|
QuickSearch
Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] |
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9027 total) |
| CosmicChimp, PaulK (2 members, 51 visitors)
|
JustTheFacts | |
Total: 883,427 Year: 1,073/14,102 Month: 65/411 Week: 86/168 Day: 3/12 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Test Of Science And Evolution Knowledge | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Member (Idle past 32 days) Posts: 1164 From: Ireland Joined: |
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).
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4705 From: u.k Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 897 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Ummmmm. Half of my study for the Ph.D. was in the fields of fossil man and human osteology. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4705 From: u.k Joined: |
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.)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 16735 Joined: Member Rating: 2.9 |
quote: Where are you getting that from ?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 4429 Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4705 From: u.k Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member Posts: 18877 From: frozen wasteland Joined: Member Rating: 2.9 |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4034 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 4.0
|
Only a fool 'keeps their word' when they know they're incorrect. First Quiz - 42% Second Quiz - 92% Third Quiz - 12/13
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.
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.
This is very true.
I think it would be difficult to find a creationist argument that was equally 'understood by creations scientists' as it was 'true to reality.'
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4705 From: u.k Joined: |
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?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4705 From: u.k Joined: |
At least you took the tests.
I'm baffled by this comment though;
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.
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.
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...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 16735 Joined: Member Rating: 2.9
|
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member Posts: 18877 From: frozen wasteland Joined: Member Rating: 2.9
|
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.
The bottom line is that evidence for creation requires evidence of a creator.
Because it's circular.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 16735 Joined: Member Rating: 2.9 |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 5654 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
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. Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021