Neil deGrasse Tyson

[Falkie2013]

The question I have always had about the Big Bang is if G*d didn't create it, then where did everything accumulate to bring it about in the first place ?

The stuff that stars and galaxies are formed of simply didn't just appear out of no where one day and " poof " here's your universe ! ".

And science can't answer that question and probably never will unless they cross the line into either religion or magic or that the entire cosmos that we can see was created somehow by an ultra superior intelligence that we cannot even imagine.

Other than scientists studying how stars, galaxies, etc. form I wonder why it seems to matter how the Big Bang happened in the first place. It happened. We're here. Move towards the future and the things humankind can do to reach out to the stars IF  we're willing to spend the time, money and effort to do so and not a past to which we will probably NEVER know the answer to.

[stevesh]

You're arguing a point I didn't make; you're making an irrelevant argument; you're missing the point; and helping make it too. Origins.Can't.Be.Proven. The only way for someone to say one theory is better than another is for assumptions to be made. It is sheer bias to reject a creation event out of hand because no one can say it didn't happen. Surely you recognize the distinction between positively saying something occurred, and saying something can't be ruled out. I'm just astounded at the moral and intellectual cowardice of those scientists who don't have the courage or the character to say, "We can't say this didn't happen." My point is they don't do it out of their own bias, fear of disfavor in their community, or because of "fashion" or philosophical trendiness. Because logically it simply can't be defended. The inability to recognize or the unwillingness to admit the possibility of a creation event does not speak well for anyone, much less those who profess a devotion to science or a search for truth.

Wow. I got it wrong every which way. Might be my intellect isn't sufficient to understand the topic being discussed, but every physicist I've heard discuss the Big Bang has described it as something like 'the best description of the beginning of everything we have, based on current data' rather than 'this is how it happened, take my word for it (ande there is no God)'. If Dr. Tyson said otherwise, I apologize for my ignorance.

My personal view is that our brains haven't sufficiently evolved for it to be possible for us to understand how the universe began (if, in fact, it did). My beef is with those people (no, no, not Sardondi) who just lean back, tuck their thumbs in their belts and say "Yup, God did it.". Seems to me such people are suspending, or worse, denying, their sense of curiosity, which if it isn't a mortal sin, should be, considering that curiosity must be one of the things our big brains evolved for in the first place.

[somatichypermutation]

Heck, something like 84% of the matter in the universe in dark matter and we have never seen it and do not understand why it formed.

[onan]

why does 1 + 1 = 2? because god did it. doesn't work for me.


I have no doubt that as we learn more we will have difficulty explaining and understanding. I have no doubt that there will be more questions. What doubt is it will come down to magic.

[analog kid]

Heck, something like 84% of the matter in the universe in dark matter and we have never seen it and do not understand why it formed.

No matter what you post, or how you say it, it's punctuated by the frown in your avatar as a negative thing, like you're the consummate pessimist. 

[Sardondi]

why does 1 + 1 = 2? because god did it. doesn't work for me.I have no doubt that as we learn more we will have difficulty explaining and understanding. I have no doubt that there will be more questions. What doubt is it will come down to magic.

Which is perfectly fine. Just as, "We don't know where anything came from, or what or how it happened, but we know for certain it just couldn't have been a creative event," sounds silly and frightened to me. I don't insist that those who believe a magic, unknown, random event is the source of all must reject it out of hand; so why are so many so insistent that those who think there was a cause must do likewise?

I'm trying to open eyes to bias, but it only works with those willing to be fair.

[onan]

I don't have any reason to not believe that spirituality and science cannot coexist. It is just one discipline is just that disciplined and the other, although can have lots of rules doesn't have to follow any rules.
I do not mean to sound so obstinate. But I do have significant concerns mixing religion with scientific methods.

[Siamesemama1]

I thought about listening to an interview w/Neil DeGrasse Tyson, whom I think brilliant (bring Pluto back!), but it HURTS to listen to that boob, George Nor-on with his guests, it just HURTS.

[b_dubb]

I don't have any reason to not believe that spirituality and science cannot coexist. It is just one discipline is just that disciplined and the other, although can have lots of rules doesn't have to follow any rules.
I do not mean to sound so obstinate. But I do have significant concerns mixing religion with scientific methods.

most new-age types look to any theory/phenomena in science(s) and adopt whatever seems to support what they choose to believe. effectively like a scientist looking for any evidence that supports their hypothesis. but in new-age 'industry' there is no peer review process to call bullshit on crackpot theories

[West of the Rockies]

I don't have any reason to not believe that spirituality and science cannot coexist. It is just one discipline is just that disciplined and the other, although can have lots of rules doesn't have to follow any rules.
I do not mean to sound so obstinate. But I do have significant concerns mixing religion with scientific methods.

Well, scientists (honest scientists who have integrity, anyway) don't make stuff up.  They don't create facts to fit their hypothesis.  They have a hypothesis and then test it; the data supports the hypothesis or doesn't.  Faith-based experts (IMO) routinely make stuff up.  Oh, they can say, "God dictated this holy document just as he wanted it!"  But pretty clearly somebody is lying, yes?  The Koran explains creation in one way.  The Bible explains it in another.  The world's so-called great religions (Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism) all do this.  Sometimes there is cross-over in explanations and reporting of events.  Very often there isn't.  Doesn't this mean that four out of five of the great religions are wrong or even intentionally lying about things?  Did Mohammed ascend into the heavens on a pillar of light?  According to the Koran, he did; there were witnesses who claim it happened.  A lot of us don't buy the story.

I have no idea where the cosmic materials that lead to the Big Bang would have come from; that's a point that I've often pondered!  However, for me, the explanations offered in various sacred texts don't shed much light.   I guess that's a pretty agnostic approach to things.

[West of the Rockies]

Can I kill a thread or can I kill a thread!  I swear, I oughta change my name to Threadkiller.

[Falkie2013]

Your handle made me think of something. We had west of the rockies and east of the rockies.

What is the caller called who's in the middle ?

[West of the Rockies]

Your handle made me think of something. We had west of the rockies and east of the rockies.

What is the caller called who's in the middle ?

I suspect Art would simply say in that sonorous tone, "From Denver, go ahead caller."  I really do miss that voice... JBW has a pretty solid voice, but I detect a certain self-satisfaction in it, like he really digs the sound of his own voice.  I didn't get that with Art....

[expat]

JBW gets quite a bit of work as a documentary narrator. He's just in the habit of adopting the "narrator voice."

[astroguy]

How was the interview?  And were there any particularly insane questions?  I tend to only listen to a few selected crazies on C2C and so skipped the 3 hrs needed to listen to Tyson.

[ziznak]

download it and listen... He's one of the best "television science guys." I was busy for most of his coast appearance but I remember clearly being mentally stimulated as much as I was elsewhere.


yes I listen to C2C when I'm getting laid... multitasking...

[ziznak]

this was a cool appearance from Neil... better than his coast show thats for sure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhcxffIENBU

[Pragmier]

this was a cool appearance from Neil... better than his coast show thats for sure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhcxffIENBU

Thanks for the link Z - good show. Call me old fashioned but dropping F bombs while interviewing an intelligent guest just diminishes it. And Tyson's shirt looks like it's from 1982.

[MV/Liberace!]

I'm watching NDT's version of Cosmos as I work here at the office.  I'd rather listen to him over Kaku any day.  Kaku grates on me from multiple angles.

[aldousburbank]

I'm watching NDT's version of Cosmos as I work here at the office.  I'd rather listen to him over Kaku any day.  Kaku grates on me from multiple angles.

10 to 12 dimensions of annoyability depending.

[FightTheFuture]

I like Neil a lot. His delivery reminds me of George Benson. Seems so smooth and natural.

[Eddie Coyle]

   He's an expert on Space because he takes up so much of it. Morris Day with a gland condition.

[Gd5150]

I like Tyson but the new Cosmos blew.

Science is not truth. Reality is truth and the scientific method helps find the truth. Scientists can be as corrupt and dogmatic as anyone.

[b_dubb]

NDT is actually an alien from the hot air nebula.  Which is directly adjacent to self absorbed jackass galaxy.

[Heather Wade]

NDT is actually an alien from the hot air nebula.  Which is directly adjacent to self absorbed jackass galaxy.

According to my calculations, you are correct.

[Gd5150]

I'm a huge fan of the original Cosmos. I own it. I love the impact it had on the scientific community inspiring millions to pursue the sciences. The problem with Cosmis ASTO that came out a year ago is it focused way too much on religious hot buttons. Just present the scientific evidence to the best of your knowledge and move on. Science and evidence proves itself. The show lacked so much detail and ignored so much that's happend in the last 30 years. It was really a disappointment. The most memorable aspects were all taken word for word from the original Cosmos.

Anyone interested in learning about science and astronomy, 1980 Cosmos will teach them so much more than Cosmos ASTO. I found it to be a predictable waste of time.