This new quizlet seems to be a good test, the questions change each time it seems.
Well that's total garbage, I got 100%. I opted for multiple choice and when the answers weren't actually contained in the question, the wrong options mostly ruled themselves out by being totally random.
Q. Unsegmented worms with elongated rounded body pointed at both ends
Genotype Nematode Tetrapods Clades
Ffs.....
So we have a couple of creationists obsessing over definitions looking for loopholes, this one messing about with quizzes trying to prove exactly what I'm not sure and another one trying to persuade us that religious belief is science.
Is anyone going to bring us some actual science? Anybody?
You do understand that scientific theories can only be overturned by evidence not quizzes, not logic, philosophy, semantics or belief - or do you?
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. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
In fact evidence of intelligent design can't "NOT" be evidence of intelligent design even if the explanation is that it wasn't caused by intelligent design.
Huh?
mike the wiz writes:
The evidence for a Creator is a creation/created/intelligently designed things.
But "creation/created/intelligently designed things" is not what we observe.
mike the wiz writes:
To say, "it's not" means you have to qualify what is. I notice you didn't do that.
If design proponentsists can not define design, why should I be able to? If you can't define a flerbend, why should I have to prove one doesn't exist?
mkike the wiz writes:
Prediction; you won't qualify evidence of a Creator as true evidence which would, "follow" which we all know would be the usual evidence of creation and design, but rather you will deliberately choose to qualify evidence of a Creator as something you already know does not exist, so I can't provide it.
Your prediction fails. As I have told Phat many times, I will gladly accept evidence of a creator. I won't even do a thorough background check like the FBI or MI5 would do. I'll accept the same evidence that I'd ask of the guy who reads the gas meter - picture ID will be fine.
On the contrary, I think it's you and Phat who would not accept real evidence of a creator. You'd call him a false god or a demon because he doesn't fit your fiction of what the creator "should" be. You don't want evidence of a creator. You'd rather create your own hiding creator.
mike the wiz writes:
Ever heard of the law of non-contradiction?
I've never heard anybody but creationists put much stock in it.
So I think a pattern emerges. To know all of the answers, CONSTANTLY to a high percentage, no matter what the quiz, well it seems is reasonable to see as an indication of a lack of ignorance.
The quizzes don't mean anything. Your score on the quizzes don't mean anything.
This is the point:
quote:This thread's main point is that some creationists exist that understand evolution theory... but just don't think it's the best explanation.
I agree, sort of. Any person (creationist or not) that understands evolution theory... but doesn't think it's the best explanation either:
1. Has some additional information available to them that current scientists do not. (Doubtful, but possible... also, a Nobel Prize winning event.)
2. Does not understand science or how/why science works.
You can score 100% all the time on all these quizzes. It doesn't mean anything if you don't understand why science works - the self-correcting, study of reality using repeatable evidence as a guide. It may or may not be "100% reality" at any time, and we would never know even if it was. But it does, constantly, get closer and closer and closer and closer and closer and closer...
People tend to confuse the law of identity with circular reasoning.
Ever heard of the law of non-contradiction? Time to learn it.
I notice that you like to make up "laws"that supposedly make you seem like a master debater.
You must already be familiar with the law of the putrid stench.
Disclaimer: No I didn't take the quizzes because quizzes without questions about dragonflies are pointless. This is the law of non-odonatology.
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
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.
I notice this behaviour when people fail exams, they tend to say the exam is somehow at fault, like when a worker blames his tools. The problem is, with his tools I can do a good job, showing the fault isn't with the tools.
Funny, I notice that people who are idiots blame the exam instead of themselves for not studying harder.
Honest people who fail exams blame themselves for not studying harder.
mtw writes:
I think at the very least, I myself will conclude that a lot of the wind-bags of evolution you get on sites like this, either are close in knowledge to about myself or if they score higher, aren't particularly much higher unless they have some kind of higher education, so that's only to be expected.
Wind-bags of evolution has a nice ring to it. At least, no one will accuse you of boasting about your superior knowledge considering how low you set the bar against which you compare yourself.
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
™ Version 4.0 Beta
