So your an Athiest

[Aroura]

I came into this thread looking for my free atheist. I am much disappoint.

[Cyberman]

That's because he was only offering an athiest. See, usually the spelling is changed to get round copyright laws. In this case, there's a more prosaic explanation.

[AAA]

I understand that I'm lucky to have access to the available information. But the science will quickly come to a halt if we discourage discussion on what the evidence means. Discussion on the meaning of evidence is how science progresses. I don't really disagree with the evidence itself. For example I understand most of the mechanisms by which DNA can be manipulated. I disagree on the theoretical grounds that say that changing the DNA improves its information content and that life's genetic code developed without the input of intelligence. You have access to the information too, go check it out and keep an open mind. You tell me to open my eyes, but I'm concerned that I'm not the one with my eyes shut.

---

AAA, I was there when powerful church leaders began promoting "Intelligent Design" theory in the 1990s. I never got as deep into biology as you are now, but I read enough of the ideas put out by the so-called scientists who wrote such books to be clear on what they are trying to do, and that it isn't science. It's an effort by a megagroup which calls itself "The Discovery Center", and it is bankrolled by evangelical churches - particularly those which fear science the most (it threatens job security for evangelical preachers). Yes, they actually paid these weak scientists who grew up in their churches to write the bullshit which launched their careers, and the authenticity of their  scientific credentials are nothing what they appear to be at first glance.

Remember the Scientific Method, and how it works? I addressed this with you already, and strangely it's the one significant point I made for you which you have ignored completely. You cannot call it science unless you go through all five steps in sequence! Starting with a question on how things work qualifies as a first step, putting you on track for a scientific conclusion followed by data gathering, analysis, ideas, and testing. If your final conclusions are different than what your initial ideas were going in, then there's a much better chance that you actually did some science! ID doesn't do that, it begins with an idea which religious people wish to believe, and then sets out in an attempt to prove it.

If you aren't aware of just how badly the people behind ID want to believe that life has a designer, and more importantly how badly they want you to believe their idea, then I have something here for your education:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design

I attempted to address the scientific method point. I respect it and what it has done for humanity, but I am arguing for design from the same evidence that they argue the absence of design. It is amazing how the competing ideas overlap so much, yet are total opposites. It is difficult to do the scientific method on something we can't observe. If we want to study something that we cannot observe (such as the causal agent being a designer) we should appeal to what we know from experience. This is the type of logic that Darwin himself outlined. Our uniform experience tells us that complex sequential information comes from intelligence. Therefore when we see intelligent sequences around us, we should assume an intelligent cause. If another explanation for its origin arises and fits the data, then we can accept it. But I (and others) think that the theory of evolution and abiogenesis have problems.

Yes, some people want their religious views taught in school (not me). But what if the truth really is that it was designed? should we pretend that it isn't in order to prevent teaching religion?

---

I don't think that nothing in existence proves god, I said that was the impression I got from you. What counts as proof????

Things, that are demonstrable and repeatable. What is ONE thing you can do, that ALWAYS works and can not be explained without the existence of god?

Well I could point out a lot of things that science has yet to explain. But you won't accept that as evidence of a designer. If I say fine tuning of the universe, you will probably say that I am just arguing a God of the gaps theory. I get the impression that you may be so stuck in the idea that God cannot exist that no matter what you see around you, you will always expect a better explanation than god to exist.

---

I wasn't linking you to it for the article, but for the several dozen links they provided, illuminating most of the points you've been asking us about.

Ok, I'll give them a read

[Mr.wizard]

Well, that's f***ing convenient, isn't it. Nothing in existence can prove that I am god, so that must mean my claim of divinity is just as valid as your imaginary friend's. Except I can make a claim - your god can't even do that, he has to rely on uneducated, dim-witted peasants to talk for him.

Religions work in EXACTLY the same way as a scam does. You need to believe some dumb c*nt, who has a vested interest in me believing him - and then I can rationalize it, if I need to, by interpreting everything in a way that allows for god. If there is a god that works in that way - he/she/it can go f*** himself, as can all his deluded lackeys.

I don't think that nothing in existence proves god, I said that was the impression I got from you. What counts as proof????

---

Parameters that can be eventually met in a universe like this.

Yeah, but the fact that a universe like this even exists is unlikely if we are just going on random chance.

---

But that's the thing.  That's literally just your bald assertion, coming from a fallible human.  God can tell me that himself if he wanted.  Does he not want me to believe in him?

I don't know God's thoughts. But it seems like you are working harder to avoid him than you are willing to see if there is any truth to his existence.

---

Hey man don't ask me for proof of your claim, its your job to make the case for your claim.

I tried telling them that the evidence, and they simply said that's not proof. So I don't think that you will accept that there is proof of anything.

We asked for evidence of a designer and you gave us some babble about the way cells function. Your doing nothing but looking at things that exist and how they work, then your merely asserting that there is a designer behind the scenes causing it all. We as humans do not recognize design by function or complexity, we recognize design by contrasting it with things that occur naturally,  so all of this nonsense about you seeing design in cells and DNA is in no way evidence, it's just you plugging your god into the holes in your reasoning (God of the gaps).

[Alex K]

Are you seriously trying to say that there is exactly one unique sequence of bases that makes a functional protein?
That's silly.

No, there are a lot of functional sequences, but they have to have a specific order of the bases. And they are rare.

So according to your notions, Lenski just got insanely lucky, and it's never going to happen again?

[AAA]

No, there are a lot of functional sequences, but they have to have a specific order of the bases. And they are rare.

So according to your notions, Lenski just got insanely lucky, and it's never going to happen again?

The guy from the long term evolution experiment? He found that his bacteria could metabolize citrate after a while. However, the only reason they couldn't metabolize it before is because they couldn't get through their membrane. They already had the metabolic enzymes necessary. They still don't know what mutation caused the ability for them to metabolize citrate. Odds are it will turn out to just be a degraded structure of a membrane protein that allows the sugar to enter. Also the cit+ bacteria were inferior when compared to the original bacteria in terms of growth rate. I highly doubt any new genetic information was added, but we will have to wait and see.

---

I don't think that nothing in existence proves god, I said that was the impression I got from you. What counts as proof????

---

Yeah, but the fact that a universe like this even exists is unlikely if we are just going on random chance.

---

I don't know God's thoughts. But it seems like you are working harder to avoid him than you are willing to see if there is any truth to his existence.

---

I tried telling them that the evidence, and they simply said that's not proof. So I don't think that you will accept that there is proof of anything.

We asked for evidence of a designer and you gave us some babble about the way cells function. Your doing nothing but looking at things that exist and how they work, then your merely asserting that there is a designer behind the scenes causing it all. We as humans do not recognize design by function or complexity, we recognize design by contrasting it with things that occur naturally,  so all of this nonsense about you seeing design in cells and DNA is in no way evidence, it's just you plugging your god into the holes in your reasoning (God of the gaps).

Actually we as humans have very specific and universal ways to detect characteristics of design. Why is it god of the gaps and not naturalism of the gaps? when we see design, we should assume designer until proven otherwise. You are essentially saying we don't know the answer to how these complex intricate functioning systems developed, but we know it wasn't designed. Why is design not a good enough answer for you? You are assuming the answer and excluding the most reasonable possibility.

[Mr.wizard]

So according to your notions, Lenski just got insanely lucky, and it's never going to happen again?

The guy from the long term evolution experiment? He found that his bacteria could metabolize citrate after a while. However, the only reason they couldn't metabolize it before is because they couldn't get through their membrane. They already had the metabolic enzymes necessary. They still don't know what mutation caused the ability for them to metabolize citrate. Odds are it will turn out to just be a degraded structure of a membrane protein that allows the sugar to enter. Also the cit+ bacteria were inferior when compared to the original bacteria in terms of growth rate. I highly doubt any new genetic information was added, but we will have to wait and see.

---

We asked for evidence of a designer and you gave us some babble about the way cells function. Your doing nothing but looking at things that exist and how they work, then your merely asserting that there is a designer behind the scenes causing it all. We as humans do not recognize design by function or complexity, we recognize design by contrasting it with things that occur naturally,  so all of this nonsense about you seeing design in cells and DNA is in no way evidence, it's just you plugging your god into the holes in your reasoning (God of the gaps).

Actually we as humans have very specific and universal ways to detect characteristics of design. Why is it god of the gaps and not naturalism of the gaps? when we see design, we should assume designer until proven otherwise. You are essentially saying we don't know the answer to how these complex intricate functioning systems developed, but we know it wasn't designed. Why is design not a good enough answer for you? You are assuming the answer and excluding the most reasonable possibility.

No we don't, that is completely false. How the hell would not plugging a god into things we don't know be a "naturalism of the gaps", the honest response when you don't know something is to say, "I don't know" its not to plug in a magic god that you have given all the attributes to in order to answer the question. These arguments your making are completely played out and fallacious, I mean really buddy, God of the Gaps, Watchmaker, Argument from Ignorance, go an and get some new material.

Since you are so great recognizing design, then answer me this, what would a non-designed universe look like?

[AAA]

The guy from the long term evolution experiment? He found that his bacteria could metabolize citrate after a while. However, the only reason they couldn't metabolize it before is because they couldn't get through their membrane. They already had the metabolic enzymes necessary. They still don't know what mutation caused the ability for them to metabolize citrate. Odds are it will turn out to just be a degraded structure of a membrane protein that allows the sugar to enter. Also the cit+ bacteria were inferior when compared to the original bacteria in terms of growth rate. I highly doubt any new genetic information was added, but we will have to wait and see.

---

Actually we as humans have very specific and universal ways to detect characteristics of design. Why is it god of the gaps and not naturalism of the gaps? when we see design, we should assume designer until proven otherwise. You are essentially saying we don't know the answer to how these complex intricate functioning systems developed, but we know it wasn't designed. Why is design not a good enough answer for you? You are assuming the answer and excluding the most reasonable possibility.

No we don't, that is completely false. How the hell would not plugging a god into things we don't know be a "naturalism of the gaps", the honest response when you don't know something is to say, "I don't know" its not to plug in a magic god that you have given all the attributes to in order to answer the question. These arguments your making are completely played out and fallacious, I mean really buddy, God of the Gaps, Watchmaker, Argument from Ignorance, go an and get some new material.

Since you are so great recognizing design, then answer me this, what would a non-designed universe look like?

We do have the ability to recognize features of design, because we have a history of seeing the causal relationship between intelligence and information/design. We then see information around us. The logical conclusion based on our historical observations of the cause of information should lead us to conclude that intelligence played a role in its origin. You can use your presuppositions of the irrationality of a designer to deny it, but you are disagreeing with a fundamental logical inference from historical science. I don't understand why you can't grasp that. All you have done is say that I am arguing from illogical arguments. But you answer me this question: Why is it illogical to assume intelligent cause to the origin of biological information when naturalistic explanations fall short? Why do I have to wait for a naturalistic explanation when there is no reason for me to think that one will arise? You are arguing from a fallible argument in the fact that you are assuming you have the correct answer right off the bat. Your idea seems to be: because we know that life arose from naturalistic processes, it is illogical to insert God in the places that we don't know the answer to yet.

Also a non-designed universe would likely be either an infinitesimally small region of matter that could not lead to the formation of planets. Or it would be expanding so rapidly that gravity would be insufficient force to lead to the formation of planets. There constants of the universe would not be set at the extremely precise values that they would need to be to lead to the formations of planets.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

"Naturalism of the gaps" - oh, great masturbating Kreist on a rotating dildo! We don't claim we "know" that there was no designer, only that we doubt it for a very good reason: there is no better reason to believe that idea than the unfounded claims which shitheads persistently make! AAA cannot prove his claim, and now he tries to discredit us for saying we don't know when in fact we don't! Scientists don't know how the universe began, nor how life began on our planet, and they don't lie about it. They have theories, but they are presented as theories, not as absolutes. That life evolved from simple to complex is a certain fact, and its ultimate origin need not be known for anyone to call it that.

I'd say I've had enough of AAA's mental masturbation in this thread and quit already, but I think this is the stuff for a new law, along the line of Godwin's: The longer one attempts to prove a claim which is unfalsifiable to those who examine it through reason, the more likely he is to resort to insulting dishonesty in a desperate attempt to go on believing it himself.

What should this law be called?

[Mr.wizard]

No we don't, that is completely false. How the hell would not plugging a god into things we don't know be a "naturalism of the gaps", the honest response when you don't know something is to say, "I don't know" its not to plug in a magic god that you have given all the attributes to in order to answer the question. These arguments your making are completely played out and fallacious, I mean really buddy, God of the Gaps, Watchmaker, Argument from Ignorance, go an and get some new material.

Since you are so great recognizing design, then answer me this, what would a non-designed universe look like?

We do have the ability to recognize features of design, because we have a history of seeing the causal relationship between intelligence and information/design. We then see information around us. The logical conclusion based on our historical observations of the cause of information should lead us to conclude that intelligence played a role in its origin. You can use your presuppositions of the irrationality of a designer to deny it, but you are disagreeing with a fundamental logical inference from historical science. I don't understand why you can't grasp that. All you have done is say that I am arguing from illogical arguments. But you answer me this question: Why is it illogical to assume intelligent cause to the origin of biological information when naturalistic explanations fall short? Why do I have to wait for a naturalistic explanation when there is no reason for me to think that one will arise? You are arguing from a fallible argument in the fact that you are assuming you have the correct answer right off the bat. Your idea seems to be: because we know that life arose from naturalistic processes, it is illogical to insert God in the places that we don't know the answer to yet.

Also a non-designed universe would likely be either an infinitesimally small region of matter that could not lead to the formation of planets. Or it would be expanding so rapidly that gravity would be insufficient force to lead to the formation of planets. There constants of the universe would not be set at the extremely precise values that they would need to be to lead to the formations of planets.

How can we recognize features of design if everything is designed as you claim? You wouldn't be able to tell the difference between design and non-design if everything was designed. As far a non designed universe goes how the hell would you know what it would look like or even what it would "likely" look like? I am not interested in your imagination. My idea is it is illogical to insert a god you cant prove even exists into places we do not know the answer, that is a logical fallacy. I am not saying where life came from, you are, its up to you to make a case for design. If we knew absolutely nothing about where life came from it still doesn't make the answer you made up any more probable!!!