How Darwin caused atheism

You are going to have to work really hard clarifying this statement. As it stands, it looks like you are confusing TOE with abiogenesis. If someone on the "C" side did that we would be ripping chunks out of their flanks right now.

I said "work", not "talking shit".I seriously expected you to actually clarify, something along the lines of focusing on the diversity of life, in good agreement with things like Dennet's point about the weird-headed bird. But no, you are really doing it. Holy crap! First of all, it's not that fucking simple. Crystals are full of self-replicating molecules, and no one who can be taken seriously considers them life, not even me. But let's skip ahead just as if you had bothered to be clear, because I don't have the patience to wait for that unlikely event to ever happen anymore. Let's act as if you had said "imperfectly replicating molecules in competition for resources".Fine. I for one am perfectly happy to consider proteinoids, catalytic liposomes and stacked NAs as life. They reproduce, they mutate, they compete, they evolve. That ought to be all I need, right?But no, I'm not allowed to stop where chemistry has done its job. I have to care about crap like the RNA world, which is essentially biology cleverly reverse-engineering itself, because I have to get all the way to a full cell before any creationist or non-biochemist biologist will admit I have "life".This board is full of biologists who are perfectly willing to concede that abiogenesis is doubtful, mere speculation, irrelevant. What they are really saying is, it's chemistry, ergo, not their problem. As for creationists, I can't even get them to admit that freestanding RNA viruses or ricketsia are "life". A lot of them are doubtful about bacteria and particularly archaea. I have one buddy, a church elder, who disputes whether fucking ferns are life because they don't "bear seed".Now, at this late date, Darwin tends to get a mention in reference to abiogenesis because of his "warm pond" speculation. But this was in a private letter, unpublished, not Origin of Species or Descent of Man.

Not really, someone just has to be willing to do the work rather than just, wish it done. Talk:History of atheism - Wikipedia

No, in the 17th century. About the time Theophrastus was published, and the dam was opened for atheism.By most accounts the Enlightenment ended before Darwin was born, with the rise of Napoleon.

Not at all, that conception of the Big Bang is about thirty years obsolete. Inflation requires no matter singularity, and indeed such a singularity was the biggest flaw in the BB theory before Guth, as nothing comes out of a black hole. Other flaws included missing strange particles like monopoles, consistency in areas causally unconnected, and the appearance of fine tuning. Inflation resolves these problems. Sorry, no. The singularity version of the Big Bang was falsifiable, clearly, as it has been falsified. Inflation is also falsifiable, in that it makes predictions. One of these predictions was the consistency of the CMB, which has since been found, its a black body temperature of 4 Kelvin for the whole shebang. Its consistency is within the bounds of the prediction, the minor variations within these bounds have given us a lot of info about the early universe. So the test has supported the current theory.

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth_contents.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)
Message 27 et alMy cosmology is definitely not "insider knowledge" though; I take correction regularly here from the actual insiders. As for example Message 71

Thanks man, but I'm going to need a lot more than that. The "old" version of the big bang depicts all the matter currently making up the universe as being compressed into an area smaller than whatever, a nucleus for example. This is a classic black hole of enormous quantity, and I don't see any way for that matter to ever get out.Guth's version begins without this excess matter, and uses "false vacuum" to produce the mass of crap and expansion and whatnot that we observe as the universe, in a process that certainly seems to my layman math-impaired thinking to correspond in some sense to the wonders of "vacuum energy".Obviously based on your response I need a lot of work. Fine, where do I start? And why am I starting now, rather than one of the other times that I have posted this basic line of crap right in front of you?* As, for example
Message 7
Message 48 Edited by Iblis, : added links

Here, Message 174, in Where did the matter and energy come from?.Back on this topic, what do you think of Dr. A's point about evolution taking away the last reasonable defense of the existence of deity?I keep eying it, I do believe it's the nicest exposition of what was likely to have been Abe's point in this thread that we can expect. But I'm still pondering on whether it really contributes much to atheism per se, as opposed to just increasing its social acceptability.