Athiest non-evolutionist

[Styx87]

A strange anomaly that I've encountered in these debates is the Atheist that does not believe in Evolution. But I'm not clear on what they believe. If they're not religious and don't believe in evolution then how do they explain Biodiversity?

I can't seem to get a clear answer on that so once we do that's what I would like this thread to be about. Discussing and attempting to rationalize that hypothesis.

Edit: This is the requirement for a theory or hypothesis to be put forward.

1. It can't fit the Berkly definition of Evolution.

   The Definition:
   Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

2. It must exclude a belief in a "God" not mater which one.

Otherwise I don't really care how absurd it is. The point is to try and ascertain what a non evolutionist atheist believe as far as biodiversity and make sense of it.

 

[AV1611VET]

A strange anomaly that I've encountered in these debates is the Atheist that does not believe in Evolution. But I'm not clear on what they believe. If they're not religious and don't believe in evolution then how do they explain Biodiversity?

I can't seem to get a clear answer on that so once we do that's what I would like this thread to be about. Discussing and attempting to rationalize that hypothesis.

Panspermia.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Panspermia.

Panspermia usually still implies that abiogenesis and evolution occurred somewhere else. Otherwise, it would infinitely regress.

 

[Styx87]

Panspermia.

No, that's a genesis hypothesis...

Panspermia (Greek: πανσπερμία from πᾶς/πᾶν (pas/pan) "all" and σπέρμα (sperma) "seed") is the hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, distributed by meteoroids, asteroids and planetoids.[1]
Panspermia proposes that life forms that can survive the effects of space, such as extremophiles, become trapped in debris that is ejected into space after collisions between planets that harbor life and Small Solar System Bodies (SSSB). Bacteria may travel dormant for an extended amount of time before colliding randomly with other planets or intermingling with protoplanetary disks. If met with ideal conditions on a new planet's surfaces, the bacteria become active and the process of evolution begins. Panspermia is not meant to address how life began, just the method that may cause its sustenance.[2][citation needed]
The related but distinct idea of 'exogenesis' (Greek: ἔξω (exo, "outside") and γένεσις (genesis, "origin")) is a more limited hypothesis that proposes life on Earth was transferred from elsewhere in the Universe but makes no prediction about how widespread it is.

But this theory is still possible in Evolution since evolution is the science of how life diversifies not how it began. This hypothesis is still possible again in evolution though because we've found biological matter in deep space, and if the components exists to sustain life then space could be considered an ecosystem. If life can exists in space then it can hypothetically be brought to and from planets via astral bodies. (not the hypothesis I subscribe to but one among many nonetheless (we have yet to find life in space or anywhere else besides Earth although there is evidence to suggest that life is not a quality unique to planet Earth))

 

[variant]

A strange anomaly that I've encountered in these debates is the Atheist that does not believe in Evolution. But I'm not clear on what they believe. If they're not religious and don't believe in evolution then how do they explain Biodiversity?

I can't seem to get a clear answer on that so once we do that's what I would like this thread to be about. Discussing and attempting to rationalize that hypothesis.

I've never met an atheist that was a creationist.

 

[DrkSdBls]

Isn't Scientology something like that......

Or do they still believe that Life Evolved Prior to Xenu's "Involvement" with our ancestors?

 

[Styx87]

I've never met an atheist that was a creationist.

I know! LOL, that's what I'm saying, I thought there were only two competing ideas. Evolution and Creationism. But there are also a number of atheists that believe in neither... so what do they believe then?

How does a non evolutionist atheists rationalize biodiversity?

 

[AV1611VET]

How does a non evolutionist atheists rationalize biodiversity?

Panspermia.

I'm sure you're talking about life on the earth, no?

 

[KimberlyAA]

lol! First time I've heard something like that. I always thought there were 3 requirements for being an atheist :

- Belief that God’s Word (the Bible) cannot be trusted as plainly written.
- Belief in millions of years of time having occurred in the past.
- Belief in biological evolution of some sort.

All atheists must have a way of explaining how they came into existence without God, evolution is a requirement for that belief system.

I mean, it's either God did it or it happened on its own ... unless there's some 3rd realm of thought that's another headache to fathom

 

[sfs]

lol! First time I've heard something like that. I always thought there were 3 requirements for being an atheist :

- Belief that God’s Word (the Bible) cannot be trusted as plainly written.
- Belief in millions of years of time having occurred in the past.
- Belief in biological evolution of some sort.

All atheists must have a way of explaining how they came into existence without God, evolution is a requirement for that belief system.

I mean, it's either God did it or it happened on its own ... unless there's some 3rd realm of thought that's another headache to fathom

There's only one requirement for being an atheist: not believing in the existence of God or gods.

 

[Styx87]

Panspermia.

I'm sure you're talking about life on the earth, no?

No, panspermia still allows Evolution and no, we're talking about biodiversity anywhere. But since the only evidence we have of it is here then we can assume that's what they're looking at too.

But for the sake of not complicating the argument we can say yes, life on earth. How does a non evolutionist atheist rationalize biodiversity on earth? What do they believe?

 

[AV1611VET]

No, panspermia still allows Evolution and no, we're talking about biodiversity anywhere. But since the only evidence we have of it is here then we can assume that's what they're looking at too.

But for the sake of not complicating the argument we can say yes, life on earth. How does a non evolutionist atheist rationalize biodiversity on earth? What do they believe?

Panspermia.

 

[Styx87]

Panspermia.

No, Panspermia still allows for both Abiogenesis and Evolution so it's not non evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, Panspermia still allows for both Abiogenesis and Evolution so it's not non evolution.

From Wikipedia:

Panspermia is not meant to address how life began, just the method that may cause its sustenance.

SOURCE

 

[Styx87]

I know, I read it, but it still doesn't exclude evolution. It only suggests that instead of a primordial soup that life was transported here via an astral body that entered our atmosphere and seeded earth with the life it carried. And that from there life could have logically evolved into what we see as the current state of biodiversity.

There's even evidence to support this. Like that the first organisms can't be included in evolution because they weren't passing down genetic traits but instead engaging in a sort of horizontal gene transfer that eventually resulted in evolution. If these life forms were seeded here from space it's possible that's why they weren't related or technically evolving yet.

All I can find as competing theories for evolution is one grossly outdated theory that hasn't been taken serious since Darwin published his book "On the origin of Species". Lamarckian evolution was the theory that competed with natural selection but has since been rejected entirely by the scientific community.

So it seems unlikely that's what a non evolutionist atheist believes.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

From Wikipedia:


SOURCE

Right, so it doesn't replace evolution. If panspermia was true, it would be consistent with evolution. Thus, panspermia is not an alternative theory of biodiversity, which is what this thread is asking for.

 

[Tomk80]

lol! First time I've heard something like that. I always thought there were 3 requirements for being an atheist :

- Belief that God’s Word (the Bible) cannot be trusted as plainly written.
- Belief in millions of years of time having occurred in the past.
- Belief in biological evolution of some sort.

Wrong. All that it takes to be an atheist is not to belief in any Gods. Your requirements are nonsense.

All atheists must have a way of explaining how they came into existence without God, evolution is a requirement for that belief system.

Wrong again. An atheist could quite validly say that he or she doesn't know how everything came into existence. There is no shame in not knowing.

I mean, it's either God did it or it happened on its own ... unless there's some 3rd realm of thought that's another headache to fathom

Sure, but someone who believes it happened on its own does not necessarily believe that he knows how it happened.

 

[Styx87]

Right, so it doesn't replace evolution. If panspermia was true, it would be consistent with evolution. Thus, panspermia is not an alternative theory of biodiversity, which is what this thread is asking for.

Exactly, thank you .

I've edited the OP to detail what is required to put a suggestion forward.

 

[USincognito]

Isn't Scientology something like that......

Or do they still believe that Life Evolved Prior to Xenu's "Involvement" with our ancestors?

I'm pretty sure the Raelians are atheist IDers. They just identify the designer(s) as aliens.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

lol! First time I've heard something like that. I always thought there were 3 requirements for being an atheist :

- Belief that God’s Word (the Bible) cannot be trusted as plainly written.
- Belief in millions of years of time having occurred in the past.
- Belief in biological evolution of some sort.

All atheists must have a way of explaining how they came into existence without God, evolution is a requirement for that belief system.

You understanding of atheism is flawed. There's a fair few of us here at CF, I'm sure we can give you a few pointers. For starters, atheism is, ultimately, a lack of belief in the existence of gods - no more, no less. An atheist may or may not have an explanation for the existence of life, the universe, or grilled cheese.

For another, atheism predates Darwin's formulation of evolution (Hume, etc) and even the concept of Deep Time (atheists were around back in ancient Greece, for instance).

I mean, it's either God did it or it happened on its own ... unless there's some 3rd realm of thought that's another headache to fathom

Whence the OP, I suppose.