Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[AAA]

I didn't realize that is what you wanted evidence for. 

The alternatives to intelligence are random chance association of nucleotides and chemical necessity. We could actually do a calculation to show how unlikely a protein forming by random chance in a sea of amino acids is if you want.

Chemical necessity does not seem to be an adequate cause either. There is no known process leading nucleotides to arrange themselves into biologically functional sequences. The different bases attached to the sugar-phosphate backbone do not attract each other at different strengths. If they did, this would destroy the ability to convey information, because the resulting sequence would begin to become repetitive. Once again, I recommend Signature in the Cell if you want a more elaborate description of the other causes that have been put forward over the years.

So your evidence for your claim is that you don't like alternative claims? Have you heard of the argument from incredulity fallacy? Are you going to give evidence for your claim, or are you just going to try to beat up on other ideas? If you are just going to duck and dodge, I am not going to waste any more time on you.

The claim was that "intelligence is the only known cause capable of producing specified/sequential information". If I describe the other alternatives and why they are wrong, then this is support for the claim that intelligence stands alone. Rather than shout argument from incredulity, think about the nature of the claim I'm making. For example, imagine someone claims "idea A is the only good idea". In order to support this claim, they must show why ideas B, C, and D are not good ideas. Does that make sense? In order to show that intelligence is the only cause capable, I must show why the other causes are not sufficient. 

Moreover, intelligence is observed to be capable of producing it all the time. Through the input of intelligence, we have developed computer code, written language, radio communication, and have even tampered with genetic code. All of these are specified and sequence based. Intelligence is an adequate cause.

[Edwardo Piet]

Oh bugger off.

Pushing your creationist shite. Honestly.

Sorry I just really tire of the same old bullshit crap like saying evolution is just random chance. It's so annoying. The evidence is all out there and you're just peddling the same old creationist long-defeated fallacies horseshit fuckmuffin twatwaffle bunk. Ugh.

[Jesster]

So your evidence for your claim is that you don't like alternative claims? Have you heard of the argument from incredulity fallacy? Are you going to give evidence for your claim, or are you just going to try to beat up on other ideas? If you are just going to duck and dodge, I am not going to waste any more time on you.

The claim was that "intelligence is the only known cause capable of producing specified/sequential information". If I describe the other alternatives and why they are wrong, then this is support for the claim that intelligence stands alone. Rather than shout argument from incredulity, think about the nature of the claim I'm making. For example, imagine someone claims "idea A is the only good idea". In order to support this claim, they must show why ideas B, C, and D are not good ideas. Does that make sense? In order to show that intelligence is the only cause capable, I must show why the other causes are not sufficient. 

Moreover, intelligence is observed to be capable of producing it all the time. Through the input of intelligence, we have developed computer code, written language, radio communication, and have even tampered with genetic code. All of these are specified and sequence based. Intelligence is an adequate cause.

It's the only known cause TO YOU.  All you are trying to give me is negative evidence for other claims and jumping to the first alternative that you prefer in its stead without actually backing it up in its own light. It's just another form of the god of the gaps kind of argument. It doesn't work.

Fuck it. I don't think you're going to get this one. Enjoy your fantasy.

[Edwardo Piet]

Tired of the same old utter shitey nonsense crap!

[Cyberman]

The flaw is that you are making the claim that "intelligence is the only known cause capable of producing specified/sequential information", then labelling DNA and the genetic code as "specified/sequential information" just so you can reach the predetermined conclusion that therefore DNA is a product of intelligence.

[Cyberman]

Oh bugger off.

Pushing your creationist shite. Honestly.

It is impossible to push creationist shite honestly.

[Edwardo Piet]

It honestly is. AS FUCK!

[Astreja]

Random mutation is proclaimed to be the engine that drives new genetic information.

It's "an" engine, not "the" engine.  Mutations are also the result of fairly predictable biochemical factors such as stochastic switching, whereby the chemical balance in the environment can mask or uncover alleles, thereby affecting which traits are "on" and which ones are "off" at the time of replication.

If you want to an assert that an intelligent agent is somehow directing the process. it's your responsibility to provide evidence for that agent, rather than working backwards and just inferring that it simply has to be there.  (I doubt very much, however, that the clueless git described in the Bible would be capable of such work.)

[Cyberman]

It honestly is. AS FUCK!

It's why the Hovind Scale was developed.

[Cyberman]

(I doubt very much, however, that the clueless git described in the Bible would be capable of such work.)

"If it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil. But the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever."
-- Woody Allen