Cosmos to premier on FOX Sunday night

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

(KTVI) - A new FOX show will unlock the mysteries of the universe, and you don't even have to leave your couch.

Cosmos was a big hit back in the 1980's, starring the late astronomer, Carl Sagan.

The show has been re-booted for the 21st century as "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey."

Neil degrasse Tyson, director of New York's Hayden Planetarium, is the host.

As a student, Tyson visited Sagan’s lab, and the famous astronomer became his mentor.

Now Tyson is carrying on Sagan’s legacy.

While a lot of science discoveries will be addressed, Tyson says it’s the stunning visual effects that are most impressive.

Neil deGrasse Tyson, Host, "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey": In early versions of the script I was describing how hot the sun was or how large an explosion was and then you see how compelling the visualizations are. I just shut up and pointed out. The program has the power to influence you not only intellectually, but emotionally. That's where it will sit within your heart."

The show premieres tonight at 8 pm, on FOX 2.


  • Babu G. Ranganathan

    SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE CANNOT BE ETERNAL because it could not have sustained itself eternally due to the law of entropy (increasing net energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein showed that space, matter, and time all are physical and all had a beginning. Space even produces particles because it’s actually something, not nothing. Even time had a beginning! Time is not eternal.

    The law of entropy doesn’t allow the universe to be eternal. If the universe were eternal, everything, including time (which modern science has shown is as physical as mass and space), would have become totally entropied by now and the entire universe would have ended in a uniform heat death a long, long time ago. The fact that this hasn’t happened already is powerful evidence for a beginning to the universe.

    Popular atheistic scientist Stephen Hawking admits that the universe had a beginning and came from nothing but he believes that nothing became something by a natural process yet to be discovered. That’s not rational thinking at all, and it also would be making the effect greater than its cause to say that nothing created something. The beginning had to be of supernatural origin because natural laws and processes do not have the ability to bring something into existence from nothing. What about the Higgs boson (the so-called “God Particle”)? The Higgs boson does not create mass from nothing, but rather it converts energy into mass. Einstein showed that all matter is some form of energy.

    The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence and power for the origin and order of the universe. Where did God come from? Obviously, unlike the universe, God’s nature doesn’t require a beginning.

    EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn’t mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws may explain how the order in the universe works and operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic code and biological machinery exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how could life or the cell have naturally originated when no directing code and mechanisms existed in nature? Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.

    WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports.

    Some things don’t need experiment or scientific proof. In law there is a dictum called prima facie evidence. It means “evidence that speaks for itself.” Of course, in the complexities of human society and relationships, prima facie may not always be what it seems.

    An example of a true prima facie would be if you discovered an elaborate sand castle on the beach. You don’t have to experiment to know that it came by design and not by the chance forces of wind and water.

    If you discovered a romantic letter or message written in the sand, you don’t have to experiment to know that it was by design and not because a stick randomly carried by wind put it there. You naturally assume that an intelligent and rational being was responsible.

    I encourage all to read my popular Internet articles: NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION and HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM

    Visit my newest Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION

    Babu G. Ranganathan*
    (B.A. Bible/Biology)


    *I have given successful lectures (with question and answer period afterwards) defending creation before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges and universities. I’ve been privileged to be recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis “Who’s Who in The East” for my writings on religion and science.

  • Richard mangrum

    Blah, blah. I can make up “facts” to support anything. I was waiting for some christian to be angry that anyone would dare not believe what we are told. Only sheep need a shepard

  • Brett Perry

    Seriously?! You’re either ignorant or dishonest. I don’t have time to debunk every bit of misinformation contained in what you wrote, but I would however suggest that you and anyone else who’s inclined to believe this out dated propaganda (perpetuated by those who can’t quite grasp reality), reevaluate these claims from up to date sources coming from scientist who don’t have a spiritual inclination to warp the truth in attempt to lend credulity to a biased faith based point of view.

    For instance it has in fact been proven that the universe could well be infinite and the laws of thermodynamics are only applicable when applied to a closed system. Thus the concept of an infinite universe is a system in which that particular rule while applicable to closed systems within our universe, would no longer be relevant to the universe as a whole.

    I’m not even going to waste my time demonstrating the means by which we KNOW evolution is a scientific fact with the same validity as the theory of gravity. Once again I would advise researching up to date modern scientific findings from those without a predisposed bias. Even the catholic church now acknowledges evolution, and I’m sorry but if your views are more conservative than that of the Vatican, you’re either a child or are in desperate need of mental healthcare. The funny part is by questioning evolution, you provide solid evidence for it’s validity by clearly illustrating that some of our minds are much more evolved than others.

  • Bob Green

    Why do we have something rather than nothing? Top physicists (Hawking, Wilczek (noble prize), Stenger, etc) tell us that the state of true nothing is UNSTABLE. Perhaps they are wrong, but quantum physics tells us that small amounts of energy come into existence from nothing all the time and this is verified in lab measurements (See Lamb Shift, Casimir Effect). Google, download and read “The Origin of the Universe – Case Closed” for more on this.

    An unstable nothing explains existence. Do you have a better explanation?

Comments are closed.