|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Test Of Science And Evolution Knowledge | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I'll just note that quiz on evolution covers a number of misconceptions commonly held by creationists.
Evolution T/F Quiz
Evolution is a process which involved the origin of life. Evolution is a totally random process, a series of "accidents." Evolution was developed in order to destroy or undermine religion. In order to accept evolution as a valid explanation, you cannot believe in God. Evolution increases structure and order, but that goes against Newton's second law of thermodynamics. "Evolution is only a theory." There is actually very little evidence for evolution. One indication that evolution has not occurred is the total absence of "transitional (intermediate) fossils." Fossils reveal many problems which evolution cannot explain. Evolution has been tested and challenged many times, but has always been supported by the results. There is considerable observed evidence against evolution Science can productively study the past, based on evidence, so evolution is a proper subject for science. The formation of complex structures, like the eye, can be readily explained by evolution.
That is more than half the questions - and many YECs believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, too.
quote: Your understanding might be better than most creationists, Mike but if you really want us to think that you have good reasons for rejecting evolution you need to show us those reasons. Instead of bragging about obviously bad arguments. As you do in Message 5
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Where are you getting that from ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: I'd expect a jellyfish to look like a jellyfish whether rocks were laid down by the Flood or not. That is why it isn't evidence that rocks were laid down by the Flood.
quote: But it is not the same creatures, is it? Really we'd expect to find a lot of modern creatures - and we don't. And that's before we get into the order of the fossil record or the problems of attributing large amounts of geology to a single year-long Flood. So I guess the question is whether you are being dishonest by ignoring evidence that you know exists or just too ignorant to know that it exists. Either way it hardly looks good for your case.
quote: It's rather obvious that the point of this thread was another attempt to cover up creationist ignorance and the weakness of the creationist position. It was always going to backfire, especially when you keep handing out ammunition to your opponents.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
The most important evidence for kinds would be if we could clearly distinguish kinds on biological grounds alone.
Instead of a tree of life we should have - at least - a forest. In reality - as we have recently seen - creationists looking for "kinds" do not find adequate evidence in biology and instead have to turn to scripture to identify the (supposed) boundaries.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Mike wants us to think that he is informed and has sound reasons for rejecting evolution. He has to use indirect means because when he tries to present his arguments it becomes obvious that it isn't true. Typical creationist egotism I'm afraid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
See the link in Message 651
A baraminology tutorial with examples from the grasses (Poaceae)
There really is no single ‘baraminology method’ but rather a collection of methods used in successive approximation. In the following sections, I present a few techniques that can be used by nearly any biologist. I begin with Scriptural considerations, then move to additive and subtractive evidences, and conclude with an interpretation of my results.
(bolding mine) Note also that the the only "subtractive evidence" is morphological difference which is hardly strong evidence of a discontinuity in itself. It is a result entirely consistent with evolution. There is no "hard" criterion that allows different "kinds" to be reliably identified. The objection that the same could be said of species or the other taxonomic groupings used by mainstream science entirely misses the point. The absence of clear boundaries is evidence for evolution, and against the existence of separate "kinds" no matter what system is employed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I am afraid that you are not paying attention. "Subtractive evidence" is - supposedly - evidence that the species are NOT in the same kind. The "ability to produce viable offspring" is NOT evidence of that - quite the reverse.
quote: It is also not even related to the point I am making.
quote: The fact that you are drawing a false equivalence certainly seems to be relevant.
quote: Of course the fundamental point was "what evidence would we expect to see if 'kinds' were real". Since kinds are - by definition - separate creations with no evolutionary relationship clear boundaries are to be expected. Since even the creationists we are talking about agree that species are not separate creations but have evolutionary relationships to at least some other species it is not expected that we should be able to find clear boundaries.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: If you assume that the Bible is talking about Creationist "kinds" that would seem reasonable. Creationists do tend to make that assumption, although there is no good basis for it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Since the point you were replying to was explicitly and exclusively dealing with "subtractive evidence" offering an additional criterion without explanation is naturally read as offering an additional example. And, of course, offering anything else would require an explanation of why it was relevant. Which was not provided.
quote: The point you are objecting to is that creationists do not find adequate evidence of kinds in biology and resort to scripture to make up the difference. So far your response has been to assert that species don't look like separate creations either and to say that creationists can use some biological evidence to identify species as belonging to the same kind. If you are going to object at least come up with objections that are relevant and and not obviously inadequate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: Truthful criticism of creationists is not trolling, no matter how much you dislike it. And is is not as if creationists aren't happy to use what you would call "personal attacks" either.
quote: In fact the point I raised is that your attempt to "prove" that you understand evolution looks to me like an attempt to bolster your arguments against criticism without actually showing that those arguments are any good - and I speculate that the reason for that is because your arguments aren't good (and they aren't). The fact that you spend a lot of your post going on about your claimed understanding of evolution rather than actually showing that you have good arguments only reinforces that impression. And you do yourself no favours by making silly accusations of "poor reasoning"
quote: in my experience egotism IS typical of creationists. If you think that says that egotism comes from creationism then the faulty reasoning is yours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I'm not changing the goal posts in the least. And the fact that you invent dubious interpretations of my words is no evidence that I am doing so.
quote: The "black swan fallacy" is concluding a universal from inadequate evidence. Since I am not concluding a universal the error is yours.
quote: Wrong again.
quote: And in that post you said:
...but I won't discuss it here, as this isn't the place to discuss these things,
If you want discussion of the quality of your arguments then that is a very odd thing to say.
quote: How can I back up the claim without discussing the merits of your arguments - which you don't want here ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: No Mike. If I had claimed that ALL creationists were egotists then I would be making a universal claim. Instead I simply claim that egotism is common among creationists.
quote: Maybe you should try understanding what I write instead of spouting silly nonsense.
quote:I implied no such thing. quote: Which shows that you understand neither "epithet" nor "question-begging"
quote: Mike you may wish to assume that I have never seen your arguments - not even the one you linked to in this thread but you would be wrong. The only point on which you are correct is that it is bare assertion - but you have made it plain that discussion of your arguments is off-topic here so what more is there ? I will add that you still have not addressed my actual point and instead engaged in your usual dishonest attempts to censor statements you don't like. How that actually helps your cause I leave to you, but I will just note that engaging in obvious dishonesty hardly says anything good about you or those you would defend.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024