Is Carl Sagan's Cosmos Fake Science? Implications?

[Pastor Tim S]

Dr. Carl Sagan of Cornell University spent over a decade doing research work on the origin of life. His work on this was published in Nature, generally acknowledged as the most prestigious science journal in the world. He also presented a 13-program series on PBS television called Cosmos: A Personal Voyage. A five-minute segment of his second episode also discussed his origin of life work. Wikipedia says that this was the most successful series in PBS history, being watched by more than 500,000,000 people. Unfortunately, it appears that was stated on Cosmos for public consumption was bogus. His words in the science journal were the exact opposite of what he stated to the general public.

In the Nature article, he stated that he primarily produced an inert tarry residue. It did not take part in chemical activity. In the television clip, he said that he made the chemicals of life.

These things are discussed in a YouTube clip I posted just a few hours ago:

https://youtu.be/3pYcxFbSs0o


The clip also shows that Sagan's distortion of the truth is not unique to him. It represents the approach of science as a whole whenever God or the Bible is mentioned. Neither are allowed to discussed as having irrelevance. Science is not a search for truth wherever it leads, but is the best materialistic (atheistic) explanation that fits materialistic philosophy. Discussion outside of this is not permitted.

There is no reason to fear the claims of atheistic scientists. They are not concerned about truth, only promotion of their personal private philosophy. Would you trust the Pharisees and Sadducees to interpret Old Testament prophecy honestly? That is about the equivalent of trusting a materialist to interpret scientific observation honestly. In both cases they have an agenda that places truth subservient to personal desires.

 

[Yeshua1]

Dr. Carl Sagan of Cornell University spent over a decade doing research work on the origin of life. His work on this was published in Nature, generally acknowledged as the most prestigious science journal in the world. He also presented a 13-program series on PBS television called Cosmos: A Personal Voyage. A five-minute segment of his second episode also discussed his origin of life work. Wikipedia says that this was the most successful series in PBS history, being watched by more than 500,000,000 people. Unfortunately, it appears that was stated on Cosmos for public consumption was bogus. His words in the science journal were the exact opposite of what he stated to the general public.

In the Nature article, he stated that he primarily produced an inert tarry residue. It did not take part in chemical activity. In the television clip, he said that he made the chemicals of life.

These things are discussed in a YouTube clip I posted just a few hours ago:

https://youtu.be/3pYcxFbSs0o


The clip also shows that Sagan's distortion of the truth is not unique to him. It represents the approach of science as a whole whenever God or the Bible is mentioned. Neither are allowed to discussed as having irrelevance. Science is not a search for truth wherever it leads, but is the best materialistic (atheistic) explanation that fits materialistic philosophy. Discussion outside of this is not permitted.

There is no reason to fear the claims of atheistic scientists. They are not concerned about truth, only promotion of their personal private philosophy. Would you trust the Pharisees and Sadducees to interpret Old Testament prophecy honestly? That is about the equivalent of trusting a materialist to interpret scientific observation honestly. In both cases they have an agenda that places truth subservient to personal desires.

without there being a God, there cannot be any Universe, nor any life coming into existence, per science itself!

 

[Centrist]

In print journalism the editor has the final word on how hings are said & done. So he could say blue, and they pay him for it, but then they change it to red, and he can't say much if anything because they already paid for his work, and it is now, legally, theirs to do with as they wish.

 

[Deacon]

Carl Sagan has been dead for about 25 years... I'm not sure why this is even a topic.
He wasn't a biologist, nor was he a specialist in evolution; he was an astrophysicist.
What made him special was his ability to clearly and simply communicate complicated scientific information to the public.

He had his biases... he was an atheist.
Not only that he was an 'evangelical atheist', he didn't hide it, his message began the series.

"The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be".
​

That "inert tarry residue" he mentioned were various amino acids, chemicals that form the basic building blocks of life.
The production of these chemicals are but one very small part of how scientists are trying to figure out how life began.

There have been many discoveries in the years since but at this time the origin of life remains in God's hands.

Should life be found on other planets in our solar system (or beyond), discoveries in this field may help us to understand and explain how that life developed.

It is not anti-Christian, nor is it atheistic to research this field, however the research can be used to promote an atheistic agenda.

Rob

 

[Phillip Diller]

Sagan's famous quote tells you everything you need to know about his religious philosophy and his regard for the truth. Unless he was omniscient he couldn't possibly know if the cosmos is all there is, ever was or ever will be.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Unfortunately, Carl Sagan, who considered himself a cosmologist, had a massive impact on society that continues today, and his widow is a large part of that. If anything, his legacy must be challenged now more than ever, though his misguided disciples must be dealt with as well.

Both he and they are intentional anti-Christs, firstrate deceivers with an enormous platform from which to spread their deceptions. I always marveled at how easily he smiled while proposing the most ill-conceived pseudo-scientific ideas as if fact. It's almost as if, in their denial of truth, they easily deceive themselves with their own science-fiction.

Neil deGrasse Tyson Talks Cosmos Series Resurgence and How it Honors Carl Sagan - IGN

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

It is not anti-Christian, nor is it atheistic to research this field, however the research can be used to promote an atheistic agenda.

Agreed.

Should life be found on other planets in our solar system (or beyond), discoveries in this field may help us to understand and explain how that life developed.

Just a caveat: It is quite possible that earthlife, or its remains, has already made it to nearby bodies, e.g., Mars and the Moon. Such discoveries may be sensationalized as extraterrestrial in origin. We would need very different lifeforms or ones impossibly out of range to conclude they are truly extraterrestrial in origin.

 

[Marooncat79]

The fact is that there must be 3 origins of life

1. Plant Life
2. Animal
3. Man

Though some may choose to combine 2 and 3

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

The fact is that there must be 3 origins of life

1. Plant Life
2. Animal
3. Man

Though some may choose to combine 2 and 3

Yes, and you'll need a finely-tuned universe, galaxy, solar system, and planet-moon first. Sagan was grossly off in his estimates on this, because his foolish faith in atheistic naturalism meant life just had to be an easy thing to create and sustain.

 

[Yeshua1]

The fact is that there must be 3 origins of life

1. Plant Life
2. Animal
3. Man

Though some may choose to combine 2 and 3

Apart from God revealing it to us in Genesis, no way to account for just what makes mankind unique among all animals!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, and you'll need a finely-tuned universe, galaxy, solar system, and planet-moon first. Sagan was grossly off in his estimates on this, because his foolish faith in atheistic naturalism meant life just had to be an easy thing to create and sustain.

The mathematical odds of just earth alone having life come into existence apart from created by Creator would be infinite, as there is so much of the physical laws that had to be fine tuned ito design of Universe to allow for life even to happen!

 

[Centrist]

How many astrophysicists are Christian?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

How many astrophysicists are Christian?

How relevant do you think that is? Astrophysics prevents no one from being able to believe in God or in Jesus.

 

[Centrist]

How relevant do you think that is? Astrophysics prevents no one from being able to believe in God or in Jesus.

More relevant than your answer. If you cannot answer the question, then why post your diatribe?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

More relevant than your answer. If you cannot answer the question, then why post your diatribe?

What diatribe? Or should I ask which? Why not just explain your reason for asking?

AFAIK, it is essentially irrelevant, a distraction. You’ve said nothing to establish otherwise. If it's really important, you could do the research and answer your own question.

 

[timtofly]

The whole fact the earth was round and surrounded by the gravitational pull of other round balls is the whole of Satan's deception. Astrophysicist just study and learn the math needed to keep this virtual reality going. They are no more wrong than Kepler, Galileo, and Copernicus. They just have more math at their disposal.

 

[KenH]

The whole fact the earth was round and surrounded by the gravitational pull of other round balls is the whole of Satan's deception.

Huh?

 

[Centrist]

What diatribe? Or should I ask which? Why not just explain your reason for asking?

AFAIK, it is essentially irrelevant, a distraction. You’ve said nothing to establish otherwise. If it's really important, you could do the research and answer your own question.

No, it is a question. If you don't like it, don't answer it. Simple. But let me guide you as you still seem to have a problem with this simple question.

You asked me, in response, "How relevant do you think that is?" I say it's very relevant. It opens a new chapter of the discussion. Taking into consideration that every astrophysicist that I know of is *either* Humanist or Mormon.

You also said "Astrophysics prevents no one from being able to believe in God or in Jesus". No, it doesn't, but considering that every astrophysicist I know of is Humanist or Mormon....
Not saying all are either of the two, but then I did ask the question that offends you so much....

ETA: I stand corrected as I recall one was Catholic.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

No, it is a question. If you don't like it, don't answer it. Simple. But let me guide you as you still seem to have a problem with this simple question.

You asked me, in response, "How relevant do you think that is?" I say it's very relevant. It opens a new chapter of the discussion. Taking into consideration that every astrophysicist that I know of is *either* Humanist or Mormon.

You also said "Astrophysics prevents no one from being able to believe in God or in Jesus". No, it doesn't, but considering that every astrophysicist I know of is Humanist or Mormon....
Not saying all are either of the two, but then I did ask the question that offends you so much....

ETA: I stand corrected as I recall one was Catholic.

OK, why didn’t you just say that in the first place? If you are that far from knowing, then at least have a look at the Physics and Astronomy list on the Wikipedia page “List of Christians in Science and Technology.”

List of Christians in science and technology - Wikipedia

They’re not generally known to be favorable toward Christianity, but it will give you a start. Of course elsewhere the page also lists many who are no longer living as well as many other scientists who are Christians.

Also, the better question would be how many are theists, not just Christians, the point being that no science can rule out a Creator, and that is the point. Atheists are not atheists because of science, but for other reasons.

 

[Centrist]

Should I have to explain my questions? And if Wikipedia has all the answers, then why are you here? Go hit up Wikipedia instead.