What would the arguments be for atheism without Darwin's little works of chaotic (randomly) changing beasts?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Explain atheism before evolution?
- Thread starter Polycarp_fan
- Start date
- Status
Atheism just means that one does not believe in a deity or divine being.
Evolution describes the way in which the species that we have came to be adapted for the environment they inhabit.
Cosmology on the other hand is the science that works to explain the origin of the Universe and all that inhabit it.
Cambridge Cosmology
http://www.amtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/cos_home.html
Ned Wrights Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
Stringtheory and Cosmology
http://www.superstringtheory.com/cosmo/index.html
Metaphysical Cosmology
http://www.physicspost.com/articles.php?articleId=229
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Atheists, I think I can understand. Athiests who hang around religious chat rooms and argue about Gods they proclaim not to believe in, not so much.
Upvote
0
You demonstrate, once again, that you don't understand Darwinism. Evolutionary change is indeed random, but it is not chaotic, because only favourable changes are selected for.
Owing to the evidence of the fossil record, and the similarities between species, pre-Darwinian scientists hypothesized that evolution had occurred. Darwin's contribution was to provide an explanaton for how it occurred.
Among pre-Darwinian atheists were Lucretius and Christopher Marlowe. You could read their works to find an answer to your question.
Upvote
0
Some arguments would be anti-religious, specifically anti-Christian: the stories in the Bible are no more likely to be true than the ancient Greek and Roman legends of the gods; the god of the Bible clearly reflects the prejudices and world-view of an ignorant tribe of bronze-age cattle-herders; there is no historical corroboration for any word in the New Testament and for most of the Old Testament (though admittedly this was mostly shown after Darwin).
Upvote
0
Jade Margery
Stranger in a strange land
We're bored. And you guys are funny.
Edit: Actually, I'm here because I was curious. Most of the comments I found on the internet by self proclaimed christians were nothing but grammatically crippled ramblings and nonsense. Usually these were posts on athiest blogs or funny christian quotes. I figured that all I'd been looking at were websites that agreed with me, so I tried to find one that disagreed with me and most of the members were intelligent or at least literate. Here I am.
End Edit
Y'know, just because a person is an athiest doesn't mean they agree with the theory of Evolution. They might have their own ideas about how things came to be in their current forms. However, once you clear the religious teachings and start wondering about the nature of the universe, you see the massive pile of (growing) evidence supporting Evolution and conclude that it's probably right.
Upvote
0
That reminds me of something else that the fundies get wrong about Darwin. They blame Darwin and his evolutionary theories for the invention of certain socio-political theories that they collectively call "Social Darwinism." But those theories are not the result of Darwin's scientific theories, but are rather their source. It was, for example, the writings of T. Robert Malthus on the dynamics of human populations that got Darwin thinking the whys and not just the whats when it came to evolutionary theory.
Upvote
0
Oneofthediaspora
Junior Member
Atheism was already up and running before Darwin wrote "On the Origin of Species".
During the period known as the Enlightenment in the 18th century for example it was popular in Europe among certain groups.
I think it's fair to say that as a popular belief it peaked again in the latter half of the 19th century and it's also possible that Darwin's work may have had something to do with it. Some people with a very narrow, literalist view of Genesis 1+2 felt their faith weakened by the theory (then only a theory, now more than that) of evolution.
Personally I can't see why Darwinism would affect one's Christian faith adversely.
During the period known as the Enlightenment in the 18th century for example it was popular in Europe among certain groups.
I think it's fair to say that as a popular belief it peaked again in the latter half of the 19th century and it's also possible that Darwin's work may have had something to do with it. Some people with a very narrow, literalist view of Genesis 1+2 felt their faith weakened by the theory (then only a theory, now more than that) of evolution.
Personally I can't see why Darwinism would affect one's Christian faith adversely.
Upvote
0
B
Braunwyn
Guest
I ended up here because of the crevo forum and the arguments I came across were pretty mind-numbing. Ya know how it's hard to not look at an accident when passing one? Same thing.
Upvote
0
Darwin himself became an atheist because of his theory, as I understand it.
'Only a theory'? This seems to be a constant Christian dismissal. A theory is good if it explains all the known facts, which is what the theory of Natural Selection does. Subsequent discoveries, like the existence of genes, DNA, etc., have only strengthened the theory. NS isn't 'only a theory', it is a very powerful theory.
Upvote
0
Oneofthediaspora
Junior Member
Did you read the sentence including the bit in brackets??
You managed to quote it.
Once more from the top ... When Darwin wrote "On the origin of Species" evolution was just a theory. Nowadays because we have had 150+ years worth of evidence, none of which has disproved it, evolution is as I said MUCH MORE THAN A THEORY.
If Darwin came to disbelieve as a result of his (then) theory; that's a shame for him. Personally I have never found any problem accepting evolutuion and being a Catholic Christian, neither do any of the Catholics I know; including the Pope. (I don't actually know the Pope personally though).
Upvote
0
My point is that even in Dawin's day, the theory was very powerful. It had an enormous amount of evidence in its favour (that's what 'Origin of Species' is about). Your words 'only a theory' suggest that it was more of a hypothesis or conjecture, and that would be unfair to it. I apologise if I misunderstood you.
I agree that it is perfectly possible to be both a Christian and an evolutionist. However, an evolutionist cannot take the first two chapters of Genesis literally. Modern life forms took much much longer than 6 days to come into existence.
I agree that it is perfectly possible to be both a Christian and an evolutionist. However, an evolutionist cannot take the first two chapters of Genesis literally. Modern life forms took much much longer than 6 days to come into existence.
Upvote
0
What friggen century are you living in? "Darwin's little work of chaotic (randomly) changing beasts"? Really?
Upvote
0
Please explain how evolution theory makes an argument for atheism.
Then explain why you posted this in E&M.
Upvote
0
Maybe, but only in the typical fashion by losing a child to disease.
It is a fact that biology, physiology and anatomy show by indisputable facts, what sexuality "is." But you see that dismissed all the time for personal viewpoints to overrule established facts. Evolution is a concept that has yet to show us a bird becoming a tree monkey. Only a bunch of experiments and opinions that one thing becomes something entirely different.
Then why aren't strong men taking what they want on earth? You see the weak violating Natural Selection every single day just by being alive. And there are a lot of unintelligent weak people around these days driving cars I should own.
Umm, no chance. Order is not a good place to show proof of random mutations becoming you.
Then why did all the strong species die off? Oh yeah, a meteor. How convenient a "theory" that is. And the amount of time between the big snuff-out asteroid impact and the rise of Barack Obama's? Hmm, not likely.
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm
Part 1: Language, Information, and the Origin of DNA (Read Transcript)
Most arguments about evolution and intelligent design offer only anecdotal evidence and are inherently incapable of actually proving anything. We must get better evidence in order to get to the bottom of this! Fortunately, the science of modern communications easily provides us with the tools we need to get answers. Although the details are complex, the concepts are easily grasped by anyone with a high school education.
Most arguments about evolution and intelligent design offer only anecdotal evidence and are inherently incapable of actually proving anything. We must get better evidence in order to get to the bottom of this! Fortunately, the science of modern communications easily provides us with the tools we need to get answers. Although the details are complex, the concepts are easily grasped by anyone with a high school education.
Codes, however, do not occur without a designer.
Proof that DNA was designed by a mind: (1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern;
We can explore five possible conclusions:
1) Humans designed DNA
2) Aliens designed DNA
3) DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously
4) There must be some undiscovered law of physics that creates information
5) DNA was Designed by a Superintelligence, i.e. God.
(1) requires time travel or infinite generations of humans. (2) could well be true but only pushes the question back in time. (3) may be a remote possibility, but it's not a scientific explanation in that it doesn't refer to a systematic, repeatable process. It's nothing more than an appeal to luck . (4) could be true but no one can form a testable hypothesis until someone observes a naturally occurring code. So the only systematic explanation that remains is (5) a theological one.
To the extent that scientific reasoning can prove anything, DNA is proof of a designer.
Upvote
0
Science describes what happens, not what should happen. You have a poor understanding of science.
No biologist has ever claimed that birds evolved into monkeys.
Scientific statements are not proved; they are stated in a way that is falsifiable. If a scientific statement remains unfalsified it is is regarded as 'true' for the purposes of science.
Please find out the difference between Darwinism and Social Darwinism. The latter is discredited. It is species that are fit to survive, not subpopulations within the species. And 'survival of the fittest' does not necessarily mean conflict between species; it simply means that the species that are best adapted to an environment will survive in that environment.
Why not?
I think Wiccanchild explained what was wrong with this argument in another thread.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
