A Time of Science - Episode 1
Also Watching With You (0)
Movie Responses (0)
Text Comments (3)
0
Rate:
Reply | Replies (0)
moviefix (3560 days ago)
Humans are closer to bananas than they are to chimps genetically. So Jason, unless you think we evloved from bananas, I don't think your DNA stuff is relevant. And they HAVE found mammals lower inrock than dinosaurs in fact almost everytime they find fossils they find them with other animals both lower higher and on the same level as dinosuars, they even have found human fossils lower and with dinosuars. And since you cannot repeat evoloution in a laboratory it is NOT SCIENCE. Neither is creationism, because you cannot repeat it in a laboratory. Both are faith, an di f anyone thinks they can belive anything abou tthe origins of the Earth without "having faith" or beiing "religous", they are way off. Evolution is just as much a religon as Christianity. No true atheist would believe in something they cannot see, such as evolution, which no one has seen.
+1
Rate:
primaveranz (3698 days ago)
Sorry Jason he has you there. Because everything he claimed, he then repeated in a funny voice. That trumps logic I'm afraid.
Well as long as he had his fingers crossed behind his back and stood on one foot when he said it...
You did though... eh JF?
Well as long as he had his fingers crossed behind his back and stood on one foot when he said it...
You did though... eh JF?
+1
Rate:
Jason3 (3699 days ago)
Where to begin? Firstly "organic evolution" is not the origin of life from non-life. It is just the evolution of organisms by natural selection (which is what is usually meant by the term "evolution" on its own). You have confusingly chosen to split eolution into macro-evolution and micro-evolution. One scientific theory covers both of them. It is either science or it isn't.
And the observations required by science don't have to be direct. For example, nobody has ever seen a dinosaur. So why do scientists believe they existed? Because we have found dinosaur fossils. If you don't accept indirect observations, then you have to rule atoms, electons and water molecules as non-scientific, because they have never been directly observed. So atomic science, electro-magnetism and chemistry wouldn't be sciences either. Is that your postion?
In addition, several of these types of evolution you mention have had direct observations made. For example, supernovae have been observed, and new species have been observed both in nature and the laboratory.
One of the defining aspects of scientific theories, as opposed to pseduo-science like creationism, is that it makes falsifiable claims. Evolution claimed there was a way of passing on genes before the discovery of DNA. It expected chimpanzee DNA to be closer to human DNA than rat DNA. It was right every time.
If you want to discredit evolution, all you need do is find some mammal fossils in the low rocks below where we find dinosaurs. So, all of the types of evolution that you mentioned that are claimed by scientists to be scientific theories have observations and experiments, and can be invalidated through observation. They ARE science.
You mention forensic evidence for creationism. What evidence? None that I'm aware of. I'd guess you'd go for some kind of "irreducible complexity" argument, but even if that held up it would only invalidate evolution, not count as evidence for creationism.
All-in-all, the whole thing comes across as creationist propaganda, and certainly not unbiased as you claim. If you are going to make a series of films about science, then I really would suggest that you research science further. It might change your mind :)
And the observations required by science don't have to be direct. For example, nobody has ever seen a dinosaur. So why do scientists believe they existed? Because we have found dinosaur fossils. If you don't accept indirect observations, then you have to rule atoms, electons and water molecules as non-scientific, because they have never been directly observed. So atomic science, electro-magnetism and chemistry wouldn't be sciences either. Is that your postion?
In addition, several of these types of evolution you mention have had direct observations made. For example, supernovae have been observed, and new species have been observed both in nature and the laboratory.
One of the defining aspects of scientific theories, as opposed to pseduo-science like creationism, is that it makes falsifiable claims. Evolution claimed there was a way of passing on genes before the discovery of DNA. It expected chimpanzee DNA to be closer to human DNA than rat DNA. It was right every time.
If you want to discredit evolution, all you need do is find some mammal fossils in the low rocks below where we find dinosaurs. So, all of the types of evolution that you mentioned that are claimed by scientists to be scientific theories have observations and experiments, and can be invalidated through observation. They ARE science.
You mention forensic evidence for creationism. What evidence? None that I'm aware of. I'd guess you'd go for some kind of "irreducible complexity" argument, but even if that held up it would only invalidate evolution, not count as evidence for creationism.
All-in-all, the whole thing comes across as creationist propaganda, and certainly not unbiased as you claim. If you are going to make a series of films about science, then I really would suggest that you research science further. It might change your mind :)
