|
QuickSearch
Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] |
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9023 total) |
| YellowJay (1 member, 49 visitors)
|
Moe's URL Addresss | |
Total: 882,812 Year: 458/14,102 Month: 458/294 Week: 214/136 Day: 22/77 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Test Of Science And Evolution Knowledge | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member Posts: 1799 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
In Mike's defence, those aren't lizards. Not every small scaly quadruped is a lizard. Although given that's he's been happy to assign fossils of other extinct groups to modern groups they superficially resemble maybe I shouldn't be defending on this. On the topic, it's not at all clear that understanding of evolution is correlated with acceptance of it. I am not denying that most creationists have little understanding of the topic; but rather noting that most evolutionists have little understanding either (with the clarification that 'evolutionist' means someone who would answer yes when you ask them if they think people evolved from earlier animals, rather than evolutionary biologists). In the US (I haven't seen similar studies elsewhere), religious belief and political affiliation correlate with belief in evolution much more strongly than education or knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
That's true. In my opinion, you overthought this question. Some pretty prominent denominations take the position that if one word of the Bible is wrong, then Jesus did not exist and their religion would be a bunch of hooey. You, of course, take the position that those folks are simply mistaken and could change. But you did not write the test.
No. It just means that he disagrees despite knowing what scientist think. There is no reason why a creationist could not get 100% on the test. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I see the quote and I see the paragraphs in the reference devoted to the Biblical considerations. What I don't come up with after that review is very many scriptural considerations other than the disqualification of humans as being grouped with any other animals. Admittedly that exception is a pretty strong condemnation given the evidence that we did evolve. From the article. quote: So yeah, the author does admonish us to consider the Bible as the priority. But the reality is that there just isn't a possibility to gain much insight from doing so. According to Creationists, humans were specially created, but there just isn't much Biblical guidance after that.
Your note would appear to support my argument and not yours. I'll add that there is no reason creationist could not add something like "ability to produce viable offspring" to the criteria. In discussions, they generally do that.
I agree that it is not the most important issue to be discussed, but I then I am not making an argument against evolution.
Yes. That is true of course. But not relevant to my comment. I am not making an argument against evolution. I am instead pointing out what I think is a strained, yet often repeated argument in favor of evolution. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 853 days) Posts: 7789 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
In my defence, that which evolved into lizards is necessarily not a lizard Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 16682 Joined: Member Rating: 3.6 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 8052 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
CRR posted an image showing the creationist version of acceptable evolution, showing these boundaries very clearly. We can imagine that each trunk represents a 'kind' taken onto the ark and the branches show evolution after the flood. Or at least that's how I'm reading it.
There then should be no links between birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, insects, etc etc. One clear distinction in kinds in the biblical account is between those approved for eating and scarifice and those not. So presumably there should be a clear boundary between a pig and a cow? Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member (Idle past 8 days) Posts: 2087 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I did not say that they were the same thing. I said that there was nothing stopping a Creationist from offering "ability to produce viable offspring" as a rationale. In fact, Creationist posters here have used such reasoning. Perhaps it is you who are not paying attention. As far as the fundamental point is concerned, here again, is your statement that I took issue with.
I don't believe that statement to be correct. With a few notable exceptions, Creationists do not rely on scripture rather than biology. The only boundary that is closely tied to scripture is humans being separated away from every other animal. While a Creationist might not accept all of the evidence in biology, for the most part, they don't substitute scripture for those lacks.[1] In fact at least some biologic evidence, and I've cited one example, is just as helpful to Creationists. Yes, it is true that scripture cannot be contradicted, but there really is not much scripture to rely on or to avoid trampling. [1] at least not for defining kinds. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 8052 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
If it wasn't for the biblical reference, I reckon that's what they'd have to say - they're both even-toed ungulates. Like they'd group tapirs with elephants I assume - but really who knows what these people think - they all think something different. quote: Genesis 7 quote: Rock badger! Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 16682 Joined: Member Rating: 3.6 |
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: 16682 Joined: Member Rating: 3.6 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 8465 Joined: Member Rating: 6.1
|
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.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member Posts: 18854 From: frozen wasteland Joined: Member Rating: 3.7
|
Pigs must be "fallen" cows.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 8052 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Probably why they taste so good. Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member (Idle past 8 days) Posts: 2087 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
No, they taste so good because pigs have "less genetic information" than cows.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021