Study: understanding ToE = acceptance

[razzelflabben]

Were you not, just two hours earlier, posting these comments?

as I have repeatedly said, that was due to another poster's comment about there being creation scientists and I have seen the lists and supported that point. MY point however was that you all don't listen long enough or hard enough to know if someone knows the theory of evolution well enough to judge for themselves or not....but then again, according to you all the only thing someone could conclude upon understanding is that the TOE is truth even though it is full of holes and questions yet unanswered....

 

[razzelflabben]

Nope, there are no "creation scientists".

There might be people who call themselves that, but I could call myself an astronaut as well - it wouldn't make me an astronaut.

A scientist is some one who does science: research, experiments, peer reviewed publications,...

There are no "creation scientists", because none of them are "doing science".
That is what people mean when they say that there is no such thing as a "creation scientist".

the many lists identify multiple scientists, actual scientists that are creationists and to deny that is kind of silly given the evidence....but seriously, you all already proved my point so I am kind of done with this discussion.

There is no evidence to accept.
Like I said, there are people who call themselves that.
But that doesn't make them such. And I already explained where there is no such thing as a "creation scientist". There's no such thing as "creation science".

I can call myself a professional baseball player, but it would not be true.

keep telling yourself that till you believe it.

 

[razzelflabben]

I am officially asking everyone here to stop responding to me if it is not directly related to the original point I was making about so many people not listening well enough or long enough to know how much knowledge a creationist might have before passing judgment...you just might be surprised on occasion.

 

[DogmaHunter]

the many lists identify multiple scientists, actual scientists that are creationists and to deny that is kind of silly given the evidence...

I'm refering to the so called "creation science".
I'm sure all kinds of scientists believe all kinds of things, "creationism" being just one of those things.

The point is that their beliefs are irrelevant to their scientific work.
Usually, when people talk about "creation scientist", they literally mean scientists that do "creation research" - that's what I'm talking about: the so called "creation science".

There is no such thing.

What you have there, are simply scientists who happen to believe in creationism.
But their beliefs never show up in their actual scientific work.

Their beliefs are irrelevant.
It's like talking about "mustache wearing scientists".

I'm sure a lot of scientists have a mustache. Does it matter? No. Does it say something about people who wear a mustache? No. Does it say anything about scientists without a mustache? No. Does it matter in any way when discussing the actual science? Nope! That's the point being made...

Get it now?

.but seriously, you all already proved my point so I am kind of done with this discussion.
keep telling yourself that till you believe it.

It rather seems as if the point being made has been flying over your head rather consistently....

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am officially asking everyone here to stop responding to me if it is not directly related to the original point I was making about so many people not listening well enough or long enough to know how much knowledge a creationist might have before passing judgment...you just might be surprised on occasion.

I'm still refering to that same point.

I don't care what people believe.
What matters is what they can demonstrate.

Your list of "scientists who also believe X" is irrelevant, if none of them can actually scientifically support X.

And if the claim is that they in fact can and have done that... then all it takes is a citation of the scientific paper where that is being discussed.

Name dropping and listing degrees and phd's is not a substitute for the actual science.

 

[razzelflabben]

I'm refering to the so called "creation science".
I'm sure all kinds of scientists believe all kinds of things, "creationism" being just one of those things.

The point is that their beliefs are irrelevant to their scientific work.
Usually, when people talk about "creation scientist", they literally mean scientists that do "creation research" - that's what I'm talking about: the so called "creation science".

There is no such thing.

What you have there, are simply scientists who happen to believe in creationism.
But their beliefs never show up in their actual scientific work.

Their beliefs are irrelevant.
It's like talking about "mustache wearing scientists".

I'm sure a lot of scientists have a mustache. Does it matter? No. Does it say something about people who wear a mustache? No. Does it say anything about scientists without a mustache? No. Does it matter in any way when discussing the actual science? Nope! That's the point being made...

Get it now?



It rather seems as if the point being made has been flying over your head rather consistently....

last time I am going to ask...I totally understood what you said and I disagree with you because of the evidence. It is not the original point I was making however and I politely asked you to stop responding to me about anything and everything except for my original point. It's an easy enough request that I have full confidence that you can abide by that wish. The question is whether or not you will be courageous enough to do so?

 

[razzelflabben]

I'm still refering to that same point.

I don't care what people believe.
What matters is what they can demonstrate.

Your list of "scientists who also believe X" is irrelevant, if none of them can actually scientifically support X.

And if the claim is that they in fact can and have done that... then all it takes is a citation of the scientific paper where that is being discussed.

Name dropping and listing degrees and phd's is not a substitute for the actual science.

lol not only is this off the original point I made but shows the original point to be valid cause I didn't present a list here for review....lol how silly of you

 

[Ancient of Days]

I am officially asking everyone here to stop responding to me if it is not directly related to the original point I was making about so many people not listening well enough or long enough to know how much knowledge a creationist might have before passing judgment...you just might be surprised on occasion.

"Americans who understand how evolution works are more likely to accept it."
Simply not true. The logic itself is flawed and comes to a faulty conclusion. Analogy: I don't need to lay down on the highway in front of a truck going 70 mph to know that its wrong or the results will be negative. In fact it seems to me there are as many if not more people who have studied it and come to the conclusion that its simply a theory that comes to wrong conclusions. Long before I became a Christian I did study the TOE. I didn't believe it then and I don't believe it now. As a testimony there are many ex-evolutionists/atheists who are now Christians. That in itself debunks your study since they are first hand accounts.

 

[razzelflabben]

"Americans who understand how evolution works are more likely to accept it."
Simply not true. The logic itself is flawed and comes to a faulty conclusion. Analogy: I don't need to lay down on the highway in front of a truck going 70 mph to know that its wrong or the results will be negative. In fact it seems to me there are as many if not more people who have studied it and come to the conclusion that its simply a theory that comes to wrong conclusions. Long before I became a Christian I did study the TOE. I didn't believe it then and I don't believe it now. As a testimony there are many ex-evolutionists/atheists who are now Christians. That in itself debunks your study since they are first hand accounts.

my original point was that people don't listen long enough or hard enough to discover who understands the theory and who doesn't, but I agree with what you said none the less.

 

[Ancient of Days]

Also, do you have a link to the actual study? Your link is an opinion on the study.

 

[razzelflabben]

Also, do you have a link to the actual study? Your link is an opinion on the study.

ask the Original poster who posted the question...IT IS NOT MY thread.

 

[Ancient of Days]

Sorry brother, my mistake. Then I do ask the OP: Do you have a link to the actual study? Your link is an opinion on the study.

 

[Ancient of Days]

"Weisberg: Our results show that there is a relationship between knowledge and acceptance of evolutionary theory. We haven't established a causal link, but we hope that these results will encourage educators and policymakers to place more emphasis on the teaching of evolution as a fundamental concept in biology."

Then she suffers from the illusion of causality.

 

[Ancient of Days]

"Weisberg: Unfortunately, we found that knowledge about evolutionary theory is rather low; about 68 percent of participants failed our knowledge test, scoring less than 60 percent. So there's definitely room for improvement there."

So, 68% had 40% knowledge of the TOE and that's not enough to make an informed decision?

What did the other 32% score at? Higher than 40% obviously. Isn't that enough to come to an informed decision? I would say yes. What is she shooting for? 100%
Even then I can think of a multitude of creation scientists who do have 100% knowledge of the TOE and still think its flawed and untrue.

 

[DogmaHunter]

last time I am going to ask...I totally understood what you said and I disagree with you because of the evidence.

What evidence?

It is not the original point I was making however and I politely asked you to stop responding to me about anything and everything except for my original point. It's an easy enough request that I have full confidence that you can abide by that wish.

I'ld like to, if I knew what your "original point" was.
A link will be fine.

The question is whether or not you will be courageous enough to do so?

Not quite sure what "courage" has to do with that, but ok.

 

[DogmaHunter]

"Americans who understand how evolution works are more likely to accept it."
Simply not true. The logic itself is flawed and comes to a faulty conclusion. Analogy: I don't need to lay down on the highway in front of a truck going 70 mph to know that its wrong or the results will be negative.

False analogy.
The point of the OP is understanding the processes involved. Not having lived through it.

I'm quite sure that you understand what will happen to your body when a truck going 70mph runs over it, without having to experience or witness it first hand.

Because you understand what trucks are, what squishy biological human bodies are, what speed is and by all that, understand what the effect would be of a truck weighing several tons speeding over a squishy human body.

In fact it seems to me there are as many if not more people who have studied it and come to the conclusion that its simply a theory

1. notjustatheory.com/

2. the actual study of the OP, shows the exact opposite

3. even if ignore the study, people not accepting evolution are in the minority. So the "if not more..." in the above quote is not that honest/accurate.

Long before I became a Christian I did study the TOE

Considering your mentioning of "...simply a theory", I seriously doubt that.

Saying such things kind of proves that knowledge on the very basics of science and how science is done, is completely lacking.

I didn't believe it then and I don't believe it now. As a testimony there are many ex-evolutionists/atheists who are now Christians. That in itself debunks your study since they are first hand accounts.

Then do ex-christians who are now "evolutionists" and atheists, validate the study?

Or does that warped logic only work when it you can use it in your favor?

 

[DogmaHunter]

"Weisberg: Unfortunately, we found that knowledge about evolutionary theory is rather low; about 68 percent of participants failed our knowledge test, scoring less than 60 percent. So there's definitely room for improvement there."

So, 68% had 40% knowledge of the TOE and that's not enough to make an informed decision?

What did the other 32% score at? Higher than 40% obviously. Isn't that enough to come to an informed decision? I would say yes. What is she shooting for? 100%
Even then I can think of a multitude of creation scientists who do have 100% knowledge of the TOE and still think its flawed and untrue.

Regardless of the study, I can honestly tell you that I have never met a creationist in real life or on forums such as this one, who actually had a good grasp on what evolution theory is all about.

Never.

Just look through the threads right here on this very forum.
You'll notice that in every thread where a creationist is "debating" with "evolutionists", that about 95% of the conversation consists of the "evolutionists" having to explain to the creationist that what he thinks evolution is about, is utterly incorrect.

You'll notice plenty of posts saying:
"that's not how evolution works"
"individuals don't evolve, populations do"
"evolution is gradual - it doesn't happen overnight"
"humans didn't evolve from gorilla's...."
"that's not what a transitional fossil is..."
"micro/macro evolution is powered by the exact same processes, they aren't different things"
"speciation is a vertical process, species never jump branches"
etc
etc
etc

All in response to creationist posts completely misrepresenting evolution, using invalid/false premises, misunderstanding scientific jargon, etc etc.

There isn't a single creationist on this board that actually has shown to have a firm grasp on what evolution theory really says.

It is even so bad that the vast majority of these creationists end up asking us for specific types of evidence, which in reality would actually falsify evolution rather then support it.
Yet, it is what the typical creationist demands in support of evolution: data that would actually refute it.

Go figure.

 

[razzelflabben]

Regardless of the study, I can honestly tell you that I have never met a creationist in real life or on forums such as this one, who actually had a good grasp on what evolution theory is all about.

Never.

Just look through the threads right here on this very forum.
You'll notice that in every thread where a creationist is "debating" with "evolutionists", that about 95% of the conversation consists of the "evolutionists" having to explain to the creationist that what he thinks evolution is about, is utterly incorrect.

You'll notice plenty of posts saying:
"that's not how evolution works"
"individuals don't evolve, populations do"
"evolution is gradual - it doesn't happen overnight"
"humans didn't evolve from gorilla's...."
"that's not what a transitional fossil is..."
"micro/macro evolution is powered by the exact same processes, they aren't different things"
"speciation is a vertical process, species never jump branches"
etc
etc
etc

All in response to creationist posts completely misrepresenting evolution, using invalid/false premises, misunderstanding scientific jargon, etc etc.

There isn't a single creationist on this board that actually has shown to have a firm grasp on what evolution theory really says.

It is even so bad that the vast majority of these creationists end up asking us for specific types of evidence, which in reality would actually falsify evolution rather then support it.
Yet, it is what the typical creationist demands in support of evolution: data that would actually refute it.

Go figure.

lol and just as many creationists saying...that isn't what I said...you aren't listening...you don't understand what I am saying...etc. which was the point I was making....funny how that works.

 

[HitchSlap]

lol and just as many creationists saying...that isn't what I said...you aren't listening...you don't understand what I am saying...etc. which was the point I was making....funny how that works.

Start your own thread.

 

[razzelflabben]

Start your own thread.

not necessary the point applies to the OP question it just isn't what you want to talk about.