Notice how my presentation changed from "might have" at the start to "would have" in the middle and then definite statements at the end. That's exactly how the documentary goes. It starts out with what might have been and ends up with what definitely was.
That is not how it works. First is the idea, correct. The first rough theory. But then comes the proof. What facts speaks for it, what facts against it. Where can i find more facts for or against it. How does that whole thing fit into what.
You label the previous knowledge wrong? And so the results that are based at it? But you overlook that even this previous knowledge has gone through the same procedure of proof and disproof. When a stone always falls down then there is a really big chance that there is gravity. So there is the theory of gravity. And now it gets tested. With models, with calculations, with everything that is able to proof or disproof this theory. That's how science works. Provable facts is what counts. And not imaginary things, might have or would have. Scientists doesn't conjure up a god out of their hat. When there is a doubt then they go on with proving the thing. When there is a chance to dive even deeper then they do.
An unproven theory will not survive very long. A theory that gets disproved even shorter. And even proven theorys are always under testing and changing when there are new facts. That is the difference between faith and science. Science doesn't say something is true, it tries to find out what is true
Hey, it was a scientist that said the earth circles around the sun
I think what makes it so hard to listen and trust to nowadays scientists is the fact that they live in their own world now. A normal guy isn't really longer able to understand what they are talking about. Not without closer explanation.
It is totally overlooked that these are drawings because there is actually no real fossil evidence for those intermediate steps.
And here i totally disagree. You might ignore it, but the fossil evidences are there. It's your interpretation that differs here.
Again, when the species have noting to do with each other, how comes that we can find all the evolutionary steps drawn in stone? How comes that we can see all the steps from a sauropode to a bird for example?
Why when there is no change was just primitive live at the beginning, and more and more complex live towards nowadays? Wouldn't your world view of no change and intelligent design lead to the fact that the allocation of this fossils happens random across the ages? How does that fit to the order they show? Why no TRex at the age of 500 million years but just very primitive species? Why no Homo Sapiens at that point? Why no flowering plants at that point? Why no TRex nowadays?
Why when there is no evolution was science able to create something like a family tree? With all the fossils at the right places? In evolutionary order? Millions and millions of them, and not one that doesn't fit? Provable by everyone that is willing to?
Sorry, but that all points for me in the direction of evolution, not intelligent design
