good just because he does it and/or calls for it. So slavery, genocide, rape, stoning people, burning witches, forcing rape victims to marry their rapists, fathers having sex with their daughters is all perfectly moral in their mind. Can you think of a more delusional and potentiality dangerous group of people that look at rape and slavery and go “That’s 100% fine and moral”

      The reason we are assholes to them is because they are either stupid people that have been fooled or people that know it’s all lies but still continue because they are getting paid to do it.

      No creationist has ever presented credible peer reviewed evidence to support a young earth because there is none. All they do is lie and pretend that their moronic questions have never been answered when in reality they have been thousands of times.

      All ways remember that the beliefs that creationists hold would be considered mental health issues in any other context but they dodge that bullet because of religious tolerance. Think about it, they believe that a invisible man made the earth using magic in 6 days. He just went POOF and all the animals just appeared out of no where. Not only that, but God also made the animals appear to be older than the earth and he also made them appear as if they had evolved. Couple this with the fact that they believe that a man was born of a virgin, was the son of God, was killed and then came back from the dead. to add to this further, they believe that taking to themselves whilst on their knees with their hands clasped (prayer in other words) can change the reality that we live in and cure sick people and to top it all of, they sometimes hear voices in their head (or Gods voice if you want)
      In any another setting this would be grounds to section someone for fear that they have lost their minds.

      Creationism is not possible in any real way and the only thing that creationists have shown time and time again is that they are lying money grabbing con artists that will quite happily lie to good people and take their money. Never ever think that creationism is anything more than that.

      • TomMoe

        Seriously, you do not understand Creationism. There are some who are assholes but really, have you met evolutionists???

      • Cal Kane

        If by evolutionists you mean someone who values evidence and science then yes I have and you’re talking to one.

        So go on please, tell me where I misrepresented Creationism. The floor is ours 🙂

      • TomMoe

        And that is how you would describe many of us Creationists. That is how you misrepresented Creationism.

      • Cal Kane

        I can only presume that some of your comment is missing. Would you like to try again?

      • Darth Robo

        TomMoe, I have been observing the “debate” over creationism and science for a long time. Creationists are liars for Jesus. Those that aren’t simply do not know the subjects involved and therefore listen to the liars for Jesus simply because that is what they want to hear.

        Sure, you can find some “evolutionists” (funny term that, rather like gravitationalists or germ theory of disease-ists) who can be a pain in the azz. They’re human. They can be opinionated. On the other hand many of them are simply quite fed up with the blatant attacks of the creationist movement that have been going on against public education for decades. So they have a right to be upset with creationists.

    • dick_sakwrinkle

      If we stop being “assholes” to these people, things will NOT get better. These people are trying to legislate this madness right now! With faith you MUST sacrifice rationality. How else do the dead rise, or virgins birth Gods?

      I will continue to ridicule the ridiculous when it is presented to me. Especially around the young indoctrinated minds. I was one of those young indoctrinated minds myself and I was stimulated to think about the crap that was raised to believe by so called “assholes”.

      You sir are the asshole.

  • alsarg72

    Gold!

  • Marty Susman

    I like Bug’s bunny or woody wood pecker better then your god.

  • BLACKnotURBAN

    So we came from a FISH? or APES? An explostion and the EARTH COOL DOWN, and we started walking? What year was this in? So the APE are the BIRDS ancestors? So are they anymore APES about? Why, why ain’t thay all people? MONKEYS didn’t want to be PEOPLE TOO? Have a NICE HOUSE and BE A ROCK STAR??? WHY don’t the snake want LEGS? Is he RETARTDED? Are the FISH still in the SEA RETARDED?

    • Karen Bradley Ehler

      Your post makes no sense and shows a clear LACK of science education. Your questions show you have no idea what you are talking about and ZERO understanding of scientific concepts, processes, and the scientific method.

    • MichaelLohr

      Sigh…….

  • raytheist

    And, of course, all their demands for inclusion and “equal time” forgets that the series was long-ago scripted, and most (if not all) of it has already been shot, edited, and ready for airing.

    • Gary Menten

      Never mind that. Let them broadcast their BS on their own programs, as they are already doing anyway.

  • Mike De Fleuriot

    Look if you cretinist have a problem, why not just pray about it.

    • Sean Bradley

      Very insightful, thanks for your valuable contribution to the discussion.

      • Mike De Fleuriot

        Prayer works, Allah says so, every Friday.

      • Sean Bradley

        More insightful theology, with zero comedic value as intended. Thanks for playing.

      • Reesy Piecey Risa Harvey

        i thought it was funny

      • Mike De Fleuriot

        Reesy, you know that funny is Harram, it says so in The Cow.

      • Gary Menten

        So did I.

      • rogerrramjet

        OH hell lots of us reading it think it is funny as heck.

      • Jessica Neubauer

        I thought it was funny too.
        (Or I would if you people and your ignorance didn’t scare the hell out of me.)

  • Sean Bradley

    Let’s be clear…nobody disputes evolution within a species. The organism to man evolution theory is just as far fetched as the 6 day creation story however. We have scientifically observed evolution within many species, including humans, but there has never been a single case of science proving the evolution of one species into another. To believe that the human race evolved from a single celled organism that crawled out of the sea is equally as absurd as believing that the earth is 6,000 years old.

    • MichaelLohr

      One species does not evolve into another species. This is one of the fundamental flaws that creationist just can’t seem to understand.
      Now different species may have had a common ancestor. For example we may share a good portion of our DNA with Apes. This, however doesn’t mean we evolved from an ape. However, we may have had a common ancestor say 30 millions years ago. One that neither looked like us or a common ape.

      • Sean Bradley

        The evolutionary “tree of life” contends that all species evolved from a single celled organism which sprang from non-living matter.

        Variation of organisms within their kinds—which occurs on the basis of reshuffling, isolation, selection, and other mechanisms related to the genetic information contained in that kind of organism—does not, however, support the evolutionary emergence of completely different kinds of organisms. Nor can it, because mutations- even lots and lots of them—do not create the new genetic information that would be required to produce a more complex kind of organism but only variations of the existing kinds.

        Mutations never produce new information such as would be needed to produce a different kind of organism. The “raw material” provided by mutations is not new information, just recycled old information. When natural selection eliminates certain varieties of organisms from a population, as sometimes happens, the genetic information in the population may even be lost. Thus mutations do not provide the “raw material” for molecules-to-man evolution.

        So, in my opinion, they are both wrong. The earth was not created in 6 days 6,000 years ago…nor did we evolve from nothing. Science has discovered many things but there are gigantic holes in their “theories” and just because they state it does not make it so. There is much left to be discovered and somewhere in the middle of these two beliefs is the truth, something we will never know.

      • Darth Robo

        Sean, your opinion is worthless because you are quite frankly not educated on the subject. If you want evidence of speciation just check out ring species for example. You can look at the fossil record and see the evolutionary progression of lineages, hominids being a fine example. Our DNA is a measure of how closely related we all are. If you’re NOT a Young Earther who thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old then you have nothing to prevent changes from accumulating, ergo evolution is the inevitable consequence.

        And if you need new genetic material, you are quite simply WRONG in claiming that mutations do not provide them. Mutations can subtract or add DNA, or simply change existing DNA. The SETMAR gene is an example of new genetic material developing via mutations. Gene duplication, base addition – these are ADDED genetic material by definition. And these things have LONG been known to evolutionary biologists who work in the field of genetics.

        So if you propose that all species are stable (a claim falsified by the fossil record on its own, not just genetics) , and you claim you’re NOT a Young Earth Creationist, you are either a UFO fanatic or an OLD Earth Creationist. In which case feel free to present your scientific case for your position.

        If none of the above, then by all means demonstrate your position, whatever it may be.

      • Brian

        Lack of education on your part does not mean lack of evidence of science’s part. You formed your own conclusions without researching.

  • Karen Bradley Ehler

    The most recent poll/info I read was that 46% of Americans believe in creationism and not evolution or science. 46%????????? Good God no wonder our country is doomed. You can still believe in God and recognize the FACTS of science and evolution you pea brains. How did everyone get so dumb and brainwashed so fast? I thought we solved this debate back in the 1920’s with the Scopes Monkey trials. We had Car Sagan in the 1970’s and I don’t remember a whole bunch of hoopla over Cosmos then (sure there were a minorty of fools who complained but not like today). I weep for my country. I was raised by Christian parents but they never knocked real science and I learned REAL science and evolution in school. I know this sounds mean, but if you deny evolution and are hating on science and the show Cosmos you are an imbecile and in the words of comedian Erin Jackson may I say, “I hope you don’t make it to the future.”

    • MichaelLohr

      Latest survey showed that 25% of Americans believe the sun revolves around the earth.
      Welcome to the new Dark Age.

    • Sean Bradley

      Please see my post directly below yours. Very few deny evolution, but you’re going to find it impossible to prove that evolution turned organisms into humanity.

      • Mike

        impossible, if we were to think like you. close-minded, scared, confused, delusional…i guess the best way to describe your beliefs would be…silly

      • Reesy Piecey Risa Harvey

        Sounds like you need to catch up too.

      • Darth Robo

        Actually evolution as a whole incorporates human evolution, and has long been demonstrated. It’s not just “micro” evolution on a small scale, or just that all other life can evolve while humans have always been humans, but all life that is connected through common ancestry. There is no scientific dispute in this. Hasn’t been since the discovery of DNA at the very latest. That cemented evolution as not only the best, but in fact the only viable explanation for biodiversity on planet Earth.

        Anyone who claims otherwise needs to catch up on a few centuries.

    • Zog

      Yeah, that’s why I moved to Canada.

      Er I mean, That’s why I moved to Canada eh.

      • Steve Gaghagen

        The sun does revolve around Canada.

      • Zog

        We dont get that much sun sadly.

      • Diego Garcia

        yeah its way dif up there? SMH..youre a dim wit ..

      • Zog

        “I have no argument so I will resort to slander.”

        Logical Fallacies, everyone!

      • Waldoor

        Actually having bounced between Vancouver and Los Angeles for the past fourteen years, the differences are becoming more noticeable.

    • Gary Menten

      Speaking of Carl Sagan, in “The Demon Haunted World,” the last book he wrote before his death, he devotes a good deal of attention to both the percentage of the US population accepting Evolution v. Creationism AND problems with the US educational system. Particularly amusing are some of the letters (from citizens outraged at his criticisms of the educational system) which make statements like “We could study as much as the Chinese but then we’d have no social lives.”

      I’d agree that when Cosmos was first run in 1980, there was no big hoopla, but that was before Reagan brought the Evangelicals into the GOP and before the internet was available for them to vent their lunacy at the world.

      I really miss Carl Sagan….

  • Karen Bradley Ehler

    Creationism = Religion / Philosphy. Evolution = Science / Facts. Creationism does not belong in a science classroom or documentary TV Show/Film. End of story.

  • Lauren Sager

    epic

  • @Mike-uk2011

    Cool, well if they’re wanting equal time on COSMOS, which is a ‘science’ show.
    Then I’m sure they won’t mind sharing equal time in religious programming for atheism, evolution and big bang cosmology. After all, fair is fair.

  • Tysonthedouche

    This show is dumb, Tyson is a government shill, only saying what he is paid to say by the liars at the smithsonian and nasa. Go read about forbidden archaeology if you people are so called scientists and actually examine evidence that’s been brought to the forefront but ignored because it doesn’t fit your little story of how everything started and how we came to be because it would make you all wrong and have to rewrite history… You people claim to be about facts and evidence but only when it fits your little agenda… What scientists you all are.

    • Sean Bradley

      I think the show is pretty cool and there are many scientific discoveries presented that interest me. I also think that they are just as arrogant as the creationists when they state theoretical data as fact and subtly poke fun at anything else that contradicts it’s possibilities. For example, to assert that humanity evolved from a single celled organism seems like absurdity of magnificent proportions and they have absolutely no proof that it is even possible. Frankly, I think both sides are wrong and that somewhere in the middle is reality.

      • Darth Robo

        Um, Sean, I hate to break it to you but you WERE once a single celled organism.

        But your incredulity doesn’t matter one bit. I’ve already pointed out how our DNA demonstrates common ancestry, and can even provide you with further evidence if needed. It won’t be necessary though, since you have failed to refute evolution the first time.

        Any time you like feel free to provide your scientific alternative that does a better job of explaining the evidence.

      • Brian

        There is proof that all life evolved from single-cell organisms if you’d bother looking for it. The answer is nowhere in between, you just want to compromise your beliefs with fact because you’re having trouble handling the truth of the matter.

      • Gary Menten

        Middle ground? Are you proposing that the laws of nature and physics apply only to some things and not to others?

    • Brian

      “Go read about forbidden archaeology”

      Stopped there.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        same as the sins of doing so in “planet of the apes”

  • Ben Magno

    Answers In Genesis is playing martyr. They really seem to thrive on false persecution. It’s so much easier to use persecution as a defense than to make their own show and shop it to networks.

    What? FALSE persecution? Yep. They claim to know all about science, they’re great at manipulating media, and Cosmos has already been made. They know they aren’t going to be “granted” airtime on an already-made show. They get to be loud, they get to be persecuted, and certain people will buy it. This method certainly beats having to put their ideas up to real scrutiny.

    By the way, why does the Bible HAVE to be absolute and literal? You know who taught mainly by allegory? Jesus. Seriously. Read that Bible thing they claim to know. It’s full of the stuff.

  • TomMoe

    The basic issue is that you continually portray one form of creation. It is sort of like presenting medical science as those who practice blood letting. Not hard to put that group down. One wonders why you are afraid to notice anything but extreme Creationism?

    • Darth Robo

      TomMoe, if your idea of creationism is merely theism then you don’t have to worry about anything other than extremist creationism, such as the Earth/universe age-deniers, or the evolution deniers. If you happen to deny any of the scientific concepts presented in Cosmos then it is highly likely therefore you are a creationist of the reality-denying variety.

      Sure there’s lots of different colours and stripes of creationism.

      However in science, NONE of them matter. At all. All that matters in science is what you can demonstrate.

    • Brian

      Believe what you want, but I will call you delusional if you deny scientific fact in favour of your fantasies.

  • Joe

    They have many networks they can do it on. Why not just remove Hannity’s one hour show with that?

  • Cal Kane

    HAHAHAHAHH oh this is sooooooooo good 🙂

  • Γιάννης

    Please please please comedy central. Please do it. You don’t need a response. I am already rofling at the idea. Please 🙂

    • Sean Bradley

      There are plenty of ways of disproving some of the theories presented in the series ‘Cosmos’…you don’t need to be a creationist to do so. Would you rofl if another scientist presented an opposing view? Or you just like to make fun of the religious people because you think it’s cute and they have zero valid points? Wait, never mind…your a sheeple, you fit right in.

      • Guest

        Oh brainless dweeb. Please learn the difference between theory and hypothesis and then let’s re discuss your silly first phrase. Yes. I do take pleasure in ridiculing creationists. Exactly because they don’t have any evidence for their bs. Next time you offend someone be prepared for a counter offense. 😛

      • Darth Robo

        If that were the case Sean, you would have done so already.

        That’s what scientific peer-review is for. Go submit a science paper that falsifies any currently established scientific concept that the science community generally regards as factual, such as the age of the Earth, or say, biological evolution.

        My guess is you won’t and claim it’s all because if the big giant world-wide elitist scientist conspiracy.

      • Γιάννης

        Oh brainless dweeb. Please learn the difference between theory and hypothesis and then let’s re discuss your silly first phrase. Yes. I do take pleasure in ridiculing creationists. Exactly because they don’t have any evidence for their bs. Next time you offend someone be prepared for a counter offense. 😛

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        and if the scream “RELIGION” ask their “god” to FULLY cure an amputee

      • Gary Menten

        Many hypotheses in science are ultimately proved incorrect. That’s okay because science is a self-correcting process and this is how scientists get at the truth. None of what was presented to date in COSMOS is merely hypothesized however. All of it stands on solid, well-accepted grounds confirmed by scientific method, and which if you can disprove, would entitle you to a Nobel Prize.

  • Sean Bradley

    Yeah, the world needs more people like you who wish death upon an entire classification of people…definitely not more people who preach love and peace. You’re a real winner! BTW, I don’t have a dog in this fight but you’re a real piece of work.

  • David P. Turnbole

    And if you think this is silly you need only attend a Baptist Sunday Service and ask the pastor if he…. because they don’t allow she pastors…. any of these questions. You’ll get these answers.

  • Greg Simon

    Why not let people believe what they want to believe? If they are not harming you why do you feel the need to ridicule them? I thought progressivism was suppose to be about freedom of choice.

    • Darth Robo

      Greg, people can believe what they like.

      What they can’t do is teach religious beliefs in public schools, which is precisely what creationists have been doing for decades in certain areas. Not only is this stupidly anti-education, but it is also un-Constitutional.

      As for the show, Cosmos, it is not about poking fun at religious beliefs. It is about addressing scientific literacy in the US, which at the moment is lacking. Which is a sad state of affairs for a country that once led the space race and was the first to land on the moon.

      • Greg Simon

        Agreement here on the poor state of education and general knowledge of anything in the USA.

      • Darth Robo

        And that’s due to a number of factors, such as poor teacher training or lack of funding to name but two examples. The specifics may vary from place to place.

        But another prominent factor is the influence of politico-religious idealogues who use public schools as a battleground, most especially in science classes. And because of this, education suffers. This is due to the creationist movement whose wish it is to replace the Constitution with a theocracy. Their target – public school science classes.

      • Greg Simon

        Ridiculous. It is because American consumerism life is too easy and the American culture encourages laziness, dependency and ignorance. Australia ranks #6 in the world in science rankings and they are a 61% christian population.

      • Darth Robo

        Who mentioned Christianity? I sure didn’t. I said CREATIONISTS, not Christians.

        In America there’s a very high population of Christians. But there is also a very high population of Creationists. So much so in fact that in various polls taken on attitudes towards science, about half of the US reject evolutionary biology. And the creationist movement have had a long and sordid legal history pertaining to science education.

        Remember, while most creationists are Christian, most Christians are not Creationists.

        Save perhaps in the US.

      • Greg Simon

        I did not realize there was a difference. So if I research science scores by American kids in regions of the country with less creationists I will find a higher average than those regions with more creationists?

      • Darth Robo

        As I said there are a number of factors, we’ve both touched upon them. But creationism is certainly a hindrance and never a help where it is pushed.

        There have been a number of commenters here who have expounded on the difference of creationists. Creationism is not simply “theism” or “Christianity”. For example most Christians accept evolution. But when we refer to creationists, especially in light of the evolution vs creationism “debate”, creationists tend to deny reality for the sake of their faith. For other Christians though, they have no problem accepting evolution just as they have no problem accepting gravity.

      • Brian

        Your posts all lack a point. You seem to be trying to create causation out of nothing and forgoing all context. Religion in schools is bad. End of story.

      • Greg Simon

        I was not aware of the difference between creationists and christians. US students rank globally #15 in reading skills as well. Is this because of creationism too?

      • Greg Simon

        Is America ranked #15 in reading skills because of Creationists?

      • Greg Simon

        You know last year I went to Bhutan. It is a small country between India and Tibet. It is a Buddhist country where Buddhist beliefs influence all aspects of their lives. The country uses a Gross National Happiness index for measuring their national wealth rather than a GDP measurement. I have been to over 60 countries in my life and they are among the happiest people I have met.

        There is a temple in Bhutan called Tiger’s Nest. I hiked up to it. It is a beautiful place. It is built on the side of a cliff. Herein lies the mystery, how was it built? The official history of Bhutan, as learned in their history books, is that a Lama in the 6th century turned his wife into a flying tiger and rode on her back up to that spot. In the middle of the night he summoned up evil spirits to work for him in the darkness to build this temple.

        You might think this accounting of history is ridiculous and call them stupid anti-educated people. But for them, they are fine with it. and they are happy and peaceful people. My point is, everyone has their own reality and their own path to walk down. You have yours, others have something else. One is not universally right or wrong.

      • Darth Robo

        You appear to be under the misunderstanding that I’m motivated by religious or philosophical ideology. I’m not. Creationists have their religious freedom. They can go to church, hire a hall, preach on a street corner, or build more churches.

        But they aren’t allowed to promote their religious beliefs in public schools over any other.

        The ONLY way they would be allowed to do so would be if ALL religions and philosophies were taught EQUALLY. (And that would be in a comparative religions class, not science classes). But that’s easier said than done in the US.

      • Gary Menten

        The United States is clearly not Bhutan, has a different history, population and yes…a Constitution. Thanks for your input.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        all religions are flawed; ergo historically/socially and spiritually WRONG

    • Gary Menten

      This discussion isn’t about what people want to believe. They can believe anything they want. It’s about whether a TV series devoted to science should include non-science or pseudo-science and the answer is “NO.”

  • Jo6pK

    As a history student then graduate I read parts and pieces of the Gilgamesh sagas, dated approximately 2650 BC. The number 9 saga, chapter was the story about Gilgamesh in search of immortality, which drew him to a man thousands of years old. Who told the story of a flood, it was simple, certainly more plausible then the ones the Jews tell, after being released from captivity in Babylon. [Gilgamesh was the king of Ur, the same city as Abraham was born] Evidence in ancient documents show their 4th rendition of stories of origins only included the flood, none of the others. Today the 4th which we know of as the Old Testament. In Gilgamesh version they take 2 seeds of all things they could gather. The flood comes from their gods being fed up with man destroying their work in nature! And the guy playing Noah is offered immorality by the only juvenile goddess that wants to save the people and the world, so the offer is to build the ark. As a history major stories of origin tell you what the group wants the other groups to believe they believe, not what they can prove. In the early tribes the judges were the keeper of the peoples stories-plural, expanding, reinterpreting. Non were set in stone, all have different versions. But for 1600 years scribe schools taught the Sagas stories, including the one about the flood way before they became holy writ, and the story sounds plausible, no need for a large toilet, or tons of food, at a time ships were still pretty small. But welcome any dialog on Gilgamesh, who like Abraham were very pivotal persons in ancient history of huge interest.

  • Duncan

    Now this is how you respond to creationists. Not with respect. That only validates and enables them. I’m not going to present fake respect to people for which I have no respect.

  • richard

    Forward Progressives is this site. The article re. Comedy Central offering Creationists a forum on TV is meant to be funny. Creationism vs. science is funny. A Creationist tire store manager doing his own brain surgery is funny. If you’re a Creationist and you are here at a Progressive site, you are sinning with sinners. I probably rubbed some of my sin on you already. You might have put some of my sin in your ear accidentally. If you’re here to argue for Creationism over science, you probably need attention, even negative attention. We’re all standing around in Abercrombie and drinking hipster cocktails and we get each other’s jokes…because, you know, progressives are better educated and decidedly cooler…and there you are, the four or five Creationists, in horn-rimmed glasses and clutching Bibles, suffering from eczema and a little OCD. You should probably leave.

  • Hannibal G

    No, the earth was not created in 24 hour days, thousands of years had passed between each day. Our sense of time isnt the same as the one in Genesis. So to say, the earth was created in 24 hours shows how truly little you know about the bible, and what creationist believe. And yes, its quite possible and acceptable that two daughters got their father drunk to keep their blood line going. isnt this what royalty people have been doing for centuries???

    • Brian

      “No, the earth was not created in 24 hour days, thousands of years had passed between each day.”
      The bible was written by Hebrews who only had one definition of a day, and that was 24 hours. Where in the bible does it say it took thousands of years? It’s something someone made up to try and conform to the undeniable scientific fact that the world is older than 6000 years. The bible is wrong. It’s utterly wrong and it was written 4000 years ago by nomadic Middle Eastern goat herders. Why do you take it seriously?
      Also, no, royal families did not do that for centuries. Zoroastrians and Jews did that. No one else did, with a few rare exceptions in Spain and Egypt. Inbreeding amongst royalty and nobility is a myth.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        the bible is wrong????
        ,,,,,,,,,,then noah didn’t feed and house all those animals and then place them in Australia and the western hemisphere?

  • Jimf

    God created the entire Universe in 6 days. Why the rest of it would have existed without the Earth is a real mystery

    • Darth Robo

      And thus demonstrates the problem of Poe’s Law…

  • David Rice

    Then next week deniers of human-caused climate change can present their “facts.”

  • David Manhart

    Atheists should also have equal time in the churches.. Teach the controversy!

  • Damian

    Honestly, I would watch that show, I think it will be very hila…I mean informa…wait, it will be Informalarious! Informative, Hilarious, and as dangerous to human civilisation as Malaria

  • Gary Menten

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; Neil can give equal time to creationist beliefs on Cosmos when all the televangelists in America start devoting equal time to Evolution and the Big Bang on their TV shows and in their Sunday sermons. Until then….bye….

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      the TRUE “big bang” is the sound often generated by the slamming of vault doors after the religious leaders have pilfered ( tax free) the monies from the lemmings which fuel the tithe!!

  • Gary Menten

    Creationists have no valid scientific evidence whatsoever to hold up their beliefs. On the one hand they’ll claim radiometric testing of rocks is unreliable, and in the next breath, they’ll claim that dinosaur bones have been carbon dated to less than 40,000 years ago–a claim thoroughly debunked more than 20 years ago–or laughable “experiments” with jars of peanut butter. If they want to put that sort of baloney on TV, let them write their own TV shows and pay for it out of their own pockets…oh wait…they already do.

  • Sean Walker

    The only controversy about the crationists position is that the media reports on it with a straight face.

    • Darth Robo

      God bless Fox!

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        which GOD?

  • rogerrramjet

    DAMN I was hoping it was real. Double damn.

  • Rich_Olszewski

    Of course men rode dinosaurs in the past. Haven’t you read “Alley Oop”?

  • Red_Ruffensor

    I would watch it!

  • XBIRX505

    Despite my belief this is why people have wars, if people want to believe in Mono or poly theism or even Atheist, let it be.

  • George

    I watch Cosmos and find it interesting. Frankly, if some Creationists are that concerned with what Neil deGrasse Tyson says on his show, maybe they should produce their own show. Of course Comedy Central was doing what they do, tongue-in-cheek, but Forward Progressives, who claim to be working for positive change in our communities, seemed to use it just to slam Christians (IMO). But I digress, we are a nation of hypocrites, demanding rights for one group while slamming another down. It’s what we do.

  • moe/larry & curly keys

    a 500 yr old man,,,,, ETC— PRICELESS! my inquiry: how did NOAH ( and family) get the animals over to Australia area and the western hemisphere?? did he loan out that magnificent boat???

  • bill0

    Christian conservatives – especially creationists – must be relieved of their firearms immediately.

  • CriticalDragon1177

    Comedy Central would actually be the perfect network to do this, since all the Creationists’ “facts” are a joke.

  • Michael Bean

    There is no such thing as creation science. Creationism is not science. It’s myth, and as such belongs in discussion alongside other myths