A Test Of Science And Evolution Knowledge

The poor old dassies. They're cute. What have they ever done wrong to deserve that title?

Anyways, I'm half a rock spider in SA terms. Something like a crocoduck, I guess. In Aussie terms, if you call me a rock spider I would challenge you for a dual in the boxing ring. Just remember that I won my last boxing match by a 100 metres while throwing pumice at the opponent!Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

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.You can confirm a theory, you can't affirm a theory. So I am not sure a qualified scientist that knows how science functions, would ever argue macro evolution as factually proven. I am sure atheists on forums like this, will.That is to say, some of the popular arguments you argue for evolution, aren't even necessarily argued by the scientists themselves. There is some agreement, yes, but this is just amateurs parroting scientists so as they can associate themselves with science. 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%.

Basically I regard you as a troll a lot of the time. Mainly all you do is attempt personal attacks.So then do you complain when I try to provide evidence I do understand evolution? That raises the question; "is this only a rhetorical tactic by evolutionists, to forever say creationist doesn't understand but to never qualify what would count as understanding?"If I have misunderstood evolution then where have I misunderstood? Once that specific thing is then known, I will then have a better understanding, but I would wager that because I didn't agree evolution was true, the propaganda that I don't understand, would continue.So you imply I don't understand. Which part of evolution don't I understand then? (In other words, is there evidence I have misunderstood it, specifically in some area, rather than just propaganda that I don't understand?)(what, you have no specific example? Then why the assumption I don't understand? Because I don't believe macro evolution occurred perhaps?)It's true I am fairly informed about evolution, I score highly on the tests I didn't include in this thread. The only lower score so far is the population genetics at 65% which isn't very far off the evolutionists so far, that score 70s percentile.So yes, I can see the advantage in continuing with the propaganda that I don't understand, as it's a very useful tactic. Tactically speaking, even though it is mendacious, it is quite smart to spread the propaganda that creationists don't understand because then readers won't take their criticisms of evolution seriously. That is the point in the ad hominem, to argue the arguer rather than the argument presented.But If I wanted you to think I was informed and since you imply my behaviour poor (egotism) and you seem to constantly think creationists liars, then I would have surely lied and said I scored 95% on the more difficult test, rather than admitting to 65%.Because I am not insecure, I can accept I have areas I could do with swatting up on.Having said that I am pretty informed about evolution and certainly understand the hypothetics of how macro evolution purportedly occurs.So I am not quite sure where all these attacks come from. As an example of poor reasoning for example, showing you aren't qualified to assess my claims, you said, "typical creationist egotism", as though egotism is something that comes from "creationism" or is typical of creationists. Egotism doesn't come from a belief/subject people hold. That would be like saying, "typical Caucasian egotism".It's also a bare assertion.So to expect me to value your rather mediocre standard seems to me, highly optimistic given your posts put you generally in the, "negative bare assertion troll" category.

But you have heard of allele frequencies?I am not the best at explaining things. In other words, I am better at understanding things than I am sometimes of explaining them so if this isn't the best explanation forgive me, but basically "homo" is implied "same" allele, or the specific locus doesn't have the alternative.For heterozygosity, it basically means there is an alternative or, "other" as implied "hetero".Blue eyes are relatively "new" IIRC, blue eyes are a mutation in the be gene for brown eyes.If my explanation is sloppy it's because this information is old to me now. I could do with re-swatting up on it. It is a complicated subject. So then a percentage of the loci will be homozygous and heterozygous.So the same gene at a locus for homozygous, a different gene at a locus for heterozygous.Some people define evolution as a change in allele frequencies. As with any example of micro evolution, these things can still occur even with no examples of macro evolution.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

I said; ".why would creative, intelligently designed things, not count as evidence of creation?"To which ; That's a common misconception. People tend to confuse the law of identity with circular reasoning.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.For example a scar on your chest identical to an operation performed by qualified doctors will count as evidence of that even if the true explanation was that it was some type of violence that caused it. It still counts as confirmation evidence, because we don't affirm the consequent."If X then evidence P".
"evidence P therefore X". (fallacy; affirmation of consequent.)But it still follows that that type of scar is expected evidence of that type of operation. To say, "it is not" is to say that an operation that causes that cut, would not produce a scar.So then it is not circular by definition/identity. (wow, that you don't know this really implies LESS knowledge than a school boy).For example features of humanity counts as evidence of humanity, it isn't circular to say that human dna and anatomy counts as evidence of human life. The evidence for a Creator is a creation/created/intelligently designed things.To say, "it's not" means you have to qualify what is. I notice you didn't do that.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. (a rigged dice).To say "the usual evidence of P is not P" is to commit special pleading fallacy. Also if evidence of P is "NOT" evidence of P, then what is?"Usual evidence of P is not evidence of P and "not evidence of P" is also evidence against P."Equivalent claim; "If you you flip a heads I win, if you flip a tails, I win."So then, objectively speaking, it is obviously true that the usual evidence of intelligent design/Creator would be the evidence it usually is. We look at what makes things designed/created, and those features then tell us what makes them designed by identity. This says more of your lack of comprension, which would compound those misunderstandings you have about logic, by arguing contradictions.Well on a deductive test I got 93% and I have the all time highscore on a logic game, and it's been played about 26,000 times. I think that means it's beyond, "schoolboy", but it says a lot to me that the only insecure way you can deal with this is by calling me something I clearly am not.Instead why don't you improve your own abilities and knowledge instead of relying on feeble insults?It seems like a schoolboy error to me, to confuse circular reasoning with the law of identity, that "X is X". By definition that which makes X, X, is that which makes X, X.A tautology is something defined as the opposite of a contradiction, a contradiction is defined as something always false.I argue a correct tautology, whereas you have argued a contradiction, that "intelligent design isn't evidence of an intelligent designer".Ever heard of the law of non-contradiction? Time to learn it.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This thread is a great example of what has long been said about Creationism and Biblical Christianity; that both are simply examples of wilful ignorance. Even when they can recite the facts and the Theories they decide to remain ignorant by rejecting reality.

It was simply a mistake. I got a screenshot of my score in case petty people would say, "you lie on your score."I believe there is no point in lying for this type of test. The obvious cause would be an error similar to a typo, I remembered for the test I got one wrong and though there were 15 questions but in fact when I look at the screenshot I saved for that test it says there were only 13. A simple error of memory is all it was;Imgur: The magic of the InternetEdited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Basically I regard you as a troll a lot of the time. Mainly all you do is attempt personal attacks.

---

Truthful criticism of creationists is not trolling, no matter how much you dislike it. And is is not as if creationists aren't happy to use what you would call "personal attacks" either.

quote:

---

So then do you complain when I try to provide evidence I do understand evolution?

---

In fact the point I raised is that your attempt to "prove" that you understand evolution looks to me like an attempt to bolster your arguments against criticism without actually showing that those arguments are any good - and I speculate that the reason for that is because your arguments aren't good (and they aren't). The fact that you spend a lot of your post going on about your claimed understanding of evolution rather than actually showing that you have good arguments only reinforces that impression.And you do yourself no favours by making silly accusations of "poor reasoning"

quote:

---

As an example of poor reasoning for example, showing you aren't qualified to assess my claims, you said, "typical creationist egotism", as though egotism is something that comes from "creationism" or is typical of creationists. Egotism doesn't come from a belief/subject people hold. That would be like saying, "typical Caucasian egotism".

---

in my experience egotism IS typical of creationists. If you think that says that egotism comes from creationism then the faulty reasoning is yours.

Population Genetics Test scores95% RAZD
72% Modulous
65% mike the wiz (creationist)
42% Stile.(I would say the "scores so far" but at this stage I should think there have been many days to swat up on these types of tests. It's easy to come back a week later having studied more and THEN give your score)It seems apart from me a creationist hasn't taken the P.G. test so what the thread shows about creationist, since we only have one creo that took the test, is that I scored okay. 88% on the evo quiz isn't terrible, if I was pig ignorant I would expect less. On other tests I didn't include in this topic I also get similar scores.Those more educated in that subject are naturally going to score very high.It seems the evolutionists that want to make the most "NOISE", about creationists, themselves either had some excuse as to why they didn't take the tests, or just didn't take the tests. Or they had some complaint.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.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.It also seems to me both Goku and RAZD the 90% scorers, tend to not accuse me and personally attack me as much as the common evolution anti-theists that attend forums. Could be a coincidence but it doesn't surprise me that the likes of RAZD, Goku (from EFF) tend to not personally attack creationists as much. Could be a coincidence but it seems to me mostly it's the big mouths that talk the talk but can't walk the walk.

Well, no you're changing the goal posts. Egotism is present in any group despite if they are evolutionist or creationist, because pride is a sin common to all humans. That is the salient point, not your excuse.As for the former part of this comment, it is the black-swan fallacy. "Your experience" counts for very little. But why would I provide arguments against evolution here, in a topic about a quiz to understand evolution? You have switched it around here, obtusely, thinking I won't spot how you attempt to put the burden of proof on me to prove arguments against evolution.No, you implied I didn't understand evolution, so you have to back up your claim by showing there is some element of the theory I don't understand. I myself haven't put any argument forward for debate here, I only provided an argument against evolution as a link for Son Goku because he said he hadn't come across any argument from creationism he wouldn't categorise as being poor, or some such thing. My intention was to show him an argument he perhaps had never heard before, and he admitted the information was new to him.So the relevance of "arguments against evolution" and your bare assertions my arguments aren't good, are basically repeats of your previous comments. But to prove anything you say you have to back it up. Other boneheads might think it sufficient for an evolutionist to just say "you're arguments are no good", but I require you actually show it, but as I say, it is not particularly germane to this thread anyway, so all of those bare assertions and false things you say about my arguments, only count for what they are; false gibberish and lies.

quote:

---

Well, no you're changing the goal posts. Egotism is present in any group despite if they are evolutionist or creationist, because pride is a sin common to all humans. That is the salient point, not your excuse.

---

I'm not changing the goal posts in the least. And the fact that you invent dubious interpretations of my words is no evidence that I am doing so.

quote:

---

As for the former part of this comment, it is the black-swan fallacy. "Your experience" counts for very little.

---

The "black swan fallacy" is concluding a universal from inadequate evidence. Since I am not concluding a universal the error is yours.

quote:

---

No, you implied I didn't understand evolution...

---

Wrong again.

quote:

---

I only provided an argument against evolution as a link for Son Goku because he said he hadn't come across any argument from creationism he wouldn't categorise as being poor, or some such thing.

---

And in that post you said: If you want discussion of the quality of your arguments then that is a very odd thing to say.

quote:

---

So the relevance of "arguments against evolution" and your bare assertions my arguments aren't good, are basically repeats of your previous comments. But to prove anything you say you have to back it up. Other boneheads might think it sufficient for an evolutionist to just say "you're arguments are no good", but I require you actually show it, but as I say, it is not particularly germane to this thread anyway, so all of those bare assertions and false things you say about my arguments, only count for what they are; false gibberish and lies.

---

How can I back up the claim without discussing the merits of your arguments - which you don't want here ?

This new quizlet seems to be a good test, the questions change each time it seems. It says I got 75% but I think I actually got 85% because as you can see my "wrong" questions were actually correct but not spelt how they wanted it; (I chose 20 questions but you can choose more I think)Just a moment...It seems to me that no matter what the test is on evolution, I tend to get about 85% to 90%. That tells me my understanding isn't so bad. Apart from population genetics of course, which seems more technical and my education is lacking there slightly.Here is why I give myself 85% instead of 75%;Imgur: The magic of the InternetSo 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.Conclusion; Obviously I am only one creationist, to jump to the conclusion all creationists know evolution fairly well, is hasty generalisation. In case people have forgotten my opening message, I am not arguing all creationists will score high but I do think we probably know more than you think and mostly it is a rhetorical tactic in debate, to argue-the-person, which is easier than finding genuine holes in a sound criticism of evolution.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

You are, by saying it applies to, "creationists". Google the term, "universal". (applicable to all cases.) You at least implied that it is universal to creationists, to link the two together is meaningless when evolutionists are also egotistical. You are. provide evidence of your implication I am not informed about evolution or shut up. Not wrong, "again" implies it happened once before which is a question-begging-epithet. Then it is misleading an mendacious and bare assertion to mention the quality of that claim based only on a statement.Basically it's a bit like pigeon-chess victory, "mike I can't deal with your claim here so I will call it false, untrue, incorrect, etc.." sorry but that only counts as a bare assertion.The issue germane to this topic is the understanding of evolution theory.You just want to throw tomatoes, and it seems that's your only purpose in this thread. Okay, so you come against creationists no matter what, I am now aware you have this prejudice. Goodbye then.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You are, by saying it applies to, "creationists". Google the term, "universal". (applicable to all cases.) You at least implied it, as though by referring to creationists as the ones with egotism, there was a link, when egotism is universal to all people but not universal to all creationists in the sense you tie the two together as though egotism and creationists, is an important link. It isn't, pride is found in evolutionists, too.

---

No Mike. If I had claimed that ALL creationists were egotists then I would be making a universal claim. Instead I simply claim that egotism is common among creationists.

quote:

---

Pay closer attention

---

Maybe you should try understanding what I write instead of spouting silly nonsense.

quote:

---

You are. provide evidence of your implication I am not informed about evolution or shut up.

---

I implied no such thing.

quote:

---

Not wrong, "again" implies it happened once before which is a question-begging-epithet.

---

Which shows that you understand neither "epithet" nor "question-begging"

quote:

---

Then it is misleading an mendacious and bare assertion to mention the quality of that claim based only on a statement.

---

Mike you may wish to assume that I have never seen your arguments - not even the one you linked to in this thread but you would be wrong. The only point on which you are correct is that it is bare assertion - but you have made it plain that discussion of your arguments is off-topic here so what more is there ?I will add that you still have not addressed my actual point and instead engaged in your usual dishonest attempts to censor statements you don't like.How that actually helps your cause I leave to you, but I will just note that engaging in obvious dishonesty hardly says anything good about you or those you would defend.