At least I think so. And I think it is an extremely thin limb. I just watched the latest episode. In it they state that during the first half of the Earth's life it was subject to repeated large impacts that would have wiped out all life on Earth. However, some bacteria would have lived in rocks that were ejected from the surface into space. Those life forms would have repopulated the Earth. My first objection to this is that the Late Heavy Bombardment (LHB), if it occurred happened around 4 billion years ago, long before the first half of the existence of the Earth was over around 2.5 billion years ago. The second problem I have is that I don't see why life would have survived in the rocks ejected into space, while none would have survived on the surface of the Earth. When I saw that I really started wondering what Tyson had been smoking.

Another problem I had with the show was that they brought out the theory of panspermia. That is the theory that life came to Earth from space, carried in rocks that were blasted out of some life bearing planet and drifted through space till they came to Earth, thus sowing the seeds of life on Earth. I can see that this might be possible, but I think the chances are a lot more remote than that life developed independently here on Earth. One of the problems with panspermia is that it just pushes the development of life back in time to some other planet in the remote past. It still requires that life come into being from the "primordial ooze" somewhere. Since it is obvious that life can develop then I see no reason to suppose that it would only happen once. It is much more probable that life would develop any time the conditions are right for it.

This time I think they really went over the top.

Bill Gill

I certainly hope that I can wait to see it when a primordial
ooze has been developed that will produce life.



obvious?

I wouldn't say its obvious until it can be proven that life can develop where there is no life.

This is the only response I am going to make to Paul on this thread. He is arguing from the point of a religious belief, not a scientific fact.

I STRONGLY suggest that nobody respond to him. That way if we want to have a reasonable discussion on the things that Cosmos claimed we don't have to work around all of his rants.

Bill Gill

It sounds as though the series has slipped into the geological equivalent of Jim Baggott's "fairytale physics". Apart from that, has it been good?

Overall I have been enjoying it. There have been a few episodes where I thought they either under or over emphasized some things, but it is a pretty good. They do have a tendency to explain things in a way that is questionable. That is they don't mention other opinions on some subjects so that the science is presented as settled, when there is no real consensus. This episode is the worst so far.

Bill Gill

and you would be arguing on a point that is not a belief?

because it certainly has not been proven to be a
"scientific fact" that life developed on its own.

And this is a science forum not a religious forum so that is perfectly fine.

Look at the forum section title name "GENERAL SCIENCE DISCUSSION FORUM"

Beyond that I will adhere to Bill's suggestion.

I get it , so now science is moving into science as being a dictator.

even carl sagan stated that science does not have all
the answers and scientist should not make broad
statements suggesting that unproven theories are facts.

and unless it has been proven that life can develop on its on
in the absence of life then what Bill said is incorrect.



Bill, I would like to point out that you are the one
arguing from the point of a belief and not a scientific fact in case you missed it.


follow the blind orac.

they will teach tell you how and what and when to see.

So far I haven't experienced that reality.

More like tell you how you don't qualify to make any arguments or statements against the democratic/scientific policy because your current set of beliefs, education, or credentials prevent you from accessing any kind of reasonable intelligence.

If you can disqualify objective reasoning, it sort of leaves policy (whether true or not) intact until it can be replaced with something better(which of course is determined by the designated authority).

TT

your reasoning is like a breath of fresh air , crisp
clean , and refreshing.

I found the cosmos series that this thread concerns itself
with.

I like the way the series starts off.

this adventure is made possible by generations of
adventurers strictly adhering to a simple set of rules.

test ideas by experiment and observation.
build on those ideas that pass the tests.
reject the ones that fail.
follow the evidence wherever it leads.
and question everything.

accept these terms and the cosmos is yours.

season 1 episode 1 full



season 1 episode 2 part 1



season 1 episode 2 part 2



season 1 episode 2 part 3




season 1 episode 3 full



s1 e4 just bits and pieces.

season 1 episode 5 full

The question I would ask you Paul is what you hope to achieve on this forum.

Science isn't a public opinion thing no-one gets to vote on it and really we don't give a flying toss what you or the general public think ... we even tell you to you face your all idiots because we simply don't care. Science is driven by Corporations, Governments, Military and greed with them all trying to get an edge and posting on here is not going to stop any of that EVER.

Public pressure may work on biology and that sort of area because they aren't seen as providing an edge but it certainly doesn't work in the hardcore areas.

This forum or any science forum can not change what science accepts as true it has no power and no authority. Every person on here could agree on something and it would still mean absolutely nothing to science it's not a popularity contest.

So basically you can't change anything and you won't influence anything on a science forum.

About the only thing you will do is peeve users who actually want to discuss science so you become nothing more than a troll. So then users sick of the trolling may then pick up a baseball bat and belt the crap out of baby Jesus and your god.

We get that you don't like science, science is evil, science is imaginary ... we simply don't care and it means nothing. Add whatever you want to the list you are a religious fruit-loop and your opinion carries about that weight by everyone on here. It's just trolling nothing more and it's just pointless.

You work out where you want to go from here because every now and again your trolling gets on our nerves and baby Jesus and God gets a flogging of it's life because we know it stops the troll and then you have to run off crying to Rose to make the bad man stop.

If there is a GOD I love his sense of humor the non believers get to totally ignore the believers until really we get to morality issues where you try and use laws to hold us in check

The above statement would lead to the obvious intent, if you were speaking for the Scientific community.

Distill some kind of integrity based on a higher human quality that isn't negligent, or devoid of any greater value system than greed and the general, we don't give a rip about anyone or anything attitude.

By doing something rather than nothing.

I suppose it might begin (since this is a science forum) with some or any communication, with one of those greedy, non caring scientists, in hopes of finding a sliver of humanity in them. Then, they (the scientists) might grow a pair and rise above the sock puppet, take it up the behind from the governments, corporations and military ass jammers mentality, and begin to live their lives like they were part of humanity rather than outside of it.

But then if the "WE" as Orac implied, are beyond approach and incapable of integrating with humanity, because they see themselves similar to the Aryan master race of the Nazi era, I suppose any verbal expression might just be a way to relive ones self of stress thru the forum, in hopes of getting a witness.

Ah but what the hell do I know...

And you missed my obvious response ... what do I care ... I am paid to do a job and I do it so long as it doesn't conflict with my morality and/or the law.

The rest of it we leave to religion and politics to slug it out it simply isn't a matter for science.

We might like religion to act differently you have issues with them as well but at the end of the day they like science probably don't care what you think ... Personally I don't have an issue with how it all works ... sucks to be you hey TT you deep thinker sensitive types.

TBH I think the difference is you have more faith in humanity than me probably because I have seen the dark side of it and gave up on humanity along time ago and you won't find much of a sliver in me ... am I supposed to feel bad at that?

Now as for an Aryan race etc nope that involves humans if you gave me the choice of robots I would take them every time. Terminator is my idea of a great ending not a horror story, pure logic everywhere ... does that make me bad?

No my response was inclusive of that fact, tho as often as you respond to everyone and everything that is posted here, and with great flaming expertise, I'd say your claim to fame in that circle of thought is a facade. Underneath you seem plagued with the affliction of attachment to opinion that is not your own.Since when does the government, military or the corporations worry about morality or the law. If you do what they say is lawful, why would you say different? Are you a lawyer or a politician or just a paid scientist?

That would be the absence of morality

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it. I don't get paid to accept the moralities or policies of government, military or corporate mentality.

Darkness is within humanity, yet anyone can choose to rise above their own negativity and become what they will. Not all just follow the authority. The way you describe science is not much different than the way religion is run. Someone establishes fact and policy and everyone follows the leader.

Not everyone will begin to think for themselves

Can I just say yes and ok I agree because I don't have an opinion


Excellent so I am absent of morality is that a good thing should I add that to my CV?


Cool just please no door knocking asking for donations or to convert me on my Saturday sleep in I am over it, no wonder you religious mob are always broke

I would expect the opposite.

I'm sure you don't care what I think, you just said so.


I would never. I can recognize someone who genuinely doesn't care when they make it part of their every conversation.

orac



my main goal on this forum is to correct science through the humiliation of fake scientist such as yourself.

for instance I have many times reduced you to blundering through the application of facts and logic every single
time that you couldnt answer a question or defend a claim
that you made.

the reason I can accomplish this humiliation so easily is because you have no defense , your logic is flawed , your
information is incorrect.

you could say that I am a info warrior , when I hear or
read incorrect information on this forum the info warrior
in me steps forward and fires words at the incorrect information , words that are propelled by facts and logic
so complete that they shatter the barriers of ignorance.

I don't expect to ever sway your illogical and uninformed mindset into one of a logical and informed mindset , but
the readers of this forum just might begin to question
the information and logic that science is imposing on them.

like I said earlier , you are a brick.
and to science you are nothing more
than a brick that is used to prop up
or support the information it vomits out of its bowels.

There goes what might have been another scientific thread.

Cosmos went out on a limb, but this thread went down the drain.



Unfortunately the problem runs deeper than that, Bill.

Yep, I was afraid of just this. I am going to try to derail this by opening a new thread in NQS about the difference between scientific belief and religious belief. I doubt if that will help, but I feel like I need to try.

So:

Everybody - If you want to continue the flame war about science and religion go over to NQS. If you want to discuss what was said on Cosmos then do so here.

Bill, one nice thing. Paul's links to the Cosmos episodes.

Bill Gill

several of the videos have already been removed.

what channel were they on on the tv?

I have it on netflix but I would need to have the disk
mailed to me.


ahhhh , here we go...

Hulu has season 1 episodes 4 through 11 free to watch.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/615445#i0,p0,d0

thanks Hulu and a special thanks to twentieth century fox film corporation for making the series.

hulu has a much better resolution.

it wont be long before all the networks will be owned by
the internet providers and television will be free again
as long as you have a internet connection.

and that $50.00 - $100.00 a month can will help to rebuild america
and support the returning american industries.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/615445#i0,p0,d0

That's great if you happen to be in US.

http://www.streaming-anywhere.com/watch-hulu-from-any-country/

I just looked this up , maybe it will work.

if its not on UK cable tv then cant you get netflix dvd
service only and have the tv shows and movies mailed to your residence?

here

http://netflix-uk.org/


heres a 7 day free trial of something called a unlocator
that will alow you to watch the hulu videos because it
changes your ip.

https://unlocator.com/

Thanks Paul, I'll give those a go.