Creationism is not a science and hasn't contributed to science

[Jose Fly]

An imaginary phylogenetic tree defining imaginary evolutionary relatedness is the basis for their model?

And it just happened to predict genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy. But that's merely a coincidence, right?

It is a good thing that they accidentally classified the "evolutionary relatedness" for their "phylogenetic tree" using the form and function needed for their model to work.

How do you know how they developed their tree?

There is no evolutionary relatedness since the species did not form through the process of evolution.
Since evolutionary relatedness is a product of imagination and not nature, the phylogenetic tree that maps evolutionary relatedness is also a product of imagination.

And things are so just because you say they are?

The moon is made of cheese. Now since I said it, it must be so, right?

Since placement in the imaginary phylogenetic tree is based upon similarities and differences in physical or genetic characteristics, it is actually the similar form and function that is allowing the software to work despite the use of a model based on nothing more than human imagination.

Yet it works....extremely well. Oh well...since "genuineoriginal" at Theologyonline says it's imaginary, it must be so. :chuckle:

 

[genuineoriginal]

And it just happened to predict genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy. But that's merely a coincidence, right?

Yes, it was a accident that worked out for them.

How do you know how they developed their tree?

They discuss it in their literature.
You, being an evolutionist, must have read up on the literature on how this imaginary phylogenetic tree was developed from the first ones created by Edward Hitchcock and Charles Darwin to the ones we have today.

And things are so just because you say they are?

Things are regardless of whether I say that they are or you say that they aren't.
The phylogenetic tree is a construct of human imagination.
Nothing I say or you say will change that.

The moon is made of cheese. Now since I said it, it must be so, right?

If the moon is made of cheese, it will be so whether you say it or not.
If the moon is not made of cheese, your claim will not make it so.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, it was a accident that worked out for them.

And there ya' have it....the creationist approach to science. When presented with results you don't like, wave 'em away with "Meh....it was just an accident".

This is why creationists are laughed at. :rotfl:

 

[Ben Masada]

Creationism is not a ence and hasn't contributed to science.

Creationism is not a ence and hasn't contributed to science.

If that's true, what then caused the universe to exist? I am asking based on the concept of Causality that states there is nothing caused without a cause.

 

[6days]

Demonstrably false.

Protein Molecular Function Prediction by Bayesian Phylogenomics
​

Jose...previously you were shown that that 'example' failed.
Creationist geneticists and atheist geneticists use the exact same science..the same procedures....the same scientific method. ..etc. They have different beliefs about the past to which they credit 'relatedness' to.
*The belief in a common ancestor has never resulted in a single medical advancement.
* The belief in common ancestry has never resulted in a single new technology.
* The belief in common ancestry has actually harmed science in some situations .
* Common ancestry beliefs have definetly caused immense suffering in our world through increased racism, genocides, the holocaust and more.​

 

[genuineoriginal]

And there ya' have it....the creationist approach to science. When presented with results you don't like, wave 'em away with "Meh....it was just an accident".

I explained how they were able to get accurate results even when they used a model based on a impossibility.

The phylogenetic tree is an impossibility, since there is no evolution from one species to another species and no common ancestors between different species.

However, this impossible model was populated based on assumptions made that animals are related by evolution if they have similar forms and functions.

The similar forms and functions are a fact, and it is this fact that enabled the SIFTER program to produce accurate results.

The presumed ancestral relationship through evolution, being non-existent, has absolutely nothing to do with the results.

Therefore it is not evolution (the presumed ancestral relationships through evolution) that contributed to science, but actual facts of creation (similarity between form and function) that contributed to science.

 

[6days]

I
The phylogenetic tree is an impossibility, since there is no evolution from one species to another species and no common ancestors between different species.

In all likelihood there are thousands of these trees. IOW... there is no phylogenetic tree. Their imaginary tree continually is changed to meet whatever the current data is, then they often insist this is evidence of good science. You would think after a few thousand failed predictions on their tree they would stop calling it science.

 

[ok doser]

they have faith that they will eventually get it right :chuckle:

 

[Ben Masada]

they have faith that they will eventually get it right :chuckle:

Then, when they get it right, they will understand that practice makes one an expert.