|
QuickSearch
Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] |
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9024 total) |
| |
Ryan Merkle | |
Total: 882,867 Year: 513/14,102 Month: 513/294 Week: 0/269 Day: 0/45 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Test Of Science And Evolution Knowledge | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 8052 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
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 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member Posts: 18854 From: frozen wasteland Joined: Member Rating: 4.0
|
Huh?
But "creation/created/intelligently designed things" is not what we observe.
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?
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.
I've never heard anybody but creationists put much stock in it.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4017 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
The quizzes don't mean anything. This is the point: quote: You can score 100% all the time on all these quizzes.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 2416 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 10.0
|
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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 8465 Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
"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".
Quizzes are not primary papers. Quizzes have nothing to do with being able to understand the evidence supporting evolution. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 2416 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
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.
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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 992 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Evolution T/F Quiz
96% correct.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member Posts: 18854 From: frozen wasteland Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
So the question is: What did you get wrong? ![]()
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021