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.
Let me guess - you've been watching too much youtube again? Tell the nurses to cut back on your computer time and increase your meds and all will be ok.
It is very unamazing that no one with scientific authority makes such a comment
Is there such a thing as 'scientific authority'? Let's just assume that you mean someone with a lot of scientific credentials, ok? Why would such a person even respond to your youtube-conspiracy-based bullshit?
So it is a fact, you have no scientific credentials.?
Correct, Michael - I have no more scientific credentials than you. This is why I offer/demand peer reviewed articles to support scientific opinions expressed on these boards. To my credit, however, I at least live outside a looney bin.
Heather Spoonheim for the win.
I read much of the rest of the thread just to be sure. New readers ought to know that nothing substantive issues past Heather's above smackdown.
I wish more people would realize how responsible they should be for understanding as much science as they can, instead of listening to people who know all the buzzwords to throw out and just sound like experts. One doesn't need credentials to think clearly and skeptically, and learn to tell the difference between most myth and reality.
Actually, Paul, I don't feel the least bit of responsibility for understanding as much science as I can. That is not my job. Those who do make it their living and life's work police each other in peer reviewed journals and my opinion doesn't enter into it. When I need to know something about science, all I have to do is google for information, then google who is offering that information, then google for their standing in the scientific community and peer review process. As long as the field itself continues to provide predictive utility that advances society, I have no argument.
I see what you're saying. Let's say I wish more people could gather information and determine its plausibility as well as you (and I?) can. I'm afraid of the knowledge gap getting even larger, so that less people can determine what to be skeptical of, and what to believe.
Climate change is a good example. And creationism and other pseudo-sciences attempting to raise their own Science flag. Yeah, it bugs me that too many people don't know the difference.
Michael - here's some scientific authority for you --
"God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance, that gets smaller and smaller as time goes on."
-- Neil Degrasse Tyson --
So Michael, what's in YOUR pocket?