Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lamark was prior to Darwin aND was only a hypotheses.
Darwin's theory was, and is, only a hypothesis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
You made a specific claim that Darwin's theory of evolution through natural select was not the widely accepted theory from 1859 to the 1950s, a one hundred year time span and I asked you what then was the scientific accepted mechanism and you bring out a pre Darwin hypothesis that was rejected and systems theory build on Darwin and is relatively recent
Systems theory is NOT relatively recent! Mainstream biologists may have ignored it until recently, but it goes back to at least the beginning of biology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
Bringing it back onto topic do you have any actual evidence that shows that the theory that genes are more heavily involved in natural selection than previously thought as been a major influence for people stopping believing in God? That is a yes or no question for now.
When DNA was discovered, some biologists decided it confirmed Darwin's theory, and Darwin's theory became mainstream.
Atheists almost always refer to the natural selection theory of evolution, as supporting materialist philosophy.
You could qualify it that way. Since the release of his papers , many thousands of scientists have done additional research and testing. Darwin's thoughts have been modified where necessary, and added on o as we understand more about processes. The mechanisms have been tested, results predicted and confirmed.
The modern Theory of Evolution is definitely a scientific Theory with the highest amount of support possible, and it explains the facts of evolution.
Quote:
When DNA was discovered, some biologists decided it confirmed Darwin's theory, and Darwin's theory became mainstream.
Exactly. That is how science works. Somebody develops a hypotheses and it is tested against facts. If facts confirm the hypothesis, it is elevated to the rank of Theory. As additional facts are discovered, they confirm the Theory, or overturn it. In the case of the ToE, every subsequent fact has confirmed it.
Thanks for destroying your own argument.
Quote:
Atheists almost always refer to the natural selection theory of evolution, as supporting materialist philosophy.
Probably because it does support a naturalist position. Why wouldn't you cite something factual that supports your position?
Dawkins, whatever you may think if him, has a talent for explaining complex science in an accessible manner. So does Stephen Hawking. Their books, written for the layman, are often cited simply because of their accessibility. If somebody were to be similarly eloquent about a different field of science, that person would be widely cited as well.
As for myself, I became an atheist before I had even heard of Dawkins. I did so because theists had no good arguments for their position. Years later, when I did read Dawkins, his books became an additional fact supporting my worldview, much in the same way as DNA supports ToE.
Systems theory is NOT relatively recent! Mainstream biologists may have ignored it until recently, but it goes back to at least the beginning of biology.
When DNA was discovered, some biologists decided it confirmed Darwin's theory, and Darwin's theory became mainstream.
Atheists almost always refer to the natural selection theory of evolution, as supporting materialist philosophy.
Again you just make wild claims without evidence and refuse to support them. Until you can actually back up the one simple claim with facts I am done with a BS artist. And now you doubled down with the lie that Darwin was a hypotheses not a theory. But unlike folks like me you seem to know what atheists refer to so often. Goodbye until you come back for an honest discussion.
I might repeat that Creationism accepts evolution by natural selection and indeed that it is guided by environmental conditions using the mechanism of genetic mutation. They accept all that.
What they then do is claim that it occurs only within recognizable species or 'kinds' (broadly recognized by appearance, according to Hovind). Thereafter (they claim) evolution becomes some completely different theory involving interbreeding between species which (they point out) would result in nothing but infertile offspring, if it resulted in anything at all.
Needless to say, just as 'New' Atheism is just the same as former atheism (except the religious don't like it), "Macro" evolution (a term coined by creationists to pretend it is something different from the evolution that can't deny) is just the same as "Micro" evolution -except that Creationists don't like it.
Evolution is NOT 'central to atheism'. In fact as we have seen, Evolution being substantiated, Theists simply slide to God -directed evolution and Genesis becomes "metaphorical". Nothing really changes, so evolution is really no use to atheism.
What it is, is pain in the ass to genesis literlalists - not even Bible literalists, as there are quite a few who insist of the Bible being correct, but are willing to drop Genesis as a Myth or metaphor.
Genesis literalists have somehow fooled Christians in the milions into thinking that Evolution is intended to disprove God, the Bible and Jesus. It does not. But it does pretty much put paid to Genesis -literalism. And it can't be denied that the Theists, when they get into difficulties, will revert to 'well, who made everything, then?'
That is a long and wearisome debate too and again, nothing really relevant to Biblegod let alone Jesus, but the fact that Darwin forever pushed off the table 'God made everything -including us' as the only theory there was, means that atheism does not have to deal with Creation -claims.
Evolution is not the basis of atheism, but it is a stopper on one of the favourite kneejerk apologetics of a great many Christian apologists.
Evolution is NOT 'central to atheism'. In fact as we have seen, Evolution being substantiated, Theists simply slide to God -directed evolution and Genesis becomes "metaphorical". Nothing really changes, so evolution is really no use to atheism.
Evolution is not the basis of atheism, but it is a stopper on one of the favourite kneejerk apologetics of a great many Christian apologists.
I was very careful to explain, but somehow you missed it. Evolution BY NATURAL SELECTION is central to modern atheism.
Evolution to greater complexity/intelligence is considered a natural drive in systems theory.
You could qualify it that way. Since the release of his papers , many thousands of scientists have done additional research and testing. Darwin's thoughts have been modified where necessary, and added on o as we understand more about processes. The mechanisms have been tested, results predicted and confirmed.
No, as I tried to explain, Darwin's theory has NOT been confirmed. Natural selection has been confirmed, and evolution has been confirmed.
Evolution BY NATURAL SELECTION has not been confirmed.
We know that species can be modified by natural selection, or by artificial selection. But new, more complex, species cannot be created that way.
If it were possible, it would have been done by now.
I was very careful to explain, but somehow you missed it. Evolution BY NATURAL SELECTION is central to modern atheism.
Evolution to greater complexity/intelligence is considered a natural drive in systems theory.
Are you an atheist then that you know this?
I'm an atheist and I know exactly how and what I think. And it's not what you are telling me.
I gigured out as a young kid that the idea of a god was illogical.
Evolution towards greater complexity is considered a natural drive in systems theory. Systems theory is NOT atheism.
According to systems theory, natural selection is NOT considered an explanation for evolution. Natural selection is just something that happens, that has to happen.
Systems theory is compatible with a spiritual philosophy. It is NOT materialism.
Atheists almost always refer to the natural selection theory of evolution, as supporting materialist philosophy.
How do you know what "Atheists almost always refer to?" I'm asking you that because most of the things you have attributed to Atheists in this thread are not consistent with the things that I have seen the Atheists say about themselves in the Atheism and Agnosticism forum.
Have you read their threads there? Based on your posts, it would appear that you have not. Let me suggest that you go to that forum and read. Spend a couple of weeks reading threads from the oldest in the forum to the newest. Read about what Atheists think. Read about how they became Atheists. Read what they say when people come into that forum and challenge them. Learn what they really think. Then you'll see how incorrect your assumptions about them really are.
You'll learn that evolution has virtually nothing to do with their lack of belief.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
