Took me a few days, but I just finished the first episode last night. My opinion is probably an outlier, but I thought it was really lame. Bad and misleading animations (e.g., Big Bang, Jupiter's red spot, Earth and moon's formation, the story of Giordano Bruno). Way oversimplified explanations. I don't mind simplification for laypeople, but how watered down does science have to become before it's wrong. Is this targeted at 8-year olds?
I liked the tribute to Sagan at the end. Did anyone else notice that Sagan's wife is one of the producers? That may have been her next to Sagan in one of the shots, but it went by too fast to be sure.
The problem with the Great Red Spot animation was endemic to most of the animations: greatly accelerated timescale. I think at least some mention was required that these events do not happen this fast. The moon wasn't built in a day.
The moon animation was unrealistic in the extreme - boulders the size of Rhode Island colliding with the infant moon at velocities of miles/second and just sticking to it without vaporizing or at least getting pulverized.
The problem with the Big Bang animation was equally bad because it reinforced the myth that it was some kind of explosion.
I liked the Bruno story, but the primitive animation was painful. Reminded me of bad Japanese cartoons.
I didn't like the original Cosmos series, either. I didn't see it when it first came out, but I tried to watch it a decade ago and found it dated (not his fault) and hokey and, given that I wasn't learning anything, not worth my time. I gave up after a few episodes.
I'm not asking people to agree with me. I'm frequently an outlier in these kinds of things. The original Cosmos series is cited by many as having sparked their interest in science. Many science people love Scoobie Doo because he debunks unscientific nonsense, but I find the animation and the writing bad, and the plots worse, not to mention numbingly predictable.
My TiVo's set up to record the series, but given that I'm reacting to it pretty much the same way as the original it seems possible that I'll end up watching little of it. Hard to say. The first episode was an overview, maybe it gets more informative and accurate and less "Oh, wow, the universe!" in later episodes.
It's a rare science documentary that tells someone who keeps up with science something they don't already know, though sometimes the animations are incredibly helpful in visualizing something you already knew about but had trouble picturing. That Grand Canyon documentary someone posted somewhere in the Why the Flood Never Happened thread had a beautiful animation of cutback of a river through a landscape, and of mountains eroding to plains. When I watch science programs on TV I'm mainly interested in something well explained so that I can improve my own explanations.
Then don't watch it alone. Find a kid somewhere, anywhere. Watch their brains churn. And be ready to answer questions.
My grandson is 9, and this seemed like a great idea at first, but then I recalled what shows grab his attention and which don't and figured it was a long shot. Still, I'll record it again and give it a try, will post a note about how it goes.
When Gould said, "Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact," we know what he meant, but for wider dissemination I think it's better to say something like:
"The word 'evolution' can apply to either species change over time, something that is factually known to occur, or to the theory of evolution, which explains how species change over time occurs. This is why you will sometimes hear people say, 'Evolution is both a fact and a theory,' but they're actually referring to two different uses of the word evolution. They're definitely not claiming that the theory of evolution is a fact."
At one point, host Neil deGrasse Tyson stated it as plainly as you possibly can: “The theory of evolution, like the theory of gravity, is a scientific fact.”
I hope Tyson didn't really say this. No theory is a fact. That gravity is and has been at work in the universe is a fact. That evolution is and has been taking place on Earth is a fact. Their respective theories of how these processes work are not facts.
I can always say it again. Historical science is a different animal from experimental science. All you have is your theories. If you say the fossil bacteria in a particular rock represent all that was on the earth during the time period that rock was being deposited, that's your theory, you can't prove it, that's simply how you interpret the rock and the fossils and you don't have anything but more theory to add to it, no way of testing it. That is not how experimental science works.
It's funny how even though this has all been explained to you before that you repeat your claims as if nothing had ever been explained to you. There's no hint in this that you've been made aware of the many reasons and ways that you are wrong.
An experiment all by itself tells us nothing. The results have to be analyzed before we know anything. The only difference between experimental and historical science is that one gets to conduct their experiments in the present while the other has to take advantage of what are, in effect, uncontrolled experiments that took place in the past.
But they both analyze the results, and it's the analysis that's important and makes them both science, as well as the subsequent peer review and replication. Rosie's X-ray diffraction images meant nothing until Crick and Watson analyzed them to reveal the structure of DNA. The data collected by the Large Hadron Collider meant nothing until analyzed to reveal the Higgs.
And again, the theory itself is bonkers, the idea that a time period is represented by a huge horizontal rock is crazy.
Yes, we're fully aware that your only weapon against the repeated detailed explanations of how these layers accumulated in the past in the same way they're accumulating today (see, for example, my Message 18 that I posted yesterday) is to call them names and remain ignorant.
And a whole bunch of other time periods represented by a whole bunch of other huge flat rocks is REALLY crazy.
We see this on the sea floor today, so what you're really doing is calling reality crazy.
And that the fossils in them represent the only creatures living during that time period. REALLY REALLY crazy.
You're calling crazy the idea that creatures become buried and preserved in the era in which they lived? While believing it sane that a violent flood sorts fossils by evolutionary distance from modern forms? Really?
Again, you need to develop proposals that don't violate the physical laws of the universe.
On one side there's geology with all its evidence and rigid adherence to the known laws of science, and this you're calling crazy.
And on the other side there's the Flood with its absence of any evidence and its many violations of the known laws of science, and this seems natural and convincing to you.
Even more weird is the effort you're exerting to convince people of something with no evidence that makes no sense. Any normal rational person would reason, "Okay, I've got this great idea that I know is true, but I'm going to need some evidence and some scientific rationale before I can convince anyone else, so I better go off and do my homework first."
But not you. The only thing you offer in favor of your idea that we know is true is that you're completely and utterly convinced you're correct. But there are tons of crazy people out there who believe things true that are complete nonsense. As I've said before, some people believe the Earth is flat, some believe the sun orbits the Earth, and some believe they're Napoleon. What you have in common with these people is the complete lack of supporting evidence combined with mountains of evidence that you're wrong.
You seem to think the only thing that's important is that you maintain your faith in your own ideas. It's not. What's important is how persuasive your ideas are to others. Shared ideas are how we know we're not suffering from delusions.
They are basically the same thing as far as being true science goes, their methods not being available to the historical sciences, neither experiment NOR observation.
First you have to correct your terminology. All science is observational. There's no such thing as non-observational science. Science studies the real world, so when nothing is observed there can be no science.
When you say "observational science" I think what you really mean is science that didn't actually observe what happened first hand and so had to observe the evidence left behind to infer what happened. Much science is like this, including experimental science. For example, the Large Hadron Collider, the largest and most significant example of experimental science in the world today, did not actually observe the Higgs but rather inferred it from the evidence its decay left behind.
The distinction that makes more sense is between experimental and historical science, but neither is exclusively experimental or historical. The experimental sciences will study historical events and the historical sciences will conduct experiments. The distinction is more helpful and conceptual than it is real and doesn't mean that neither engages in the other's specialty.
Experimental science conducts experiments and analyzes the resulting evidence. Historical science studies past events and analyzes the resulting evidence. They're both engaged in analysis of data gathered from the real world. That's part of what makes them both science.
And I've just as often contrasted historical science with observational science as with experimental science, but of course nobody ever remembers any of that,...
Unfortunately most of us remember it all too well. It's like a recurring nightmare. First you raise this issue like it's never been discussed before, we explain why you're wrong, you eventually drop the issue after making ridiculous claims such as that old evidence cannot be analyzed, then sometime later you raise it again like it's never been discussed before. Like just now. You still have not replied to my Message 1647 in the Why the Flood Never Happened thread.
Golly gee, I would have thought so, but then there are all those EvC worthies who insisted in the Grand Canyon arguments that of COURSE the whole stack of strata could have been unaffected by tectonic activity for a billion years. No big deal.
This, too, has been rebutted many times. Any honest person would have followed this with, "Now I know it's been argued that...", but not you.
Yeah, in the present, NN, which of course is all that can actually be observed, but the past remains inert and silent...
Your willingness to throw caution to the wind and make incredibly wrong statements continues to amaze. The past is not inert. A billion year-old rock can still be analyzed.
The planets move, the fossils don't.
True, but you're going to have to explain why that matters.
You know what water usually does, you have no idea what the oceans would do if they covered all the land mass in the world, how the tides and the currents would behave among other things.
We know plenty about "what the oceans would do if they covered all the land mass in the world". First and foremost they would follow the laws of physics, something your flood fails to do.
And I take tectonic activity a lot more seriously than some here too.
You take things you make up in your head a lot more seriously than evidence. We suspect tectonic activity where we see evidence of tectonic activity. You conclude tectonic activity when you need something magic to happen.