Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Carl Sagan Portal)   The "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey Episode" Discussion Thread and Drinking Game. 9PM eastern, Fox   ( carlsagan.com) divider line
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

2827 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Mar 2014 at 8:30 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



460 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-03-16 11:54:02 PM  

Ex-Texan: The last scene, it was if I'd seen it before. Wait, I did. The original. Tyson missed with the DNA, by not saying "we're made of star stuff".


NdT  did that in Episode 1.
 
2014-03-16 11:55:33 PM  
Didn't the eye develop independently some 5 times in the history of life on Earth.

I have to sober up and google this.
 
2014-03-17 12:09:13 AM  
I don't know why you keep feeding this thing.  It couldn't be any more obvious except maybe to have the imprint of its bridge's support structure indented into its skull.

/and by "this thing" I of course mean DumbAssWayne
 
2014-03-17 12:14:10 AM  

Waldo Pepper: Why is science being packaged like it is a religion? Seems the music is right out of Demiles 10 Commandments.


So in your mind Demiles sense of music score embodies the quintessential religious experience?   Because your pop-culture cart just leapfrogged your spiritual horse.
 
2014-03-17 12:23:19 AM  
img.ibtimes.com
 
2014-03-17 12:26:32 AM  
This just in... the official Creationist rebuttal....

i61.tinypic.com
 
2014-03-17 12:27:27 AM  

IronTom: Not Godwined yet?  Hitler.


Thank you. Somebody had to do it.
 
2014-03-17 12:35:15 AM  

magicgoo: You know you want this shirt:

[i743.photobucket.com image 549x597]


*Gasp!* Bookmarked for future purchase.

/just bought my husband a "Nye Laboratories" shirt from ThinkGeek
//wonder if I should get us matching colors for this one :D
 
2014-03-17 12:52:56 AM  

Arumat: I don't know why you keep feeding this thing.  It couldn't be any more obvious except maybe to have the imprint of its bridge's support structure indented into its skull.

/and by "this thing" I of course mean DumbAssWayne


Glutton for punishment, not feeling well at 2am and tired of listening to HenryFnord snore, and generally cranky? And tired of the fallacy-laden 20-somethings are stupid hurr-durr argument, and I still have another 62 months of it.

/Canwe imprint a bridge's support structure on its skull? Or would that be wrong?...
 
2014-03-17 12:58:32 AM  

IronTom: Confabulat: Ned Stark: A human lifespan isn't long enough to independently check all of it.

You don't have to independently check all of it. Understanding the basic concepts is fine. No one can every be an expert in all things science of course, but that doesn't mean you can't figure out a good chunk of it if you put in the time.

Isaac Asimov had 7 PhDs, and he probably didn't know it all, but it is a shame that some people have to croak.  He could have done some great things with all that knowledge.  Maybe his books are his contribution.

Maybe there should be a series, one show for each of Asimov's PhDs.


7? Are you counting honorary degrees? AFAIK Asimov completed his Ph.D in Biochemistry in 1948, and that's it.
 
2014-03-17 01:03:15 AM  

Iceman208481: family guy sucked tonight


I love how it was a god centric episode, right before evolution party time :)
 
2014-03-17 01:07:35 AM  

dopekitty74: Iceman208481: family guy sucked tonight

I love how it was a god centric episode, right before evolution party time :)


I got a few laughs out of it.
 
2014-03-17 01:10:31 AM  

BorgiaGinz: IronTom: Confabulat: Ned Stark: A human lifespan isn't long enough to independently check all of it.

You don't have to independently check all of it. Understanding the basic concepts is fine. No one can every be an expert in all things science of course, but that doesn't mean you can't figure out a good chunk of it if you put in the time.

Isaac Asimov had 7 PhDs, and he probably didn't know it all, but it is a shame that some people have to croak.  He could have done some great things with all that knowledge.  Maybe his books are his contribution.

Maybe there should be a series, one show for each of Asimov's PhDs.

7? Are you counting honorary degrees? AFAIK Asimov completed his Ph.D in Biochemistry in 1948, and that's it.


Hmm, you may be right, at least as far as wiki says.  I should have couched that in "I think Asimov had 7 PhDs"  At least he had at least one, which is no mean feat. Hmm.
 
2014-03-17 01:24:46 AM  

L33t Squirrel: magicgoo: You know you want this shirt:

[i743.photobucket.com image 549x597]

*Gasp!* Bookmarked for future purchase.

/just bought my husband a "Nye Laboratories" shirt from ThinkGeek
//wonder if I should get us matching colors for this one :D


Enjoy! The Society 6 shirts are super soft and high quality. Plus, you're supporting a fellow Farkette or something. =) OK, I'll stop high jacking the thread now.
 
2014-03-17 01:34:30 AM  

magicgoo: L33t Squirrel: magicgoo: You know you want this shirt:

[i743.photobucket.com image 549x597]

*Gasp!* Bookmarked for future purchase.

/just bought my husband a "Nye Laboratories" shirt from ThinkGeek
//wonder if I should get us matching colors for this one :D

Enjoy! The Society 6 shirts are super soft and high quality. Plus, you're supporting a fellow Farkette or something. =) OK, I'll stop high jacking the thread now.


You can't hijack a thread that's already been hijacked, loaded with manure, lit on fire, and driven off a cliff.
 
2014-03-17 02:05:08 AM  

JerseyTim: Ugh, my bark is itching.


Ruff! My dogs are barking.
 
2014-03-17 03:00:37 AM  

enry: I believe that God made the laws of the universe at the big bang and adhered to them since then. Did God say "poof, life!"? No. Did he make sure that lightning hit the right pool of goo and caused amino acids to start clumping together? I'll buy that. But I can't prove it to you and it doesn't contradict what science tells us, so let me have this little slice of faith.


Let me explain to you why this is a losing gambit:

In all the times we've ever investigated unexplained causes or phenomena, NEVER has the answer been God, magic, or supernatural causes. Science has won every single time.

We can hardly blame science for expecting this trend to continue, so I wouldn't hedge your bets.
 
2014-03-17 03:09:27 AM  
I was taught evolution by a Catholic priest at a Catholic school and no one was burned at the stake nor were there butthurt parents.
 
2014-03-17 03:12:01 AM  
Well that episode was better. Silvestri has to not drench the whole thing in scoring though. When Tyson speaks, knock it off. I'm trying to hear the god damn science man, I don't need blaring french horns competing for my ear-space. When there are visuals or animation, yeah ratchet up the string section. But when Tyson is on screen, shut up. Less is more.

/Still not Vangelis
 
2014-03-17 03:34:57 AM  
Haven't watched this one yet, but I sure hope it's better than the first. I watched it on Hulu tonight, and was sorely disappointed. The one thing this new version had to do that the original did not was to back up its assertions in some way. Just reference how the knowledge it delivers was arrived at from time to time -- in short, not give idiot detractors any ammunition, and address "controversial" (please note the sarcasm in my quote marks) subjects in a way that might persuade people watching to be convinced that science plays by it's own rules and can justify it's conclusions.

But nope. Most of the information presented is done so in a "take our word for it" manner. Plus it portrays the Catholic church LITERALLY as cartoon villains. I mean, actually in a cartoon, and with actually clichéd bad-guy dialogue. Such an enormous missed opportunity. If e2 doesn't do better, I doubt I'll watch the rest. It's all stuff I know anyway, so it would just serve to raise my hackles watching Tyson piss away a great chance to show how science works rather than just present end results with expensive F/X.

I know he can't go into voluminous detail on every bit of info, but I imagine watching this from the POV of, say, a freshman at college who went to a religious high school and has bible-beater parents, but is starting to think for himself - and in the first episode alone, I'm seeing that kid having a hard time believing anything that challenges his shaky world view. Not one moment that gives him any reason to believe the unsupported assertions in "Cosmos" over the unsupported assertions he's had hammered into his head every Sunday.

Unless this new "Cosmos" can show its work a little - give some semblance of answers to those with questions - I don't much see the point.
 
2014-03-17 05:50:17 AM  

100 Watt Walrus: Haven't watched this one yet, but I sure hope it's better than the first. I watched it on Hulu tonight, and was sorely disappointed. The one thing this new version had to do that the original did not was to back up its assertions in some way. Just reference how the knowledge it delivers was arrived at from time to time -- in short, not give idiot detractors any ammunition, and address "controversial" (please note the sarcasm in my quote marks) subjects in a way that might persuade people watching to be convinced that science plays by it's own rules and can justify it's conclusions.

But nope. Most of the information presented is done so in a "take our word for it" manner. Plus it portrays the Catholic church LITERALLY as cartoon villains. I mean, actually in a cartoon, and with actually clichéd bad-guy dialogue. Such an enormous missed opportunity. If e2 doesn't do better, I doubt I'll watch the rest. It's all stuff I know anyway, so it would just serve to raise my hackles watching Tyson piss away a great chance to show how science works rather than just present end results with expensive F/X.

I know he can't go into voluminous detail on every bit of info, but I imagine watching this from the POV of, say, a freshman at college who went to a religious high school and has bible-beater parents, but is starting to think for himself - and in the first episode alone, I'm seeing that kid having a hard time believing anything that challenges his shaky world view. Not one moment that gives him any reason to believe the unsupported assertions in "Cosmos" over the unsupported assertions he's had hammered into his head every Sunday.

Unless this new "Cosmos" can show its work a little - give some semblance of answers to those with questions - I don't much see the point.


agreed.  I was fairly let down about how much of the first show had nothing to do with science and was instead a commentary on religion hundreds of years ago.  WTF was the point of that outside of taking stabs at religious folks?

Tonight's episode seemed much better and to focus on explaining evolution with easy to understand examples.
 
2014-03-17 08:20:14 AM  

Confabulat: dopekitty74: Seth McFarlane is involved in this? Interesting....

He's the only reason it got made.


This almost makes up for the Cleaveland Show and most of Family Guy.

/how much money does this farking guy make?!
 
2014-03-17 08:34:21 AM  

NickelP: 100 Watt Walrus: Haven't watched this one yet, but I sure hope it's better than the first. I watched it on Hulu tonight, and was sorely disappointed. The one thing this new version had to do that the original did not was to back up its assertions in some way. Just reference how the knowledge it delivers was arrived at from time to time -- in short, not give idiot detractors any ammunition, and address "controversial" (please note the sarcasm in my quote marks) subjects in a way that might persuade people watching to be convinced that science plays by it's own rules and can justify it's conclusions.

But nope. Most of the information presented is done so in a "take our word for it" manner. Plus it portrays the Catholic church LITERALLY as cartoon villains. I mean, actually in a cartoon, and with actually clichéd bad-guy dialogue. Such an enormous missed opportunity. If e2 doesn't do better, I doubt I'll watch the rest. It's all stuff I know anyway, so it would just serve to raise my hackles watching Tyson piss away a great chance to show how science works rather than just present end results with expensive F/X.

I know he can't go into voluminous detail on every bit of info, but I imagine watching this from the POV of, say, a freshman at college who went to a religious high school and has bible-beater parents, but is starting to think for himself - and in the first episode alone, I'm seeing that kid having a hard time believing anything that challenges his shaky world view. Not one moment that gives him any reason to believe the unsupported assertions in "Cosmos" over the unsupported assertions he's had hammered into his head every Sunday.

Unless this new "Cosmos" can show its work a little - give some semblance of answers to those with questions - I don't much see the point.

agreed.  I was fairly let down about how much of the first show had nothing to do with science and was instead a commentary on religion hundreds of years ago.  WTF was the point of that outsid ...


Also agree ^^^

I think there is a belief that a mojority of the audience might have trouble with the details or that the details themselves can become complex and time consuming. Make no mistake, this show is trying to appeal to the largest audience in the shortest time. That never makes for really good science.

However, the catch-22 is that a good majority of the audience might not be capable of following the detail......


It's always a tough trade-off for shows like this.
 
2014-03-17 09:56:47 AM  

Luthien's Tempest: Arumat: I don't know why you keep feeding this thing.  It couldn't be any more obvious except maybe to have the imprint of its bridge's support structure indented into its skull.


tired of listening to HenryFnord snore,


Rebuttal: I don't snore.
 
2014-03-17 11:29:51 AM  

Waldo Pepper: Ishkur: enry: I believe that God made the laws of the universe at the big bang and adhered to them since then. Did God say "poof, life!"? No. Did he make sure that lightning hit the right pool of goo and caused amino acids to start clumping together? I'll buy that. But I can't prove it to you and it doesn't contradict what science tells us, so let me have this little slice of faith.

Let me explain to you why this is a losing gambit:

In all the times we've ever investigated unexplained causes or phenomena, NEVER has the answer been God, magic, or supernatural causes. Science has won every single time.

We can hardly blame science for expecting this trend to continue, so I wouldn't hedge your bets.

the problem with your explanation is that you have removed God from the equation.  

can you please cite an example where a unexplained cause or phenomena has been investigated and God has been ruled out yet the the cause or phenomena is still unexplained?


Sure, but then you have to rule out the cause as being purple unicorns or a teapot on Mars, because all three are equally as likely.

The problem with your explanation is that you use the typical bullshiat mountain excuse of everything being "fair and balanced" as if all sides always have equal standing.  When in the history of all things, science has consistently been able to explain unexplained phenomena while the role of the supernatural has been pushed more and more to the ignorant fringe, I would put my money on science being the ultimate explanation, no some deity desperately clung to by people too afraid to educate themselves about the world.
 
2014-03-17 11:39:33 AM  

Waldo Pepper: It struck me as a chance to bash religion and very little "fact" based information.


I'm guessing a lot of things strike you that way.
 
2014-03-17 11:57:37 AM  

HenryFnord: Luthien's Tempest: Arumat: I don't know why you keep feeding this thing.  It couldn't be any more obvious except maybe to have the imprint of its bridge's support structure indented into its skull.


tired of listening to HenryFnord snore,

Rebuttal: I don't snore.


This is probably the best way-too-late comment I've ever seen in a Fark thread.
 
2014-03-17 12:48:42 PM  

farkingismybusiness: [25.media.tumblr.com image 500x375]


But the internet is a whole SERIES of tubes so ....

Woah.

MIND.  BLOWN.
 
2014-03-17 12:49:54 PM  

Luthien's Tempest: IronTom: Luthien's Tempest: PUPPIES!!

I'm going to especially enjoy this episode if it's going to be all this happiness, sunshine, and puppies.

and extinction

Well, extinction can be fun, too... When do I get to start extincting things?


Pretty sure we've already started.
 
2014-03-17 12:56:02 PM  

farkingismybusiness: If I evolved from trees then how come there are still trees?


Trees are like your inbred hillbilly cousins.
 
2014-03-17 01:24:21 PM  

Froonium: The Lone Gunman: So, basically, we're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a mutant fish-squirrel.

Nah, that's just you.


It's you, too.
 
2014-03-17 02:02:41 PM  

ciberido: farkingismybusiness: [25.media.tumblr.com image 500x375]

But the internet is a whole SERIES of tubes so ....

Woah.

MIND.  BLOWN.



cdn.uproxx.com
 
2014-03-17 03:25:07 PM  

100 Watt Walrus: I mean, actually in a cartoon, and with actually clichéd bad-guy dialogue.


Unfortunately, some of that "bad dialog" is simply what history indicates was actually said -- merely translating into English from the classical Italian or Latin (depending on which speech).

Though to admit blame where due, some of the translation seemed pretty wretched.

Waldo Pepper: why do you feel people "desperately" are clinging to God?


The frequency with which Christian commentators appear to consider atheism as necessarily implying nihilism, with religion the only alternative to associated despondency, seems suggestive.
 
2014-03-17 04:59:56 PM  
Although I am not a fan of his work, the fact that MacFarlane used his money and influence to help make this series happen makes me very appreciative, and I would gladly shake his hand and thank him personally given the chance.

/Same for everyone else involved.
//Even Brannon "Threshold" Braga
 
2014-03-17 05:33:30 PM  

Waldo Pepper: As a Christian I can look at the science and understand  speculate with absolutely no evidence that this is the universe that God created and the rules and actions that have been put in place to allow the universe to function.


FTFY
 
2014-03-17 05:43:50 PM  

WhyteRaven74: The eye? They're actually going for the one thing the intelligent design crowd explicitly states as being too complex to be naturally evolved? Oh snap.


But I see the eviloutionists are still too cowardly and dishonest to take on the banana, which as everybody knows is the atheists' worst nightmare.
 
2014-03-17 05:45:40 PM  

tudorgurl: farkingismybusiness: I think he might be on to something about us being related to trees. Everyday I wake up with morning wood.

SCIENCE!


1.bp.blogspot.com

It's poetry in motion.
 
2014-03-17 05:59:27 PM  

Waldo Pepper: you have summed this show up nicely.  I'm Christian and I believe in Creation. I had the show on in the background and was listening to it. It struck me as a chance to bash religion and very little "fact" based information.

Everything

in "Cosmos" is fact-based information. The problem with episode 1 of "Cosmos" is it presents its fact as a given, rather than backing them up. Even a "learn more at..." URL in the corner of the screen would have been sufficient. Now that I think about it, they really should have done that. A corresponding website could include citations, statement by statement, for everything in the show.
 
2014-03-17 06:09:27 PM  

Waldo Pepper: sorry to see that you are so closed minded


Alright, then. according to you:

Open to all possibilities, yet requiring evidence = closed-minded
Pretending to know something you don't know, with zero evidence = open minded?

I appreciate that you aren't demanding anything, and you seem reasonable for the most part, but let's not pretend your beliefs have any mooring in reality.
 
2014-03-17 06:10:56 PM  

doyner: Jesterling: An ad for a Noah's arc movie during Cosmos.  It's the end of the empire, folks.

Advertising companies know there are evangelicals out there watching Cosmos in order to get angry.


I remember the day I first understood that some people really, really, WANT to be angry.  It was quite the epiphany.
 
2014-03-17 06:25:26 PM  

Froonium: The Lone Gunman: So, basically, we're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a mutant fish-squirrel.

Nah, that's just you.


My ancestors came over on Golgafrincham Ark B, personally.
 
2014-03-17 06:27:56 PM  

Waldo Pepper: my beliefs have moorings in reality. There is a written history that goes back thousands of years. You may not accept those writings are accurate but I do and there has been some scientific and historic backing to events in the that are in those writing.


Such as?
 
2014-03-17 06:30:47 PM  

100 Watt Walrus: Waldo Pepper: you have summed this show up nicely.  I'm Christian and I believe in Creation. I had the show on in the background and was listening to it. It struck me as a chance to bash religion and very little "fact" based information.

Everything in "Cosmos" is fact-based information. The problem with episode 1 of "Cosmos" is it presents its fact as a given, rather than backing them up. Even a "learn more at..." URL in the corner of the screen would have been sufficient. Now that I think about it, they really should have done that. A corresponding website could include citations, statement by statement, for everything in the show.


BTW, I don't see any of the content in "Cosmos" as "a chance to bash religion." The cartoon villainy of the Inquisition is, if anything, mild compared to the real villainy of the Inquisition. But to literally draw the characters so broad makes the point less salient.

And don't let your detractors in this thread get you down. It's possible to believe god is responsible for all the discoveries we make about the universe through science, as long as you acknowledge it is a belief, as there is no testable evidence for the existence of god. Faith is faith, and there's nothing wrong with faith as long as it doesn't blind you to fact.

There exists only anecdotal, wholly untestable evidence for reincarnation, but I believe in that because of my own experiences. I can't back it up with anything scientific.

/atheist
 
2014-03-17 06:35:56 PM  

Waldo Pepper: Don't confuse my faith and belief in God/Christ with the corruption and negative impact organized religion has had on the world.


Well, on that we can agree. We cool ;)
 
2014-03-17 06:37:06 PM  

Ishkur: Waldo Pepper: my beliefs have moorings in reality. There is a written history that goes back thousands of years. You may not accept those writings are accurate but I do and there has been some scientific and historic backing to events in the that are in those writing.

Such as?


I'd like to hear the answer to this too.
 
2014-03-17 06:38:12 PM  

Waldo Pepper: Ishkur: Waldo Pepper: my beliefs have moorings in reality. There is a written history that goes back thousands of years. You may not accept those writings are accurate but I do and there has been some scientific and historic backing to events in the that are in those writing.

Such as?

you have google or bing feel free to do a search.


You're losing me Waldo.

img341.imageshack.us
 
2014-03-17 06:44:49 PM  

Waldo Pepper: I guess if you base your views of Christians on a high percent of commentators I will admit you are correct. Might I suggest not viewing Christians thru the eyes of the media/hollywood.


I was merely pointing to that as a convenient source of examples. While my own circle of acquaintance is also hardly a representative sample, its also one of the arguments I've more frequently encountered in person, and in various apologetics literature in theology journals.
 
2014-03-17 06:49:18 PM  

Waldo Pepper: you have google or bing feel free to do a search.


No, it's your bold assertion, so YOU have to back it up: Give me an example of scientific evidence for the existence of God.
 
2014-03-17 06:53:46 PM  

Ishkur: Waldo Pepper: you have google or bing feel free to do a search.

No, it's your bold assertion, so YOU have to back it up: Give me an example of scientific evidence for the existence of God.


It is his assertion and his responsibility to back it up, but you're deliberately and badly misrepresenting his claim, which was "my beliefs have moorings in reality. There is a written history that goes back thousands of years."

Not one thing Waldo has written has even approached asserting there is scientific evidence of god.
 
2014-03-17 06:54:35 PM  

Waldo Pepper: as the end times gets closer


Yes, the end times are getting closer - every day is closer to the estimated 1.2 billion years from now when the sun enters the red giant phase. Were you claiming something sooner?
 
Displayed 50 of 460 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report