Quote:To say that a scientific fact is the same as "truth" is on the same level of misunderstanding as the creationists who argue that Evolution is "only a theory".

We're done here.

Clearly, if you don't know anything about philosophy...

You have reached the end!

Congratulations! You have made it to the end of this activity.

You took zero direct hits and you bit zero bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.38 hits and bites 1.10 bullets. 491426 people have so far undertaken this activity.

Click the link below for further analysis of your performance and to see if you've won an award.


With a TPM

Thanks Adrian I think I'm going to use this in my class.

(August 6, 2010 at 5:40 am)Tiberius Wrote: It evidently doesn't fly with you; that was obvious from the outcome of the test.

Evolution is a scientific fact, yes. To say that a scientific fact is the same as "truth" is on the same level of misunderstanding as the creationists who argue that Evolution is "only a theory".

Your statements in the test reveal that you require a higher standard of proof for belief in God than for evolution, which means you have a biased worldview.

Would you use the same criteria to judge what is a good wine versus what is a good airplane? Of course not. Your standards may not be 'higher' for one than the other, but they would be different.

Evolution is not an 'absolute'. The idea can grow and adapt and encompasses a variety of concepts that all work alongside the same ends. Plants and animals both 'evolve' but do not both evolve in the same way. Evolution is not a simple case of 'either it is or it isn't', it is much more complex than that and thus can accept the situation that we are still working to understand the finer details and may not yet have a proper understanding or even knowledge of some of the ways evolution can work. It is a complex study. Sharks have existed alongside other species relatively unchanged for eons while other species are unrecognizable from their ancestors in less than a year. The overview of the process is factual, the how and whys of the individual details require further study simply because we do not yet possess a way of getting all the data, let alone of turning that data into information.

God on the other hand, is simple. It is an absolute. There are no 'degrees'. Either god exists, or god does not exist.


To offer an analogy, on one hand, you ask me 'does wine come from grapes?' The answer is yes. I may not be able to produce the exact same results every time due to the multitude of other factors. Heck, some years I may not even get anything resembling drinkability and from time to time the experiment must be abandoned before the end result can be termed 'wine'. And I'm still just beginning to understand how to get the best yield and how to make the other factors work to my advantage. But is wine made from grapes? Yes.

You hold out your open right hand and ask me 'is there a crayon in my right hand?' There are no other factors at play. All of the information needed to answer the question is right there.

So there we have it, there is the difference. You can claim that wine is made from grapes and I will accept that as true even if we are having grape juice at the time and standing in a wine cellar full of exploded bottles. Just because that experiment failed to produce the expected results doesn't mean your claim is untrue. But if you tell me that there is a crayon in your right hand, there had better be a crayon in your right hand.



With god, the only answers are 'true' and 'false'. With evolution, the answer could easily be 'yes, it is true, but it turns out it didn't quite work the way we thought it did, and doesn't quite mean what we thought it meant'

Evolution is just as absolute as the existence of god. Either god exists or it doesn't. Either evolution occurs or it doesn't. Now, if you want to get down to the details of it, evolution is multi-faceted and more complicated than just a word. However, it still either occurs and "exists" or it does not. The same goes for god. It either exists or it does not. There are many more details than that in this case too. Is god good or bad? Is god really all-powerful?, etc.

(August 9, 2010 at 3:54 pm)Shell B Wrote: Evolution is just as absolute as the existence of god. Either god exists or it doesn't. Either evolution occurs or it doesn't. Now, if you want to get down to the details of it, evolution is multi-faceted and more complicated than just a word. However, it still either occurs and "exists" or it does not. The same goes for god. It either exists or it does not. There are many more details than that in this case too. Is god good or bad? Is god really all-powerful?, etc.

Let me try a different explanation. I am going to make two statements and assert they are both true. I would like you to tell me how you would like me to prove both statements to you.

Statement 1 -
I like Chinese food

Statement 2 -
I have six fingers on my right hand

Whether or not we understand exactly how evolution works doesn't negate the fact that it is working, and has worked, and will still continue to work. There hasn't been a single case of new information that didn't fit beautifully with evolution.

Crikey - that's like saying we didn't breathe in oxygen in the Middle Ages because there weren't any instruments to detect it.

(August 9, 2010 at 4:03 pm)In This Mind Wrote: Let me try a different explanation. I am going to make two statements and assert they are both true. I would like you to tell me how you would like me to prove both statements to you.

Statement 1 -
I like Chinese food

Statement 2 -
I have six fingers on my right hand

That is not an explanation; it is a question.

Allow me to explain differently. Logic and proof are simple concepts. Proving anything should require the use of both logic and proof. Therefore, proving the existence of god and proving the existence of evolution would take essentially the same ingredients. Of course, the approach is different, but that is all. Your argument was that evolution is complicated and therefore should be proved differently than the existence of god because the existence (or nonexistence) of god is an absolute. Both are absolutes. They do or do not exist or occur. The fact that the existence of one or both is complicated does not change anything.

This test isn't about the process of proving something. In other words, it isn't about how you go about proving one or the other. Essentially, it is about what proof you require for yourself. According to the test, you require something different for evolution than you would for god, which is illogical.

skeptisma Wrote:Whether or not we understand exactly how evolution works doesn't negate the fact that it is working, and has worked, and will still continue to work. There hasn't been a single case of new information that didn't fit beautifully with evolution.

That's neither here nor there.

(August 9, 2010 at 4:47 pm)Shell B Wrote: That is not an explanation; it is a question.

Yes, it is.

I was waiting for your answer before continuing the explanation. But to continue, I shall assume you provided some sort of answer.

I will now offer several additional bits of information.

1 - I hate onions, even in Chinese cooking
2 - I hate peas, except in Chinese cooking
3 - At the store, we bought a Chinese BBQ sauce that was so horrible I started believing in god again just so I could have someone to curse for it's existence.
4 - We cook more Italian food than Chinese food
5 - I wear a pair of driving gloves that were purchased at Wal-Mart and required no modification to be used

I have given you a lot of information there. I have in fact, given you enough information to prove beyond doubt that one of my statements is untrue, but not enough information to make a full judgment on the veracity of the other statement.

Evolution is far more abstract than god. Evolution is an idea. God is an entity. The methods of proving the truth of an idea and the existence of an entity are different. An idea can never be absolutely proven. The existence of an entity can.

My love/hate of Chinese food is an idea. Evidence can be provided that demonstrate how likely it is to be true, but no actual proof can be determined if you are not willing to simply take my word. Evolution is an idea, a process, a method. We have determined that it is not false, and thus can conclude that it is most likely true. But absolute proof? We can't get there.

The number of fingers on my hand? That can be proven absolutely. It can be measured, quantified, observed without a need for deduction. I don't need to infer the number of fingers on my hand from evidence, I can simply count them. The same with god. It's existence can be proven absolutely, all god needs to do is present itself. Because god is an entity and can be directly observed, not inferred, that is the requirement.


Here is yet another explanation:

Evolution works. We have plenty of evidence for that. While the evidence is incomplete, there is enough evidence that the likelihood of evolution being false is close enough to zero to be ignored. Thus for all intents and purposes, evolution is true even if no absolute proof to it's existence can be provided.

God is a different story. There is a preponderance of evidence against god, enough that the likelihood of god's existence being true is close enough to zero that it can be ignored. Thus for all intents and purposes, god does not exist even if no absolute proof of god's non-existence can be provided. Because the proof for god's existence must overcome all that existing evidence against the existence of god, that evidence must be substantial and irrevocable.

If I had an alibi, no opportunity, no motive, no proof I was at the crime scene, and didn't even know the victim, could you say that I committed the crime?

But if I had no alibi, plenty of opportunity, had spoken publicly about killing the bastard, was observed at the crime scene, my fingerprints were on the weapon, it would take one hell of a piece of counter evidence to say I didn't commit the crime.

Evolution has already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Minor niggling inconsistencies may show we don't have the full picture, but since I was dancing naked on a security camera at the Louvre when the Santa Claus was murdered, the fact that you never figured out the serial numbers on the gun is irrelevant to the statement that I was not the one who pulled the trigger on the aforementioned gun.

But if the situation was reversed, as it is with god who has already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to not exist, well, quite frankly it would take a security video showing Boy George jumping out of the closet to shoot Santa before I'd start believing god didn't do it.

Quote:Your argument was that evolution is complicated and therefore should be proved differently than the existence of god because the existence (or nonexistence) of god is an absolute. Both are absolutes. They do or do not exist or occur. The fact that the existence of one or both is complicated does not change anything.

The reason for the difference is your above statement is incorrect.

Suppose I proved to you that the Grizzly Bear did not evolve. It was created in a lab by an alien creature who didn't think we had enough variety in bears on this planet. Does the existence of a single creature that can be proven not to have evolved change the veracity of evolution?

No, it really doesn't. Because evolution is not an actual absolute. Or, if you want to claim it is, it has already been proven to be an absolute truth by the same standard of proof demanded for the existence of god. It's been observed. I personally have used evolution to get specific end results in the breeding of both plants and animals. Evolution has thus already met the same criteria I demand for the existence of god. The fact that certain aspects of the process are not understood does not change that it stands as proven. Moving the goalposts and thus claiming that no, evolution is not proven, is the logical fallacy here.

And god does not.

Quote:Evolution is an idea. God is an entity.

I'm sorry, but I couldn't get past this. Evolution is a process. God either doesn't exist or there is no way of knowing quite what it is.

Allow me to attempt to simplify this conversation. Your argument is that evolution is too complicated to be as simple to prove or disprove as god because god is an absolute. That's not the case. Just as many complications can theoretically be applied to the god question as the evolution 'question.'

For example:

Is evolution real? Yes, A,B and C are proof of that.

Does god exist? No, A,B and C are proof that is does not.

Then, a more complicated question:

Do trees evolve? Yes, rada, rada, rada.

What is god made of? *Insert guess here*

The initial questions, which you illogically answered (according to the test) remain the same, regardless of the other complications of the topic.

Now, all of these things are irrelevant because the game only asks you essentially what you require as proof. The answers are not complicated enough for your hypothetical complications to be a consideration when answering said questions. You didn't pass the "logic test" so you think it is illogical, which is, in and of itself, illogical. That is not to say that the test is right or wrong. It is to say that you are grasping at straws to debunk the test and prove you are a logical thinker.