Evolution Quiz for creationists?

Question

There is a claim that those who do not believe in evolution have that viewpoint because they do not understand it. Based on some of the questions posted here, I think there is some evidence for that, so I would like to see whether the creationists on this forum have a basic understanding of evolution. Thanks for your answers:

True or false:
1) According to evolutionists, Humans evolved from apes?
2) There are many proven facts in science, but evolution is just a theory.
3) A transitional form is a fossil of an animal that is part one species and part another.
4) The age of the earth is determined by scientists solely through the radioactive dating of fossils ?
5) The scientific method begins with a prediction and then looks for evidence to support that prediction?
6) The theory of evolution includes the Big Bang?
7) To believe in evolution is to believe that life and matter came from nothing?

Thank's again for your answers.

See how the other side answered:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071211134203AARLUAp&r=w

Answer 1

I'm not really a creationist, but am a Christian. Sorry, none of those points sounds true to me from what I've learned.

Answer 2

1. Not a true/false question. Some do, some obviously don't...interestingly I never encountered one of the latter until I started spending time in Y!A...all my biology textbooks included that ridiculous evolution chart ( http://wilderdom.com/evolution/HumanEvolutionSequencePictures.htm ).

2. False. There is no such thing as a "proven" fact. There are theories that have enough empirical support to be considered "accepted facts", but none are proven. Interestingly, many "accepted facts", facts people would have said were "proven" have been later disproven (e.g., Newton's theory of gravity). Evolution is "just a theory" but that applies to every scientific theory...I'd go farther and say it is a weakly supported theory at best.

3. False? Less certain about this one...I'd define it as a unique species...one that bears a strong resemblance to another species but shares common characteristics with two species.

4. False. Radioactive dating is certainly part of the process but it also involves other forms of dating (e.g., geological dating of rock strata).

5. False (or perhaps "debatable")...I view science from the perspective of Karl Popper...his perspective doesn't focus on finding evidence that supports a prediction (hypothesis) but on finding evidence that disproves the hypothesis! Prediction is inductive and the problem with inductive logic is that no matter how sure we are about what has come before, we can never be certain about what will happen in the future. The problem with looking for evidence to support a prediction is that it often blinds you to the evidence that contradicts it.

6. False. This is a separate theory, one of several that I've heard explaining the origin of the universe (though, like evolution, it is the "accepted fact" in most scientific circles).

7. Not a true/false question...for some it unquestionably is...for others it isn't. I would say that to believe in evolution is to accept the possibility that life and matter came from nothing, but I don't think it is a requirement that you accept it as the "true" explanation.

Answer 3

1). False....evolutions claim that humans and apes had a common ancestor.

2) True. Evolution has not been proven and cannot be proven scientifically as no controlled experiment can be designed to test it.

3) A matter of interpretation. This is a big part of the evidence for evolution, however, similarities in fossils are just that, similarities. Let's leave subjective interpretation out of it.

4) False. Radioactive dating is accurate only to a maximum of a few thousand years. Other methods, such as the layer of strata a fossil is found in, may be a more accurate measure. But even then, how much older is the earth before the first fossils?

5) True, to an extent. The evidence in question must be able to be reproduced in controlled experiments. For evolution, no such experimentation is possible.

6) Tangentially true. As evolution requires immense spans of time, a cosmological theory supporting such timespans is required to support it.

7) A matter of perspective. It is also reasonable to say a designer created prototypical species and that an evolutionary process accounts for the diversity. Thus all cats evolved from a prototypical cat....but there is no relationship between a cat and an alligator.

Answer 4

1.) Yes, but they also believe that apes evolved from other lower species. If you really look into their theory, they think we came from rocks. [Good Theory].
2.) true, evolution has NEVER been proven.
3.)That is what evolutionists claim.
4.)Yes. They also date the age of the rock by the fossils in them. And they age the fossils by the age of the age of the rock they are in. [circular reasoning].
5.)True. However evolutionist come up with a theory then reject evidence that proves it wrong.{non-scientific].
6.)In some theories in others not.
7.)True. The theory goes that all the matter in the universe was condensed into a ball no bigger than the tip of a pin. Then all of a sudden, nothing burst forth into everything.

I have a Bachelors of Science in Earth Science and these were the ideas given to us in my classes. All the theory is trying to do is to kill God.

My hopes and prayers are that everyone who reads this will open the Bible and read it. If you want to comment on the book, at least read it first.

Answer 5

1) nope; according to that theory, all life came from a single cell from the water.
2) nope. There are many proven facts, but not all of them are rock-solid. Daily we find how much more complex things are, and how corrupt our data is. Certain sciences change so rapidly(such as medicine) that textbooks only 5 years old are outdated. There are some things that have stood the test of time; still others we find need more input. As technology changes, so does our knowledge of how things work.
3)transitional form--I do not know the answer.
4)nope. They also look at the earth around the fossil; how deep it was found in order to get a better understanding of the age.
5)scientific method when properly administered is looking for proof of the theory; neither to prove or disprove, but to check it out and see if the theory might be correct or incorrect.
6)I believe so, not certain.
7)nope, it means that cells and what not have collided, got together somehow in order to form things, and things were formed from things until we came about.

Answer 6

just to shut you up

sorry for saying shut but here we go

1) nooo they all evolved from a common ancestor, man did not evolve from apes, but with apes from your evo view point

2) you want evolution to be a fact, but it's still a theory, that's why there is still a debate, show us the missing links laddies and threre won't be a debate, the fact the the earth goes round the sun is an established fact, which is why no one is debating on it

3) no no no don't be silly, a transitinal fossil isa fossil inbetween species it does not necessarily have to look like half one or half the other, it would be cool if it did but none have, and regardless none have been found, again if they had been found, no more need for debate

4) the key word is solely, you can't radiodate every rock you find, you can't carbon date everything either, so we have to go back to our hutton and lyle charts and our puncutated logic, how hutton and lyelle were able to date things with milllions of years in 1850, not posseisng the equipment to do so is astounding, and as yet unquestioned by evolutionists,
you ever wondered how some guys in the 1840's-1850's determined how everything is millions of years old by layers of lamellae formed in the earth? same layers were found a few years after Mount St helens blew up, and yup it did not take millions of years

so you used punctuated equilibirium and annoying circular logic such as the rocks date the fossils but the fossils date the rocks, and then search for every excuse under the sun, when you find a bone in a layer where it should not be

5) maybe it does, maybe it does, we all predict things, then we find things, but we should be honest if we find things which don't support our evidence such as human thigh bones which are 3 times the size of normal humans. And then we should not say oh it's just a mastodon bone or ohh i 'm sorry it's been lost by the smithsonian institute.

you predict things, find things, and the look at the evidence, from which even new theories may sporut.

6) oh no, The big bang is the big bang, which from atheists, esxpalins the formation of the universe and is more tied in with abiogenesis, a process which no one knows exactly how it works. Croes will say thats becuase it does not work but there you go

Croes like to link evo to abiogeneis and abiogeneis to the big bang simply because they take million and millions of years

if you reduce the millions of years needed for evo, then what happens to the millions of years neede d for abiogensis?

you kill 2 birds weith one stone

then why exaclty does the universes need to be billions of years old from which millions of years is needed to expalin processes whicgh don't occur

out goes the big bang theory too, 3 birds with one stone

7) no no no

agian abiogensis, deals with soemthing to nothing,

abio's beleive life came from, dissovled rocks from hyrdoltic action of rain creating a primordial soup.
The trouble is, this should still be happening now?
we hjave plenty of rocks and we have plenty of rain, what happened to the soup?

evolutino isn't bothered with the origins of life, thats the abiogensist's job, but with how it changed from species to species,

but like us, they are still wiaitng for hard evidence of those changes
you have no fossil evidence as such so thats why it's still a theory.....


ok how did i do? how did i do?

Answer 7

1) According to SOME evolutionists, humans did NOT evolve from apes- ok - it seems that humans and apes - according to the evolutionist - had a common ancestor - OR a common designer!
2) There are many proven facts in science, but evolution is not one of them because it can not be reproduced in a laboratory. It can only be inferred. But the existence of God can also be inferred.
3) There are no actual transitional fossils. Every fossil ever found has been a complete species. (Where do you put the duck-billed platypus?) Additional comment: There have been some fossils that spanned several strata, and had to have been several thousand years old between the layers of strata, but we all know that if a dead animal lies there unfossilized, it decays. Fossilization requires very rapid constriction and pressure, and yet these fossils, as I mentioned, span several strata! This totally violates the concept that each strata represents an epoch of time!
4) The age of the earth has been miscalculated in the same way that the age of a high school student can be miscalculated as being 72 years old by dividing their average weight by their average weight gain per year during their high school years;and again, by dividing their average height by the average gain in height per year during their high school years.
5) the scientific method begins with a prediction then looks for evidence to support that prediction. With evolution, the evidence has been "planted", such as the "piltdown man" which was supposed to be the missing link, but turned out to be a hoax - the tooth of a boar, planted by some over zealous archeologists trying to make a name for themselves. The search for evidence for evolution has for the most part been a sham and a hoax and VERY unscientific!
6) The theory of evolution begins when dead matter somehow begets life - and THAT was a miracle that ANY body could jump that BLIND leap of faith! Even the "simplest" single-celled amoeba are extremely complex, if you were to actually study the internal workings of a cell! You can look at such things as the mitochondria and the method by which raw materials are converted to usable energy in the cell, protein and protein synthesis, and of course, the double-stranded DNA coiled up in a double-helix, which has got to be THE most complex computer system on the face of this planet. It far excells any man-made data information and retrieval system. Even the Cray Supercomputer becomes childs play next to one of these little puppies! (It's amazing how that you understand and know that the Cray was designed, built and even programmed by intelligent scientists, but when it comes to something like the DNA, you think it was a mere accident, or the results of a series of accidents! WOW!)
7) To believe in evolution, one must start with dead, inanimate matter, and somehow bring forth animate life from inanimate matter! WOW! Even scientists in the laboratories are proving that it requires a great level of skill and intelligence to produce artificial life! Even Dr. Flue had to finally renounce evolution as he studied the DNA. In an article he said that even though he is being criticized by his colleagues, he considered that it would be intellectual suicide to continue believing in evolution with the mountain of facts that are piling up that refute evolution!

Are you as smart as Dr. Flue?

Ask this to any 5th grader, "If you put pure dirt in a closed cannister with absolutely nothing alive, can you ever expect to find something living in the cannister?" Are you as smart as a 5th grader?

Or are you still committing intellectual suicide by believing, beyond belief, the impossible?

Answer 8

1)f 2)t 3)t (but maybe misleading) 4)f (but largely true) 5)f (in theory, we look for explanation of observed phenomena) 6)not necessarily, but if there was no creator, matter had to come from somewhere. 7)see 6

Answer 9

1. False, hominids have a common ancestor
2. No proven facts
3. Tranistional fossil is its own species
4. No, radioactive dating can't go back fmuch farther then 40,000 years
5. yes
6. no
7. no

I don't believe in evolution.

Answer 10

i'm not a creationist but this test looks fun

1) false
2) true
3) true
4) I learned rocks, but I guess it could be fossils so true
5) false
6) false
7) false