Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-18-2019 7:36 AM
136 online now:
Admin (Percy) (1 member, 135 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 856,902 Year: 11,938/19,786 Month: 1,719/2,641 Week: 228/708 Day: 3/52 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Test Of Science And Evolution Knowledge
Taq
Member
Posts: 7971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


(4)
Message 57 of 83 (814245)
07-05-2017 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by mike the wiz
07-03-2017 12:06 PM


Re: EvC
mike the wiz writes:

Disqualify creationists from what? What I mean by "fully assess evolution" is a bit of sloppy typing. I should have really said the only ones who understand the full hypothetics of evolution theory to an expert level.

Anyone can learn the science and assess the theory itself. The problem is in finding creationists who are willing to learn the science.

In the scientific arena, the voices that count are from those who publish primary research papers in peer reviewed journals. This is true of every single scientific field. It's not a matter of being an expert, but a matter of being a scientist to does the science and publishes that science. As I have stated before, science is an activity, not a title.

In forums and debates like these, what matters is the ability to have a functional understanding the primary research papers. You don't have to understand every word, but you should be able to read a paper and get the general gist of it. You should also know the basic concepts of phylogenies, genetics, and anatomy. What we see over and over are creationists that can't read primary papers and get the basics of biology wrong. Because of this, we correctly point out that their opinions of evolution are based on ignorance.

That is like saying that being a fan of motor sport makes you a race driver. But take my advice - don't listen to the fan if you want to be instructed on how to race a car.

If someone said that modern car engines run on steam instead of gasoline, what would you think of their opinions on how race cars should be designed? That's kind of how we view creationists. When a creationist says that macroevolution is a cat evolving into a dog, that is the equivalent of saying that a 2017 Ford Mustang runs on steam.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by mike the wiz, posted 07-03-2017 12:06 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2017 5:55 AM Taq has responded
 Message 67 by jar, posted 07-10-2017 7:55 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 80 of 83 (814542)
07-10-2017 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by mike the wiz
07-10-2017 5:55 AM


Re: EvC
mike the wiz writes:


In context the point of my analogy was that the things I come across from amateur evolutionists online tend to be disparate from the things I hear scientists actually argue. One popular claim seems to be that macro evolution is a fact which tells me they think the "hypothesis" part of science contains facts. In fact confirmation evidence in inductive reasoning provides a tool to collect confirmation evidence not affirmation evidence.

"Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

Macroevolution has been "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent".

You haven't demonstrated that here. As far as I know not many creationists have taken the quiz. It's easy to just go back to personally attacking creationists and saying "creationists are X" but if you are a person of science you should know that actually showing some evidence your claim is true, is better than just SAYING THINGS.

"What we see over and over".

What does that even mean as a statement? "We" who, a few amateur debaters on EvC forum?

So far in this thread it seems people misunderstand. If they re-read message one they will see some disclaimers I made. I wasn't saying this is a perfect test of knowledge of biology and I did say you can provide a better one if you want.

The population genetics test was given to me by an evolutionist, he himself is educated in that area and got IIRC, about 93%.

Quizzes are not primary papers. Quizzes have nothing to do with being able to understand the evidence supporting evolution.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2017 5:55 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019