Is Atheism Predicated Partially on the Belief in Evolution?
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.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Michael on -
Heather go to the start of discussion and identity the cultic conspiracies that have muddled my arugment.
Moreover posting youtube is entertaining. The reader is left to arrive at his own conclusions. However this debate is serious talk.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on -
You continually cite fringe youtube videos as credible sources for debunking extremely well supported scientific explanations. After doing so, you usually suggest the only plausible alternative explanation is a Bronze Age tribal sky deity that wants animals killed and their corpses burned in order to please him with that aroma so he'll provide success in battle. This is where every single discussion with you goes and no matter how strongly you feign ignorance of it I know you are lucid enough to know this is true. Your dogmatic assertions of ancient cult doctrine leave you unable to trade in fact, though. As citation of this, I offer your entire history on TA.
You've poisoned your own well, Michael. This would not have happened had you stayed on your meds.
-
-
Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on -
Michael, "toe to toe" with WHAT? Your ability to copy/paste?
-
-
Permalink Reply by Henry Flood on -
Nice copying off Wikipedia bro
-
Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on
-
Heather - you keep coming back to god's penchant for bar-b-que, which is making me hungry!
-
Permalink Reply by Hope on -
I know that science is changing over time..But, scientists used old since laws to build other since laws and so on.. Let's talk beyond evolution or beyond science.. Let's use rationality here.. What is more convincing to you? a long history of evolution that is supported with evidence like "fossil record" OR, that God created Adam from dust and then, he created Eve from his rib!!
-
Permalink Reply by Michael on
-
Yes no more believable than a Multiverse. But we are still confronted with the fact that we got here so how. It is miraculous no matter how you cut it, whether it is a mindless multiverse or an Eternal God.
-
Permalink Reply by Unseen on -
So, what is your point? That science knows how to revise its beliefs with new discoveries? That science doesn't explain every little thing and that some mysteries remain?
Well, religion largely doesn't change. It fits what it can into its model. What it can't ignores or relegates to heresy.
Which is then better?
BTW, the anthropic principle? Horseshit.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael on
-
The anthropic principle has been defined among physicist not theist. It is the physicist that are wrestling with it.
-
Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on -
Wrestling? In most forms it's a tautology. I'm hard-pressed to think most physicists actually care all that much.
What's new today
Forum
EMPOWERING WOMEN!!!!!!!!
Started by Belle Rose in Welcome to Think Atheist. Last reply by Adam 40 minutes ago. 65 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
Why Respect Relgion - A Post From FB.
Posted by Robert Karp on May 21, 2013 at 10:34am 3 Comments 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
