Is atheism predicated partially on the belief in evolution and the current prevailing views of science.
If so, then such a belief is subject to drastic changes as discoveries and theories
have recently arose that shatter the paradigm that is the foundation of such a belief:
Discoveries keep pushing back the inception of civilization, indefinitely back in time
Evidence of coastal civilizations existing during the ice age are arising in now inundated coastal region due to rising seas.
The concept of a missing link is no longer postulated as a bush of hominids lineages walked the earth. With what was once considered ancestors, actually being contemporary with postulated descendants. A bush of hominids actually existed as recently as 30,0000 B.C.E.
Though theories of evolution abound no working scientific model exists for the emergence of life.
Our very existence is interwoven with the anthropic principle. As such this has required scientist to postulate the multiverse to explain how the anthropic principle is mindlessly satisfied by nature. However this just substitutes one unfalsifiable believe for another.
In truth, Darwin's world has been shattered and the truth has become intractable. Even as we cope with dark matter and energy. Terms that falsely connote that we have defined them, when in fact they are no more apparent than God. As such new scientific theories continue to emerge based on the inadequacy of the standard model. This will continue into infinitum since, as God there is no means to detect these alleged entities with scientific instrumentation.
Yes that is my point. But Pardigm "flat landers" want to force fit him into the ancestry of the Aborigine with no other foundation beyond, he was there before.
And your evidence that he was there before, Micheal? This is just it - you have no evidence for anything that you put up here. You start by accepting the brainwashing perpetrated upon you. It doesn't make any sense, so you do everything you can to rationalize it. No matter how much you scramble scripture and your brain, you can't make an omelet, so you start adding scientific claims. Check the claims, Michael - you are creating your own unfalsifiable psychosis here. You choose the Kow Swamp people because you know they can't be investigated due to First Nations treaties and then claim that IF they could be investigate they would prove your point. You then move on to making wild claims about them as though it's accepted fact.
Now, Micheal, please provide the peer reviewed articles that support your claim that these Kow Swamp people do not descend from homo hablis. Furthermore, ensure the article clearly states how and why that should be causing a paradigm shift in human evolution.
"Our data present a serious challenge to interpretation of contemporary human mtDNA variation as supporting the recent out of Africa model. A separate mtDNA lineage in an individual whose morphology is within the contemporary range and who lived in Australia would imply both that anatomically modern humans were among those that were replaced and that part of the replacement occurred in Australia." This statement supports my supposition that the entire bush of hominid was replaced after 7000 BCE by the new Adam and Eve. And though anatomically modern humans lived prior to that date. We are not them.
Clearly, in the quote above yours:
"Our data present a serious challenge to interpretation of contemporary human mtDNA variation as supporting the recent out of Africa model" This contradicts what you said about Out of Africa.
I just wrote a paragraph that got truncated. But the long and short of it is that these results are counter intuitive to Out of Africa since there is a gracile population with LM3 that is not found in MRCA. Thus predating Out of Africa and with no trace in MRCA supports my preposition that prior hominids were wipe out before our inception. The speculation that KS contribute mtDNA with the morphological phenotype being lost is pure speculation.
@ Kris Feenstra
"I'm sorry, but you're just accepting evidence that confirms your position and casting off evidence of exactly equal bearing that doesn't mesh with your view. If you aren't capable of even a modicum of objectivity, there is no point in continuing this dialogue." What I am saying is that they are paradigm bound. They have no recourse but to speculate that KS simply did not pass on it's morphological phenotype. But from my hypothesis I postulate a complete break occurring 7000 BCE. At present I see no smoking gun for me through my hypothesis aside but discoveries are made everyday. I will be vigilant as always.
OMD, first page, last page, smack self. Now I remember why I don't look at Micheal induced threads. More power to the rest of you with patience.
Dude, really? You've been active on TA for how long? And you still don't know the answer to that? I'll give you a hint; Socrates was an atheist, and he didn't know shit about evolution.
Also, you're confusing abiogenesis with evolution again, as far as I can tell from reading your unintelligible screed. Would you please learn to write better than 5th grade level before you post again? It's really difficult to understand what you're saying.
"Though theories of evolution abound no working scientific model exists for the emergence of life." is what I said and there is no confusion of abiogenesis with evolution. Judging from your statement, you must do more than just skim read to follow the thread.
"Is atheism predicated partially on the belief in evolution?"
Although the question posed is pretty simple, you've assured that discussion about it would go so far all over the map and off the map that the whole exercise of logical thought and debate becomes one big mass of a hundred, unrelated arguments. There's no way anything will be proven or well understood in this thread, now. We might as well postulate that the world is flat, or ignore thousands of other scientific discoveries that the bible had no clue about and was clearly not written to address.
There's no way I can get into the minutia of each of the unscientific statements you make. All I recommend to readers is to come back in 10 years and see how right or wrong most of Michael's statements are. That's the way science works. It never claims to have perfect knowledge; the purpose of science is to keep learning more and more, self-correct previous theories, and constantly improve them. Dark Matter is an excellent example of a theory that explains things, but not perfectly, and a theory that will improve over time. If you don't understand this aspect of science, you might as well go back to believing that disease is caused by an imbalance of humors, before we learned about pathogens such as viruses, bacteria, toxins, prions, and so on.
Michael's whole point of this discussion seems to center around what cannot yet be proven. He then uses "faith" to believe what he wants to, as if science is all just pure, speculation. In fact, Michael seems to be inferring here that it is the purpose of science to disprove God or Bible.
Meanwhile, science will continue to make new discoveries and will continue to make better and better theories and predictions about the nature of reality, discoveries and predictions that actually turn into real life. Anyone who doesn't appreciate this might as well stop thinking entirely, and go back to the days of Flat Earth.
I still recommend that readers look into the "science" that Michael is trying to bring to your attention. Yes, question everything, especially "science". It takes time, and trial and error, but the truth eventually comes out. Remember this every time you boil water, start your car, fly across the country or around our spherical earth, or survive some kind of bodily trauma that we would have died from only a hundred (or even just 10) years ago. What did the bible or any god ever have to do with any of this? The point is, science finds truth whether God exists or not; God can only exist based on faith, and the assumption that scripture is perfect and unchangeable.
Unfortunately, the written scripture can be corrupted. You must even take the written word with a grain of salt. I must rely on Hebrew and Greek interlinears and Concordances. To much denominational sway has entered in.
RE: "Unfortunately, the written scripture can be corrupted."
SAY it isn't SO! How can scripture POSSIBLY be corrupted, when it was inspired by an incorruptible god? Is an omnipotent god unable to control how accurately his own inspirations turn out?