• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolution My ToE

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Don't put words in my mouth please. You are repeating a bad habit.
That was not my intent. My apologies.
I said... Did the unicellular organism become a complex organism? No.
Why not?

That's certainly possible, but it's irrelevant to the question at hand. We had one population of yeast at the beginning of the experiment and another population of yeast at the end of the experiment. You seem to be saying that the two populations are exactly the same in terms of their level of "complexity". I'm simply asking how you reached that conclusion.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Remember viole, you and I have a different understanding of what science is.
I think there is pseudo science, and true science. I think some philosophy is considered science by some.
So I do agree that those forms do go against the Bible.

What science is, is not depending on what we think. The methods that characterize science are pretty clear, and should be known even by third graders.

Science, the official one, states that life did not start million of times independently on earth. Period. Actually, to believe that science could even remotely consider that today is utterly ridiculous. Even more ridiculous than a scientific theory that says the earth is flat.

I wonder why you still challenge the obvious.

Ciao

- viole
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
That was not my intent. My apologies.
I understand. Habits are not easy to break.

Because the unicellular organism did not become a complex organism. :shrug:

That's certainly possible, but it's irrelevant to the question at hand. We had one population of yeast at the beginning of the experiment and another population of yeast at the end of the experiment. You seem to be saying that the two populations are exactly the same in terms of their level of "complexity". I'm simply asking how you reached that conclusion.
What made them different? I said it before, didn't I?
Eric Libby - “This work shows that a cell living in a group can experience a fundamentally different environment than a cell living on its own. The environment can be so different that traits disastrous for a solitary organism, like increased rates of death, can become advantageous for cells in a group.

The poor frightened life is simply reacting to an environment in which they are forced to try to keep their lineage alive. Therefore adapting.

Scientists are discovering ways in which single cells might have evolved traits that entrenched them into group behavior, paving the way for multicellular life

Behavior traits which may have already been there, based on what the article previously referenced says.
Yeasts are unicellular organisms that evolved from multicellular ancestors, with some species having the ability to develop multicellular characteristics by forming strings of connected budding cells known as pseudohyphae or false hyphae.

Perhaps the more you are reminded, the better.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
What science is, is not depending on what we think. The methods that characterize science are pretty clear, and should be known even by third graders.

Science, the official one, states that life did not start million of times independently on earth. Period. Actually, to believe that science could even remotely consider that today is utterly ridiculous. Even more ridiculous than a scientific theory that says the earth is flat.

I wonder why you still challenge the obvious.

Ciao

- viole
I don't believe life started million of times independently on earth.
Never said it either.

So science is official when? When it follows certain criterion, right?
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
That leaves you with the requirement to show that science covers it, if you claim not only the bible does.

I don't know what that means - you claim the bible stories really happened. But you laughably claim that this is so because it is in the bible.

I do not believe the bible stories. so it is up to you to provide evidence, which you cannot do.
'
Whatever you called it the first time.
Begging the question? How on earth was my pointing out your use of the fallacy of begging the question itself a fallacy of begging the question?
Do you ever make sense on any subject?
You assuming that a cause for which no evidence exists was actually the cause is, in fact, begging the question.

You are assuming that a complete inability to interpret evidences means that no evidence exists. No.
You have presented no evidence TO interpret. Bible stories are themselves in need of evidenciary support, so using uncorroborated tales as evidence for other uncorroborated tales is... well, stupid.
Non sequitur; fallacy of begging the question again.

That depends on what the question really is.

The question was:

Scripture re: creation was tested and proven?

and your response was:

Yes, the bible says try it and we will know.

Your answer does not follow from the question, and assumes what it intends to demonstrate. I.e., non sequitur; question begging.
What was the former nature, and how was this established and by whom?

By the Creator.
Question begging fallacy.
Science today (of this present nature) knows only this nature, obviously.
Then what was this "other nature" like and how do you know?
It cannot deal with the nature of the future or past, it can just believe real hard that only this nature matters or could have existed or could ever exist! Ridiculous.
What is the evidence that this nature always existed on earth?

You are the one claiming it didn't.

If you can be honest just for once and admit that you dreamed up this hokey 'different states past' to rescue the failure of your bible stories to be believable and supported by evidence, then I will never bring it up again.

But you can't be, so you will just keep droning on with your fantasies.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
I don't believe life started million of times independently on earth.
Never said it either.

So science is official when? When it follows certain criterion, right?

Since there have been million of species, and they probably still are, what do you believe then?

Ciao

- viole
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Science, the official one, states that life did not start million of times independently on earth. Period.
Where is that stated by science? Does that same article/paper define what they mean by "life"?
 

dad

Undefeated
I don't know what that means - you claim the bible stories really happened. But you laughably claim that this is so because it is in the bible.
You thought science could tell us about lives of people loooooong before it existed?? Ha.
I do not believe the bible stories. so it is up to you to provide evidence, which you cannot do.
Once you meet Him, the rest follows. Until then believe what you like, long as you do not call it science.
Begging the question? How on earth was my pointing out your use of the fallacy of begging the question itself a fallacy of begging the question?
Do you ever make sense on any subject?
Well, answer this what do you think the question is that someone is begging?


The question was:

Scripture re: creation was tested and proven?
Every time a prophesy was fulfilled it was proven. By every changed life it was proven.
and your response was:

Yes, the bible says try it and we will know.

Your answer does not follow from the question, and assumes what it intends to demonstrate. I.e., non sequitur; question begging.
So every time millions of folks through history took the test and tried it, it was proven in their lives. Every time God answered prayes, every time prophesy was fulfilled etc. The question is answered your reply is begging up a storm!


Then what was this "other nature" like and how do you know?
Science doesn't know at all. I know because I read God's word about what the past was like.

If you can be honest just for once and admit that you dreamed up this hokey 'different states past' to rescue the failure of your bible stories to be believable and supported by evidence, then I will never bring it up again.
?? Be honest and admit science doesn't know either was but only assumes/believes. Period. By the way I never wrote Genesis so I never dreamed up what life was like then. Gong!
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Since there have been million of species, and they probably still are, what do you believe then?

Ciao

- viole
You mean I have to say it again?
I think I had better make some notes. Perhaps RF should allow a notes section for each user.

Notice, I am taking this from the post you responded to. Perhaps you missed it.
Various kinds of life-forms were created, with reproductive powers, and allowed to spread their genes... as stated in the Bible.

However, it should be obvious from the account of the flood that two of every kind was all it took.

species-1080x675.jpg
 

dad

Undefeated
You are not a skeptical thinker when it comes to the Bible. There you believe anything and everything.

So, no. You are not a skeptical anything.
There is a time to be skeptical, and a time to believe.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Let's take a step back here. What is your definition of "complex", specifically in terms of how we can tell which of two organisms is more complex than the other?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
You mean I have to say it again?
I think I had better make some notes. Perhaps RF should allow a notes section for each user.

Notice, I am taking this from the post you responded to. Perhaps you missed it.
Various kinds of life-forms were created, with reproductive powers, and allowed to spread their genes... as stated in the Bible.

However, it should be obvious from the account of the flood that two of every kind was all it took.

species-1080x675.jpg

The problem is that creationists cannot even come up with a working definition of a "kind". And of course they have no scientific evidence for their beliefs, largely due to their own cowardice.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
By the way I never wrote Genesis so I never dreamed up what life was like then.

It must be great to be a literal bible believer. Everything is just so simple. There is no need to study many different things. There is no need for an education. Just one simplistic view of everything.

It's no wonder so many biblical literalists are also Trump sheeples.
 

dad

Undefeated
It must be great to be a literal bible believer. Everything is just so simple. There is no need to study many different things. There is no need for an education. Just one simplistic view of everything.

It's no wonder so many biblical literalists are also Trump sheeples.
If things are true, and we have an interest in them, study away. When it comes to slimy origin so called science fables, best thing is a fast flush.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
If things are true, and we have an interest in them, study away. When it comes to slimy origin so called science fables, best thing is a fast flush.
Now dad, you know that is not true.

Is your faith really that weak? You constantly break your own commandments and accuse others of your flaws.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Do I sound rude?
Perhaps the constant ad hominem got to me.
Ad hominem
fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

Again, there were no ad hominims in that post.

I don't think there is any need to assume that someone does not understand something, just because they don't say what the person believes.

It wasn't an assumption. It was a conclusion based on repeated observation. He's not alone who's noticed it. Pretty much all of us have been pointing out your errors and misunderstandings concerning biological evolution. All of us have noticed that your knowledge on this topic is extremely lacking. It's very inferable from the things you say and the questions you ask.

What we have also all noticed, is that plenty of thise errors have been pointed out and explained to you, only to observe you repeat the same falsehoods in subsequent posts, indicating that you have no interest in learning or correcting your mistakes.

None of this are "personal attacks". They are observations of your behaviour. Observations that can be corroborated independently with the observations of others.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Your question is irrelevant to whether there is evidence of a simple organisms to a complex one.

He's giving you evidence. Single celled yeast undergoes a bunch of mutations, evolves several new traits and the resulting organism is multi-cellular.

Is that an increase in complexity, yes or no?
If yes, then you have just received evidence of an organism growing more complex through evolutionary means.
If no, then you're going to have to define what you mean by "complex" and explain why this yeast example doesn't count.


I don't know what you are driving at, but you are driving me nuts.

Having trouble dealing with the question at hand?

We have been here before. Don't expect me to say what you want to hear while refusing to consider anything I say, or ask you.
This is your normal approach, but I think it needs changing.

Don't like it when your nonsense is being exposed, I guess?

Anyhow....
You asked wheter there is evidence of organisms going from simple to complex by evolutionary means.

Here, you have been given the observed example of single celled yeast undergoing mutations, gaining new traits as a direct result and ending up as a multi-cellular organism.

So, does this count as an organism becoming more complex through evolutionary means or not?
If yes: gratz, you have just gotten the evidence you asked for
If not: explain why it doesn't count.
 
Top