TYT: Creationist Demands Airtime On 'Cosmos' To Debate Evolution

[WhoIsNumberNone]

"On March 20, 2014, Danny Faulkner of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum made an appearance on the Janet Mefferd Show to complain that Neil deGrasse Tyson's revival of Cosmos will not provide airtime for Creationism adherents.

Read more: http://www.examiner.com/article/danny-faulkner-demands-airtime-on-cosmos-for-creatonists

#0 sez: "I would be fine with letting this asshole argue creationism... If they allow me to insert my opinions on some of the Jesus programs."

[SeattleVet]

1. Only if they let Neil deGrasse Tyson give a talk at their church.

You know, for equal time and all that...

[tclambert]

2. Don't they also need time to debate the age of the universe?

And that the Earth goes around the Sun?

And that the value of Pi is not 3.0 even? (1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2 (describing a circular pool in Solomon's palace, ten cubits across and thirty cubits around))

[mindwalker_i]

3. Yeah, religious nutjobs get so much friggin' airtime

Not only that, they get a lot more access to politicians and a lot more consideration in terms of setting agendas. They get spots on money. Then, one science show and they're demanding "equal time." That's like Defense demanding equal budgets with NASA.

What this all indicates to me is that Religion is too big for it's britches. I'm sick and tired of their whining about all the oppression they face, their demands that, when even one show about science contradicts their precious fairy tales, that they get even more time to "debate," which is really just more of them spewing their shit.

We need policy to be shaped by facts, not fairy tales. Because in the end, the outcomes of our policies affect the reality we live in. Shouldn't our policies be shaped by reality then?

[eppur_se_muova]

4. Tune in Sunday morning, it's on every local station.

All the "equal time" you ever needed, Sun worshiper.

[xocet]

5. Until now, I did not think that there were any flat-earth astronomers left....

In Six Days

Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation
Edited by Dr John Ashton

Danny R. Faulkner, astronomy

...

So what kinds of assumptions do I make? I assume that there is a Creator (I cannot fathom the world otherwise). I assume that He is interested and involved in the world. I assume that He has revealed himself to mankind through the Bible. Interestingly, the Bible never attempts to prove God’s existence or that the Bible is God’s unique revelation—it merely assumes these propositions to be true. Given these assumptions, the biblical account of creation must be true. Genesis tells us that creation was accomplished in six days. The six days is just one of the many aspects of the biblical account of creation that is at variance with what much of modern science says about the origin of the world. Note that my quarrel is not with all of science, but merely the assumption that science alone can give us ultimate answers to question of origins.

Were the six days of creation literal days? How old is the world? The answers to these two questions are related. The best exegesis of the creation account of Genesis 1 is that the days were literal (roughly 24-hour) days. Many Christians attempt to find ways to read these days as long periods of time, but I am convinced that these attempts start with the assumption (from science) that the world is very old. This is eisegesis, not exegesis. The chronologies of the Old Testament give us a pretty complete history of mankind, and allow us to roughly date the period of time since the creation week at about 6,000 years.

This is a radical idea, and many people are astonished to find that there are scientists who take this idea very seriously. It is the job of creation scientists, such as myself, to study and interpret the world with this presupposition.

...

http://creation.com/danny-r-faulkner-astronomy-in-six-days

[Half-Century Man]

6. Why do these dillrods think that "Cosmos" is a talk show?

It teaches science in an entertaining way. The executives said in every piece of promotional material that they were presenting science and meant to do it in an entertaining way.
Calling creationism science, is as valid as calling head lice pets. Yes they are alive and usually found in close proximity to people, however........