Can you debunk the following argument against evolution

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else below.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Can you debunk the following argument against evolution

#41  Postby Spearthrower » Oct 01, 2014 12:10 pm

Darwinsbulldog wrote:A rare moment when we might disagree, Mr Spearthrower:-
If you ignore all the evidence, and operate using a methodology entirely unrelated to science where you confirm your presuppositions by repetition in the absence of evidence, then you can maintain the position that evolution is false.


MarioNovak does not even have that refuge. Folks like Phil Senter have used creationist "science" to debunk creationist "science" . Teh creationist fairy-tales are not even self-consistant. :thumbup: :lol: :lol:

Senter, P. (2010). "Using creation science to demonstrate evolution: application of a creationist method for visualizing gaps in the fossil record to a phylogenetic study of coelurosaurian dinosaurs." Journal of Evolutionary Biology 23(8): 1732-1743.
It is important to demonstrate evolutionary principles in such a way that they cannot be countered by creation science. One such way is to use creation science itself to demonstrate evolutionary principles. Some creation scientists use classic multidimensional scaling (CMDS) to quantify and visualize morphological gaps or continuity between taxa, accepting gaps as evidence of independent creation and accepting continuity as evidence of genetic relatedness. Here, I apply CMDS to a phylogenetic analysis of coelurosaurian dinosaurs and show that it reveals morphological continuity between Archaeopteryx, other early birds, and a wide range of nonavian coelurosaurs. Creation scientists who use CMDS must therefore accept that these animals are genetically related. Other uses of CMDS for evolutionary biologists include the identification of taxa with much missing evolutionary history and the tracing of the progressive filling of morphological gaps in the fossil record through successive years of discovery.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02039.x

See also
http://reports.ncse.com/index.php/rncse ... view/44/36
http://reports.ncse.com/index.php/rncse ... load/44/36

Senter, P. (2012). "The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology: The ironic demonstration that there is no trace of the Genesis Flood in the geologic record." Reports of the National Center for Science Education 31(5).
http://reports.ncse.com/index.php/rncse ... File/40/33



Just how far down does the rabbit-hole go? :lol:
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27982
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Can you debunk the following argument against evolution

#42  Postby Onyx8 » Oct 01, 2014 4:44 pm

All the way down until the turtles start.
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 17520
Age: 64
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Previous

Return to General Debunking

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest

cron