A Test Of Science And Evolution Knowledge

Because creation contains inferences and a conclusion God is there, the recent agreement among scientists is that it doesn't count because God, a transcendant being of supernature, cannot be scientifically tested. But my thoughts on that would take some typing and I would end up boring you perhaps. haha.

Oh well, this is very different to the usual run of the mill stuff, at least for me. I was reading the works of Bart Ehrman and this comes up in refutations of his work quite a bit. I would be interested actually, however maybe another forum maybe?

(Should a discussion about this be outside "Is it science?", since you're basically saying it isn't, more questioning can science provide the correct answer in this regard).

No takers on the quizzes? Only, "the quiz is wrong" excuses. Lol. Funny that's also the attitude the other forumers took when it seemed they weren't going to score well.

Like I say provide a better test by all means, that quiz I found I only googled it then took it, so I am not claiming it is fantastic.

So really if only biologists can fully say things about evolution, meaning creationists can't then you can't either.

Ummmmm. Half of my study for the Ph.D. was in the fields of fossil man and human osteology.

Son Goku writes: Oh well, this is very different to the usual run of the mill stuff, at least for me

Perhaps you should join evolution fairytale forum? You seem like a reasonable person, a bit like the other Goku really.

I am an individualist. All of my arguments come from me, I figure them out mostly myself, I basically create my own arguments from things I discover when I think about those subjects.

I believe some odd things which don't match with usual creationism perhaps. I am not a YEC, but I am open to some miracle to explain distant starlight, yet in a debate with an evolutionist theist (Piasan), it seemed to me his inference light was about 13.8 billion years was more convincing than Lyel's for example. So I can accept light may be that old, it is a possibility to me, because the difference with this issue is that the light can be directly inferred, based on a distance, and mathematically measured, so this seems like a peculiar instance where historical science, contains some operational science.

I admit I can see no way around that problem. It doesn't matter much to me but technically it means I'm not YEC. I also agree with evolutionists on some matters that YECs would disagree with, for example I don't agree creation is science, I just believe that to explain a creation scientifically is inappropriate. (bet you've never heard that one before.)

quote:

---

Only, "the quiz is wrong" excuses

---

Where are you getting that from ?

Think it through properly, the ones whose field is evolution, a full understanding of that theory, are the only ones that can fully assess evolution.

Then read DeliverUsFromEvolution's Message 41 in which he explains his beliefs. Three earned degrees in biology, studied evolution for years. Became a Christian and accepted their false dichotomy teachings that equate evolution with atheism. He studied creationism and ID, but found them to be full of holes.

DeliverUsFromEvolution writes: So where do I stand today? I am a creationist in the sense that I do believe God created the universe from nothing. By faith (not by "evidence") I believe that God has a purpose for the universe and everything in it. I am an Intelligent Design proponent in the sense that I believe God is an intelligent agent that created the universe with intelligibility, and infused it with the ability to bring forth complex biological life through laws and processes He providentially foreordained. I am an theistic evolutionist in the sense that I believe that evolution can make sense of almost everything I observe in the biological realm, without having to appeal to ex nihilo creation or periodic tinkering ala Michael Behe. At the end of the day, I forgo the creationist title because it is usually associated with a 6,000-year-old Earth and anti-evolutionary stances. I pass on the ID designation, because that has the connotation of denying common ancestry, and seeks to "prove" God's hand in the universe by means of "evidence"--something I think that is misconceived and misunderstands the modest aims and limitations of science. I believe in purpose, but by faith. I believe in design, but by faith. I don't make my science try to prove things it can't, and I don't try to make my faith say things it doesn't. I follow the evidence where it leads, because truth will always lead to God, no matter how counter-intuitive. I love God, and I fully believe in evolutionary theory. And I believe that when both are properly understood, there truly is no conflict between the two.

dwise1 writes: Then read DeliverUsFromEvolution's Message 41 in which he explains his beliefs. Three earned degrees in biology, studied evolution for years. Became a Christian and accepted their false dichotomy teachings that equate evolution with atheism. He studied creationism and ID, but found them to be full of holes.

I previously said it was sloppy typing. All those phds give him is the ability to understand evolution theory. He himself isn't an expert in what happened in the past, or an expert in what the bible means.

To evaluate whether there are, "holes" in creation really the appropriate expertise isn't evolution, it's critical thinking and logic.

More than happy to take him on in a great debate. Forgive me for not taking an anecdote as prove that slime created itself for no reason then led to some giraffes and trees later on at some stage.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

mike the wiz writes: To evaluate whether there are, "holes" in creation really the appropriate expertise isn't evolution, it's critical thinking and logic.

Actually, the holes in creationism are caused by lack of evidence. All the critical thinking and logic in the world won't help you if it has nothing to work on.

mike the wiz writes: I promised Percy I would only put topics through the "proposed" section of the site so even though this is clearly a fairly trivial topic belonging obviously to the Coffee House, I shall keep my word

Only a fool 'keeps their word' when they know they're incorrect.
It would be better to acknowledge your previous over-zealous statement then to continue being wrong in order to 'keep your word.'

First Quiz - 42%
-I thought I did worse.
My answer was "I don't know" to almost every question.

Second Quiz - 92%

Third Quiz - 12/13

So then do creationists understand the ToE, but perhaps just don't value it like you do?

If a creationist understands the ToE, but does not value it as much as any other fact, such as "the earth is round." Then they are simply denying reality. Whether or not they find value in 'denying reality' is up to them.

But I don't think it's as black and white as some evolutionists make out. I believe there are many creationists like me, that understand your theory but simply don't accept it is true and believe on logical grounds it runs short of the mark.

If it were true that evolution had fundamental logical issues, or didn't represent reality to the best of our knowledge... then it wouldn't be a scientific theory in the first place.
Same with any and all other scientific theories.

My belief is that there is a strong connection between disinterest in a subject and ignorance of it.

This is very true.
However, even if a group is disinterested and ignorant of an idea, it doesn't make that idea false in any way.
An idea would be true or false depending on how it relates to reality.
Since evolution relates very well to reality, we currently regard it as true.

I believe in all honesty, if the boot was on the other foot, evolutionists would generally score low if there were tests to understand the creationist arguments from creation scientists.

I think it would be difficult to find a creationist argument that was equally 'understood by creations scientists' as it was 'true to reality.'
Fortunately for evolution theory (and every other theories of science), science is the study of reality. Therefore what's 'understood by science' is always 'true to reality' (as far as we can tell with the available information.)

That tells me you might not know what confirmation evidence is.

When we find what you would call a 400 million year old jellyfish, because the bible says jellyfish would be jellyfish, like it said a dove was on the ark, as evidence what can we expect a jellyfish to look like if the rocks were laid down by the flood?

The only evidence you expect to see as direct evidence, is fossil jellyfish. The same can be said if it is an octopus or a crocodile or whatever.

Now if you say, "that isn't evidence for creation" then you've argued a contradiction, that the only expected evidence we could find in that scenario, is "not" evidence of creation.

But think about it, if the bible is true and we assume for the sake of the creation model that the flood laid down the fossils (we won't get into debating that) then as evidence, if the same creatures today, perished then, what else could we expect if they were fossilized, as evidence?

That's the same as asking this, "if I flood your house today, and you owned this model of computer, might we expect to find it buried if it survived?"

Now imagine if you said, "no",

Okay then, what would we expect the laptop to look like, a table?

So then if this isn't evidence for created kinds, then you have to put forward what would qualify as evidence.

It's a rigged dice Ringo - you would only qualify evidence you already know is not there, you would not be intellectually honest and ask yourself the question "but what really would be evidence in regard to those fossils?"

So it's question-begging when you say the "holes in creation" because I don't agree there are holes in creation, nor have you shown any, you have asserted there are holes in it.

So then the other problem is that to say creation is a lack of evidence, when we have a creation in front of us, intelligently designed things, creative things, with symmetry, specified complexity, information, contingency planning, function, viability, etc.....why would creative, intelligently designed things, not count as evidence of creation?

Again you have to argue a contradiction, that the usual evidence of creation and design isn't evidence, and you instead call it an "appearance" of the evidence. Lol, which just happens to appear IDENTICAL to the usual evidence of I.D and creation.

LOL!

Please now, no more off topic posts, this has already turned into a free for all to just attack creation and creationists.

I am not being baited into addressing more off topic bare assertions. Is the message I get from the evolutionists at EvC that they're not even willing to take the quizzes, they just want to basically jump all over mike?

Friends.....seriously, that's even more pathetic than anything I could have possible hoped for. Here you have a chance to smash a creationist into the dust by proving your propaganda they know squat, by getting 100% in each test.

No??????????????????????

No?

Okay then

At least you took the tests.

I'm baffled by this comment though;

Stile writes: Only a fool 'keeps their word' when they know they're incorrect. It would be better to acknowledge your previous over-zealous statement then to continue being wrong in order to 'keep your word.'

All I meant by that comment in message one is that if Percy was wondering whether I was just blowing smoke by saying I would post from now on through the proposed section, I would like to show I meant it because I thought a quiz would certainly be something deemed trivial enough for the coffee house.

Your negative interpretation of that totally baffles me.

Stile writes: his is very true. However, even if a group is disinterested and ignorant of an idea, it doesn't make that idea false in any way. An idea would be true or false depending on how it relates to reality.

I didn't argue that disinterest makes something false, which would be disbelief basically, which is the fallacy of an argument from incredulity.

It's funny when evolutionists, "correct" you on things you didn't argue. For example had I said, "yet I can accept it's easier when we just stick to an integer" would you then say, "but that in no way means that 2 add 2 is 5 mike".

Reply; Erm............and bears s*** in the woods also.

Stile writes: I think it would be difficult to find a creationist argument that was equally 'understood by creations scientists' as it was 'true to reality.' Fortunately for evolution theory (and every other theories of science), science is the study of reality. Therefore what's 'understood by science' is always 'true to reality' (as far as we can tell with the available information.)

The fault in this silly argument is that it's a generalisation. For example is a steady state theory reality or monera or spontangeous generation because science is "the study of reality".

Something being classed as science, doesn't mean it is reality, it means the study of the facts is reality, the hypothesis is the argument as to what those facts mean. So basically this is a fallacy of composition, that because science deals with facts/reality, it's theories that address them are facts and reality.

The usual argument that evolution is true because it's science, which is a simplistic understanding of science. if you want a more advanced understanding as to the differences in the various types of science, you may want to read message one of this thread;

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6734...

mike the wiz writes: Some people argue that all science is of the same value because it is treated with the same rigour. For example, to test a car brakes there may be an objective test, however this won't mean that all brakes are of the same performance. In the same way people commit a sweeping generalisation when they argue that; Science is treated with rigour through a method. Evolution is science. Therefore evolution is the same value as other theories because it is put through that rigor/method. The true nature I would argue of science I shall call, "strong science", is that it has repeatably reproduced, identical results, as an induction (tally). That is to say, if we put a rat in a sealed dome it will lose consciousness, so we deduce exotic air exists, and that the lungs can't just operate on any type of air. So then we deduce the result but then by induction, we can say that, "of 500 tests rats lost consciousness, out of all of the rats in the universe given the same conditions." But we know that under such conditions, even though the term "proof" can be argued pedantically, instead let us just say that our conclusion is strong, so as to avoid that semantics debate. So then we all know that it wouldn't matter if you performed the same test 10 trillion times, the result will always be the same. This is always the same with strong science. They are pretty much 'proven' because you can deduce the result then repeatably test and create a huge tally showing the same result. It can be shown with certain things, this is always the same type of science. We can deduce for example, that linear momentum will take over if we travel round a corner at a certain speed in a car, where the force of momentum will exceed the force of the traction and centre of gravity meaning the vehicle will spin out of flip out every time. We would immediately know something was funny if we saw a bus coming down the road at 100mph and then it took a tight corner at 100mph and took the corner nicely like a formula one car. CONCLUSION: Basically we can't argue with strong science. ARE SOME TYPES OF SCIENCE INHERENTLY WEAKER? By their nature yes - historical science was introduced for Darwinism and long ages. By their nature they are usually some type of forensic reconstruction or argued inference which have been proven in the past to potentially be non-sequiturs rather than correct conclusions. For example it was concluded Rhodocetus had a tail fluke and was ancestral to whales, but the finder of the organism later admitted it probably was a land animal for various anatomical reasons, proving that the type of forensic reconstruction for evolution, can be weak, especially with argued transitions. There are types of forensic reconstruction which are strong, so again you can't conflate that type with the weak type, or that is unsophisticated thinking, because a strong reconstruction isn't the same as a weak one. For example if we have many 100% complete skeletons for a species, and we reconstruct a skeleton that is 85% species X, that is a strong reconstruction. We can examine the anatomy and the conclusion is strong. But with transitionals of evolution, nobody can even know if they really were transitional and there are good reasons to believe they weren't, given the 99.9999999% conspicuously absent transitionals. CONCLUSION; It's not as simplistic as evolutionists want to make out. They like to appeal to, "science" as though every theory and claim within science, because evaluated by scientists, is equally strong, equally proven. No, some things are so strong they basically are proven (angular momentum/ downforce, etc..) but some things are merely stories about the past which are basically propped up by circumstantial evidence, and they are argued as propositional inferences. To put it in a more meaningful context, the chances of downforce existing have to be 99.999999%, and the chance of linear momentum existing must be 99.9999999% but really we all know they do exist, we have a reasonable knowledge they do so I only refrain from saying 100% because of technical pedantics, but to say the chances of evolving from slime, after an abiogenesis from mud, is an equal chance, because they are both science, is incredibly naive, and exceedingly poor reasoning based on generalisation fallacy. The chances for that, by any reasonable standard, would be closer to 0.0000000001%

quote:

---

When we find what you would call a 400 million year old jellyfish, because the bible says jellyfish would be jellyfish, like it said a dove was on the ark, as evidence what can we expect a jellyfish to look like if the rocks were laid down by the flood?

---

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 think about it, if the bible is true and we assume for the sake of the creation model that the flood laid down the fossils (we won't get into debating that) then as evidence, if the same creatures today, perished then, what else could we expect if they were fossilized, as evidence?

---

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:

---

Please now, no more off topic posts, this has already turned into a free for all to just attack creation and creationists.

---

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.

Maybe you should devote less of your time to schoolboy logic and more to learning how to construct a sentence. It's hard to glean any sense from your post.

mike the wiz writes: So then if this isn't evidence for created kinds, then you have to put forward what would qualify as evidence.

The bottom line is that evidence for creation requires evidence of a creator.

mike the wiz writes: .....why would creative, intelligently designed things, not count as evidence of creation?

Because it's circular.

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.

I'm not at all sure what's the point of all of this.

I did browse through the quizzes, but I didn't try to score them. I would do pretty well on the 2nd and third. But I would not do as well on the first.

But what's the point. Those tests are on one's ability to recite facts. It is possible to be very good at reciting fact, yet have a poor understanding. And it is possible to be poor at reciting facts, yet understand very well.

Those tests are not a useful way to evaluate understanding.