Are atheist divided?

marshalltenbears
marshalltenbears's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2009-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Are atheist divided?

 Do all atheist agree on the theory of evolution, or are there other lesser known theories of the origins of life?

"Take all the heads of the people
and hang them up before the Lord
against the sun.” -- Numbers 25:4


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Well,to be honest,

Well,to be honest, science is all about confusion. If we do not know that X is a fact, then nobody can make a positive statement that X is a fact. In that realm, there is plenty of room for conjecture. However, once we get past that point, someone will have made a persuasive argument that X is a fact.

 

At that point, it will be generally accepted that X is a fact. Unless someone then makes a positive statement that clearly show that what was previously accepted as fact might not be a fact then we pretty much go with what we know.

 

Speaking in terms of evolution, I don't really think that there is an open question that it is a real thing. The details are still open to question though. If memory serves well, it was only ten or so years ago that the persuasive argument was made that Penguins are birds. Such is the nature of science.

 

Also, from what I gather, it is still an open question whether birds are specialized dinosaurs or whether they evolved from crocodilians. In either case, they are specialized reptiles but the specifics are still open to debate.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
...science is all about confusion. ... In that realm, there is plenty of room for conjecture. ...

Hence, we have an example of the Borg Evangelical Atheist
that touts: Science is almost entirely bullshit.

Dream on. - J.H.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
There are no scientifically

There are no scientifically accepted alternate theories to evolution.  Period.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


cervello_marcio
Superfan
cervello_marcio's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2009-05-19
User is offlineOffline
 Pretty much like AIGS

 Pretty much like AIGS said, it's all about the details. Punctuated equilibrium, phyletic gradualism, etc. They're all just different theories as to how it played/plays out.

"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, himself the primrose path of dalliance treads. And recks not his own rede."


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Yeah. Like it said, Science

Yeah. Like it said, Science is basically a bunch of bullshit theories. What really matters is God.

Yep.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote: Pretty much like

 

Quote:
 Pretty much like AIGS said, it's all about the details. Punctuated equilibrium, phyletic gradualism, etc. They're all just different theories as to how it played/plays out.

And as it turns out, punctuated equilibrium is gradualism.  It's just a matter of perspective.  No serious scientists dispute the fact that speciation occurs over periods of geologic time.  The only question is whether or not there are periods during which "movement towards speciation" are more or less non-existent.  This may seem like a distinction, but it's not.  Consider the following:

 

_________

                  |

                  |__________

                                       |

                                       |__________

 

etc.   

 

Now consider this:

 

~

   ~ 

       ~

           ~

               ~

 

They are the same graph with different scale.  If you simply put a stairstep in between each "~" you see that you're looking at the same thing.  Or, consider that all the "curved" lines on your computer monitor are actually individual squares or rectangles, and when you magnify them enough, they're stairsteps.  In the same way, even if there are periods in which species do not move towards speciation, and periods of "fast" speciation events, the whole thing would still look like the familiar "tree of life" if you change the scale.

One of the more entertaining diversions for evolutionary biologists is trying to figure out what the hell Gould and Lewontin thought they were revolutionizing when they proposed punctuated equilibrium.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


marshalltenbears
marshalltenbears's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2009-02-19
User is offlineOffline
 wow, you guys are over my

 wow, you guys are over my head with all this. I need to read more. 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Hmmm... actually, I can't

 Hmmm... actually, I can't remember if it was Lewontin on the paper or not... I know it was Gould... 

Anyway, Gould was certainly the most outspoken of the P.E. crowd.  If you're interested in the cliff's notes version, read "Darwin's Dangerous Idea," by Dennett.  He and Gould were long time antagonists with regard to evolutionary theory, and Dennett does a good job of explaining why punctuated equilibrium is not a revolutionary change to evolution.  It's a slight rethinking at most.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


cervello_marcio
Superfan
cervello_marcio's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2009-05-19
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Quote:
 Pretty much like AIGS said, it's all about the details. Punctuated equilibrium, phyletic gradualism, etc. They're all just different theories as to how it played/plays out.

And as it turns out, punctuated equilibrium is gradualism.  It's just a matter of perspective.  No serious scientists dispute the fact that speciation occurs over periods of geologic time.  The only question is whether or not there are periods during which "movement towards speciation" are more or less non-existent.  This may seem like a distinction, but it's not.  Consider the following:

 

_________

                  |

                  |__________

                                       |

                                       |__________

 

etc.   

 

Now consider this:

 

~

   ~ 

       ~

           ~

               ~

 

They are the same graph with different scale.  If you simply put a stairstep in between each "~" you see that you're looking at the same thing.  Or, consider that all the "curved" lines on your computer monitor are actually individual squares or rectangles, and when you magnify them enough, they're stairsteps.  In the same way, even if there are periods in which species do not move towards speciation, and periods of "fast" speciation events, the whole thing would still look like the familiar "tree of life" if you change the scale.

One of the more entertaining diversions for evolutionary biologists is trying to figure out what the hell Gould and Lewontin thought they were revolutionizing when they proposed punctuated equilibrium.

 

 

I never thought about it like that, thanks for pointing it out. As far as whether or not Lewontin was involved...

Wiki wrote:

In 1972 paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing this theory and called it punctuated equilibria.

 

"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, himself the primrose path of dalliance treads. And recks not his own rede."


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Eldredge.  Duh.  I knew

 Eldredge.  Duh.  I knew that.  I hate brain farts.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

marshalltenbears wrote:
Do all atheist agree on the theory of evolution, or are there other lesser known theories of the origins of life?

Despite the nonsense from the fundies there is no necessary relationship between atheism and evolution. Even the pope has taken a belated liking to it.

At the moment there is no credible alternative to Darwin's theory. Issue is it is not much of a theory. It is more of a principle so it can be used to credibly explain just about anything. And when a scientist comes across an unexplainable fact it does not make the prior theory wrong. It means it is incomplete. So some day there may be an extended theory of evolution.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

marshalltenbears wrote:
Do all atheist agree on the theory of evolution, or are there other lesser known theories of the origins of life?

Despite the nonsense from the fundies there is no necessary relationship between atheism and evolution. Even the pope has taken a belated liking to it.

Actually, what IS AN ISSUE are the NON-Atheists that have split from their traditional religious beliefs of creation , and instead they believe in Science and Evolution.

Regarding the quoted text above, the keyword preceding relationships is "necessary."

Additionally, regarding the quoted text above, I don't know where the Popes draws/drew the line on Evolution. I AM certain that it would depend what Pope you're referring to, with regard to each Pope's interpretation of "the" Bible in terms of the degree of Fundamentalism (i.e. a literal interpretation).

There are certainly wacked out Atheists with ideas of Aliens seeding the Earth with life. However, the number of these people is not enough to suggest that Atheists are "split" a to Evolution.


cervello_marcio
Superfan
cervello_marcio's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2009-05-19
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote: Additionally,

treat2 wrote:
 Additionally, regarding the quoted text above, I don't know where the Popes draws/drew the line on Evolution. I AM certain that it would depend what Pope you're referring to, with regard to each Pope's interpretation of "the" Bible in terms of the degree of Fundamentalism (i.e. a literal interpretation). There are certainly wacked out Atheists with ideas of Aliens seeding the Earth with life. However, the number of these people is not enough to suggest that Atheists are "split" a to Evolution.

1. Pope Benedict XVI acknowledged the validity of the evolutionary theory in 2007.

2. Are you citing "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" on that?

"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, himself the primrose path of dalliance treads. And recks not his own rede."


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

treat2 wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
marshalltenbears wrote:
Do all atheist agree on the theory of evolution, or are there other lesser known theories of the origins of life?

Despite the nonsense from the fundies there is no necessary relationship between atheism and evolution. Even the pope has taken a belated liking to it.

Actually, what IS AN ISSUE are the NON-Atheists that have split from their traditional religious beliefs of creation , and instead they believe in Science and Evolution. Regarding the quoted text above, the keyword preceding relationships is "necessary." Additionally, regarding the quoted text above, I don't know where the Popes draws/drew the line on Evolution. I AM certain that it would depend what Pope you're referring to, with regard to each Pope's interpretation of "the" Bible in terms of the degree of Fundamentalism (i.e. a literal interpretation). There are certainly wacked out Atheists with ideas of Aliens seeding the Earth with life. However, the number of these people is not enough to suggest that Atheists are "split" a to Evolution.

If that was your impetus, so be it. However there is a common, albeit nonsense, alternative -- it was set in motion such that it would result in us without any additional interference. Call is post Darwin Deism. I think is roughly the current papal position invented by the last pope. I don't really track popes. However as a victim of the Catholic school system, I remember hearing something like that in the 50s would would be the second last pope.

Other people have different causations. Mine was Philip Wylie's Generation of Vipers. I do not credit it so much as an eye-opener but an exposition of the reasons  I was having problems with Catholicism. Seeds on fertile grounds to go biblical on you.

It seems to me there should be a wedge issue for every believer just as there is on every other subject. Turn a believer into an atheist may simply be finding the right approach rather than a one size  fits all approch.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml