Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[Esquilax]

DNA has not been demonstrated to arise naturally. It comes from pre-existing DNA in every observed instance, unless you are going to give me something about how nucleotides have been found.

"DNA has not been demonstrated to arise naturally. It's just been demonstrated to come about via the natural process of reproduction."

So, to recap, what we have here is DNA originating from a natural process, over and over and over again, countless trillions of times, across the entirety of human history and well before that point... and you've decided that it can't possibly have come from natural processes, on the basis that you can't imagine how it could have, and because in the most recent of times scientists have figured out how to intelligently manipulate DNA.

Millions of years of natural replication on one side. A decade or so of artificial manipulation on the other. And you've just so happened to take that as evidence of the thing you already believed. Uh huh.

This is not the same as DNA. They must still be linked into a functional sequence, and have enzymes and a translation system for it to be functional. And you came late, us getting DNA to do what we want to (by inputting sequence) is evidence that intelligence is capable of leading to DNA. This by itself is not reason to believe that it is the only cause capable. You'll have to read the rest if you want.

Sure, modern DNA needs that. What makes you think we're talking about modern DNA when it comes to the origin of this? Since we know life evolves, we also know their genes change over time... why do you think we'd be starting with modern DNA at the first point?

What terms would you like me to define? It seems to be a defense mechanism by members of this thread to demand definitions, complain that they are not good enough for them, and dismiss the argument. Rather than defining these terms (which I can attempt to do if you want), would you like me to send you links to some peer-reviewed articles that I believe illustrate the concept of highly specific biological processes that do not rely on randomness. I can also give you plenty of articles related to the "junk" sequence functions if that's the part you are concerned about.

Yeah, no, that's what it is: a defense mechanism. Can't possibly be that the terms you're using haven't been well defined because they were manufactured out of whole cloth to prop up intelligent design. No, everyone secretly knows what you're talking about but we're pretending not to so we can deny ID, that's what's happening, you're right.

How about this: can you give me a single piece of evidence for intelligent design that doesn't route back to an argument from ignorance? Because, see, I went and looked up these terms before I wrote my last post, and every ID site I went to tended to just use terms like "specific" while defining them with themselves, which is why I called it mystic babble before; it's a term that exists because it connotes intelligence in a truthy sense, without actually meaning anything applicable. It's an incantation that sounds like science to the layman but doesn't have a meaning behind it that matters to the science. I have the feeling, based on what I read, though, that "highly specific biological processes that do not rely on randomness," really just means "I can't think of a way this could have arisen naturally (for a specific, strawmanned value of naturally that means entirely by random chance)".

I'll take the peer reviewed articles. However, if the articles themselves don't come to the conclusion of intelligent design, I'll have to ask you why that is, so you'd best have an explanation of why it is you think they support ID when the actual authors did not.