Creation Science Techniques….Prove Evolution

Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5494
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Creation Science Techniques….Prove Evolution

From my blog


Creation Science Techniques….Prove Evolution

Filed under: Atheism, Humour, Rationality, Religion, Science by Alison — Leave a comment August 5, 2011



I came across an article from BBC nature about how if creation “science” techniques are applied to life……They prove evolution is true.



Biologist Phil Senter of the Fayette State University in North Carolina, US, has published the second of two papers that uses creation science techniques to examine the fossil record.

In the first, published in 2010, he used a technique called classic multidimensional scaling (CMDS) to evaluate the appearance of coelurosaurian dinosaurs over geological time.

That long, detailed paper was published in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology, and you can read the abstract.

CMDS is derived from a branch of creation science called baraminology, which classifies organisms according to a creationist framework. Animals fall into types, or baramins, which were created independently, but have diversified since.

 John Sibbick / NHMPL)Artist’s impression of Archaeopteryx (image: John Sibbick / NHMPL)

So cats, for example, are a single baramin or type of animal, that was created once by God, and have since diversified into those we see today (including lions, tigers, house cats etc).

Baraminologists trawl the fossil record for evidence that this is true. They identify “morphological gaps” in the record (for example, whether fossils of cats exist, but not cat-like animals) and use those to argue that such animal types (cats) are unique and created separately, from say dogs.

CMDS mathematically maps the occurrence of these morphological gaps, and baraminologists have used it to point out there are significant morphological gaps between modern and extinct whales, between arthropods and the worm-like annelids and arthropods and molluscs. And that, they say, is evidence that each group was created independently, and could not have evolved into the other.

Dr Senter has no real issue with the methodology – as he points out in the 2010 paper, mathematics has no creed.

But he argues that if CMDS shows that dinosaurs do show transitional forms, and are in fact genetically related to each other, then creationists are in a bit of a bind.

Either they must accept that to be true, and therefore contradict their own position that these groups appeared without evolution. Or they must throw out the assertion, but also reject their own methodology, which they have used to validate their creationist claims.

Dr Senter’s 2010 study did, of course, show that coelurosaurian dinosaurs are related, in particular that tyrannosaurs (to which T. rex belongs) form a continuous group with other dinosaurs belonging to a group called the Compsognathidae.

It also showed that one of the most famous animal fossils of all, Archaeopteryx, which has the appearance of a transitional form between birds and reptiles, is also morphologically closely related to other dinosaurs.




Really? How much longer are people going to try to push the garbage of creation “science” into the classrooms? When is over half of Americans going to wake up and realize that they believe in self refuting psuedoscience?


I think the world needs a huge wake up call in terms of science and reason. Here’s a hint: If you prove the theory you oppose with techniques that you set out to prove your “theory” odds are you are wrong, and not admitting that is the ultimate show of delusion and narcissism.

Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Aside from the whole

Aside from the whole creationism "science" being absolutely, brain numbing, vomit inducing, intellectually insulting, idiotic.  Aside from all that, the absolute holy grail of creationists is proving evolution is wrong.  Let's perform a temporary lobotomy and assume that some other process is responsible for the fossil record SCREAMING evolution, and let's assume that the relative similarities in DNA are just coincidences, ditto for viruses/bacteria evolving to build drug immunities.  How does that validate the pseudo science that is creationism?  


"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc