|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: A Test Of Science And Evolution Knowledge | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Son Goku Member  Posts: 1226 From: Ireland Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
mike the wiz Member  Posts: 4722 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 1646 days)  Posts: 6117 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4722 From: u.k Joined: |
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.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PaulK Member Posts: 17426 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dwise1 Member  Posts: 5596 Joined: Member Rating: 4.3 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4722 From: u.k Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member  Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Stile Member  Posts: 4265 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 4.5
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4722 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? Okay then
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4722 From: u.k Joined: |
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; Bot Verification
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%
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PaulK Member Posts: 17426 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: Member Rating: 3.3
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PaulK Member Posts: 17426 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
nwr Member  Posts: 6297 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023
(1)