Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[Tonus]

I think that putting mechanisms in place to preserve the integrity of the genetic code is more moral than letting our genetic code degrade to the point  where we suffer defects and functional disparities.

I don't think our genetic code degrades, but I'm not sure what you mean by that. Wouldn't a stable genetic code be more in line with a deliberate design, and allow for fewer things like Necrotizing fasciitis, the rabies virus and the terrifying amalgam of toxins that nature has developed? Human designers seek efficiency, safety, and reliability in their inventions. Wouldn't an intellect capable of designing a universe be even more efficient, since it would not be limited by resources and a lack of sufficient information and experience?

[Mr Greene]

Ok, you don't have to call it a desire if you don't want to, but the point is still there. I resent being called an emotional cripple. I think that you think that Christians are blinded by their emotion. If you think this, then who is really here to massage their ego? 

And who cares if the video addresses vesicle transfer. Nobody was even talking about that. And vesicular transfer is hardly the only way by which compounds move into or out of a cell.

The only desire in play is yours, you try to avoid the points regarding vesicles, (incidentally still proving you haven't found out what they are,) because they are inconvenient.
I call you an emotional cripple because it is what your protestant ministers have reduced you to, resent it or not it is what you are.
You have been duped by an obvious fraud that substitutes spirituality for emotionality reducing its followers to near automatons for the purposes of their ministers.

[Rhondazvous]

Long before Christopher Columbus, the people of Aristotle’s time knew the Earth is round. So Augustine warned about the dangers of being too curious about the workings of the cosmos.

The church has always been the enemy of science because they know biblical creation bears not the slightest resemblance to the universe we live in.

For hundreds of years, the church plunged Europe into what is known as the Dark Ages. During the age of Enlightenment, brave scientists risked life and limb to bring the world out of this darkness.

Today scientists have the freedom to be honest about the discrepancies between facts and faith, without having to fear for their lives. That you find this frustrating is not surprising.

[comet]

Long before Christopher Columbus, the people of Aristotle’s time knew the Earth is round. So Augustine warned about the dangers of being too curious about the workings of the cosmos.

The church has always been the enemy of science because they know biblical creation bears not the slightest resemblance to the universe we live in.  

For hundreds of years, the church plunged Europe into what is known as the Dark Ages. During the age of Enlightenment, brave scientists risked life and limb to bring the world out of this darkness.

Today scientists have the freedom to be honest about the discrepancies between facts and faith, without having to fear for their lives.  That you find this frustrating is not surprising.

not the catholic church. its slow to change, but it changes.  Galaleo rejection was more about how he went about it then the observations.  The church now accepts we go around the sun and that there was a big bang.  they even accept qm and Eisenstein. Sure, they have to get rid of the magic.  

Do you accept that we are part of a larger, more complex system, that probably is life? or not? 

I mean because "science" shows we are.

[Chas]

No, I think I do understand it.

"Throughout the duration of the LTEE, there has existed an ecological opportunity in the form of an abundant, but unused, resource. DM25 medium contains not only glucose, but also citrate at a high concentration. The inability to use citrate as an energy source under oxic conditions has long been a defining characteristic of E. coli as a species. Nevertheless, E. coli is not wholly indifferent to citrate. It uses a ferric dicitrate transport system for iron acquisition, although citrate does not enter the cell in this process. It also has a complete tricarboxylic acid cycle, and can thus metabolize citrate internally during aerobic growth on other substrates. E. coli is able to ferment citrate under anoxic conditions if a cosubstrate is available for reducing power. The only known barrier to aerobic growth on citrate is its inability to transport citrate under oxic conditions. Indeed, atypical E. coli that grow aerobically on citrate (Cit+) have been isolated from agricultural and clinical settings, and were found to harbor plasmids, presumably acquired from other species, that encode citrate transporters."

Note that they say that the only known barrier to aerobic growth on citrate is its inability to tranport citrate under anoxic conditions. This is what I said.
here is the article:
Blout, Z.D., Borland, C.Z., Lenski, R.E., 2008. Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. CrossMark. 105(23) 7899-7906.

Your original statement was a gross oversimplification of that:

And were you referring to the long term evolution experiment where the bacteria gained the ability to metabolize citrate? They already possessed the enzymes necessary to break it down, it's just that they could not take it in under aerobic conditions.

And that is not the only barrier.

And how about addressing the other issues?

[LadyForCamus]

Yes... in that there is no fucking evidence for your silly god which has ever been presented.

Science, you see, must also evaluate the lack of evidence for a position.

Well I disagree that there is not evidence. Do you agree that nature exhibits evidence of design at least?

Junk Status; Nooooooooooooooo!!!!

Yo are not SERIOUSLY going to come back here for a 5th fucking time and try to argue for design, are you? ARE you?! Haven't you been slapped around here enough? How has it not been pounded through your thick skull yet that the "argument from design" is just a giant argument from ignorance and personal incredulity? There is NO way you aren't a troll. TROLL, I say! Junk status... *grumbles*

---

NOPE

Why not? What do you think about cells?

I think you have engaged in this back and forth about cells/DNA/genetics/complexity/statistical probabilities AD NAUSEAM with members here several times over in the last year, and it's dishonest of you to bring it up here so innocently, as though you've never discussed it with us before.

---

I see your point. While I agree that religions make unscientific claims, I think that the prediction of design that comes from the religious worldview has been scientifically productive; especially in biology.

What prediction? What world view? Productive how?

You're about to be taken for a very long ride that will end with you banging your head against a wall like Little Rik, and pulling all of the hairs on your head out, one strand at a time.

---

He's going to tell you he's a biology student, but what he won't tell you is that it's a Christian college. Several of our well-educated members who have backgrounds in evolutionary biology spent WEEKS with this guy, trying to show him the flaws in both his reasoning, AND his scientific understanding, but he just comes back every few months and hits the reset button on everyone. He is a waste of everybody's time and mental effort, as far as I'm concerned.

---

<snipped a whole pile of bullshit>

Hey it's Junk Status, long time no see lad. What you been doing with yourself, still pretending to be getting an education? Still thinking you know more than Sweet Fanny Adams about anything?

---

Well I disagree that there is not evidence. Do you agree that nature exhibits evidence of design at least?

Well in order to be able to ascertain that nature shows evidence of design you have to show said evidence. The current amount of evidence you have provided for your beloved creatardism Junk Status is detailed below:



Yeah, Junk Status, you've got absolutely fucking nothing.

LOL. I was starting to think I was the only one who remembered him! It was an awful, lonely feeling. [emoji1]

[Mudhammam]

"Atheism is a scientific perspective" to the extent that the principles of the scientific method preclude the faith that theists are required to possess.

[AAA]

Genetic code degrading. Lol. Another idiot that does not understand evolution.

I think it is degrading. Why are there so many mechanisms to ensure faithful copying of the code if not to prevent it from degrading?

---

Well I disagree that there is not evidence. Do you agree that nature exhibits evidence of design at least?

Junk Status; Nooooooooooooooo!!!!

Yo are not SERIOUSLY going to come back here for a 5th fucking time and try to argue for design, are you?  ARE you?!  Haven't you been slapped around here enough?  How has it not been pounded through your thick skull yet that the "argument from design" is just a giant argument from ignorance and personal incredulity?  There is NO way you aren't a troll.  TROLL, I say!  Junk status...  *grumbles*

---

Why not? What do you think about cells?

I think you have engaged in this back and forth about cells/DNA/genetics/complexity/statistical probabilities AD NAUSEAM with members here several times over in the last year, and it's dishonest of you to bring it up here so innocently, as though you've never discussed it with us before.  

---

What prediction? What world view? Productive how?

You're about to be taken for a very long ride that will end with you banging your head against a wall like Little Rik, and pulling all of the hairs on your head out, one strand at a time.  

---

He's going to tell you he's a biology student, but what he won't tell you is that it's a Christian college.  Several of our well-educated members who have backgrounds in evolutionary biology spent WEEKS with this guy, trying to show him the flaws in both his reasoning, AND his scientific understanding, but he just comes back every few months and hits the reset button on everyone.  He is a waste of everybody's time and mental effort, as far as I'm concerned.  

---

Hey it's Junk Status, long time no see lad. What you been doing with yourself, still pretending to be getting an education? Still thinking you know more than Sweet Fanny Adams about anything?

---

Well in order to be able to ascertain that nature shows evidence of design you have to show said evidence. The current amount of evidence you have provided for your beloved creatardism Junk Status is detailed below:



Yeah, Junk Status, you've got absolutely fucking nothing.

LOL.  I was starting to think I was the only one who remembered him!  It was an awful, lonely feeling.  [emoji1]

Yeah, I've been here before. It's just Christmas break, and I was bored. And nobody has presented a compelling flaw in the arguments I gave. In fact all I get are people (like you) asserting that I do not understand evolution.

---

No, I think I do understand it.

"Throughout the duration of the LTEE, there has existed an ecological opportunity in the form of an abundant, but unused, resource. DM25 medium contains not only glucose, but also citrate at a high concentration. The inability to use citrate as an energy source under oxic conditions has long been a defining characteristic of E. coli as a species. Nevertheless, E. coli is not wholly indifferent to citrate. It uses a ferric dicitrate transport system for iron acquisition, although citrate does not enter the cell in this process. It also has a complete tricarboxylic acid cycle, and can thus metabolize citrate internally during aerobic growth on other substrates. E. coli is able to ferment citrate under anoxic conditions if a cosubstrate is available for reducing power. The only known barrier to aerobic growth on citrate is its inability to transport citrate under oxic conditions. Indeed, atypical E. coli that grow aerobically on citrate (Cit+) have been isolated from agricultural and clinical settings, and were found to harbor plasmids, presumably acquired from other species, that encode citrate transporters."

Note that they say that the only known barrier to aerobic growth on citrate is its inability to tranport citrate under anoxic conditions. This is what I said.
here is the article:
Blout, Z.D., Borland, C.Z., Lenski, R.E., 2008. Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. CrossMark. 105(23) 7899-7906.

Your original statement was a gross oversimplification of that:

And were you referring to the long term evolution experiment where the bacteria gained the ability to metabolize citrate? They already possessed the enzymes necessary to break it down, it's just that they could not take it in under aerobic conditions.

And that is not the only barrier.

And how about addressing the other issues?

Well they say in their article that it is the only known barrier, but I suppose you know of more? And also, I don't think it was a gross oversimplification. They simply couldn't take it in (they weren't expressing the necessary transporter).
And what other issues? The fact that in you think the presence of building blocks would mean that life would form? One of my relatives got legos for christmas. He had all the building blocks necessary to produce the design, but the design did not simply emerge. Neither amino acids nor nucleotides seem to have any chemical reason to arrange themselves into functional sequences.

[Angrboda]

Define 'define' so that I know what definitions count. Also please define 'rigorously' so I can meet that criterion. I'm joking of course. Maybe instead of getting hung up on the quality of the definitions (which I did provide), maybe deal with the concept of the argument. 

Why? Because your definitions are vapid and empty. Let's start with your definition of specified. "The specified part is indicating that the information is used to accomplish a desired function." Function is in the eye of the beholder. If we are talking about the circular pattern that a fairy ring makes, it has a function in the metabolism of the fungus. If you are talking about DNA, then it has the function of guiding the production of proteins. These are metaphors for what is actually going on. In reality, all you have are chemical sequences doing what chemicals do. One can use adaptive terminology such as 'X' is a function of 'Y' about practically anything, from the circular pattern of the fairy ring to the 'function' of plants in a swampland ecosystem. Yet not all of these indicate design by an intelligence. So the fact that it contains 'specified information' under your definitions really says nothing about whether the article was intelligently designed or not. All it shows is the flexibility of the human mind in applying metaphor to physical systems. Such talk is implicitly teleological, so it implies that the function was specified by someone, a designer. So to claim that the fairy ring has a function is to implicitly say that it was designed, which is bollocks. So all you are saying is effectively, "this system was designed" by calling it specified under that definition.

You say that information is defined "as that which is conveyed by a sequence of things." Conveyed? By what and to whom? This is more implicitly teleological talk. DNA doesn't convey the production of proteins to a protein making machine, it interacts with chemicals in the cell. And what is the 'that' which is conveyed? Apples? Oysters? Ideas? Calling the sequential pattern in DNA information is just a subtle way of begging the question.

So you have two definitions, both of which refer to teleological metaphors which implicitly imply that the article is designed. You might as well have just skipped the argument and declared, "They're designed because I say they are." Your definitions of information and specified don't point to anything concrete that can be identified purely from a description of the thing you're referring to. Your definitions are too high level to be of use for anything beyond cloaking your assumptions.

[AAA]

I think that putting mechanisms in place to preserve the integrity of the genetic code is more moral than letting our genetic code degrade to the point  where we suffer defects and functional disparities.

I don't think our genetic code degrades, but I'm not sure what you mean by that.  Wouldn't a stable genetic code be more in line with a deliberate design, and allow for fewer things like Necrotizing fasciitis, the rabies virus and the terrifying amalgam of toxins that nature has developed?  Human designers seek efficiency, safety, and reliability in their inventions.  Wouldn't an intellect capable of designing a universe be even more efficient, since it would not be limited by resources and a lack of sufficient information and experience?

When I say degrading genetic code, I mean mutations slowly accumulating to the point where the sequences no longer produce fuctionality. In other words, an enzyme may no longer work if there is a certain mutation. If the enzyme is responsible for an immune response, then losing this enzyme would prevent the organism from being healthy. The virus removes the individuals who have suffered a mutation that cripples the immune enzyme. In this way, only the individuals with the less degraded (mutated) code will survive. It would preserve the more original code.

---

Define 'define' so that I know what definitions count. Also please define 'rigorously' so I can meet that criterion. I'm joking of course. Maybe instead of getting hung up on the quality of the definitions (which I did provide), maybe deal with the concept of the argument. 

Why?  Because your definitions are vapid and empty.  Let's start with your definition of specified.  "The specified part is indicating that the information is used to accomplish a desired function."  Function is in the eye of the beholder.  If we are talking about the circular pattern that a fairy ring makes, it has a function in the metabolism of the fungus.  If you are talking about DNA, then it has the function of guiding the production of proteins.  These are metaphors for what is actually going on.  In reality, all you have are chemical sequences doing what chemicals do.  One can use adaptive terminology such as 'X' is a function of 'Y' about practically anything, from the circular pattern of the fairy ring to the 'function' of plants in a swampland ecosystem.  Yet not all of these indicate design by an intelligence.  So the fact that it contains 'specified information' under your definitions really says nothing about whether the article was intelligently designed or not.  All it shows is the flexibility of the human mind in applying metaphor to physical systems.  Such talk is implicitly teleological, so it implies that the function was specified by someone, a designer.  So to claim that the fairy ring has a function is to implicitly say that it was designed, which is bollocks.  So all you are saying is effectively, "this system was designed" by calling it specified under that definition.

You say that information is defined "as that which is conveyed by a sequence of things."  Conveyed?  By what and to whom?  This is more implicitly teleological talk.  DNA doesn't convey the production of proteins to a protein making machine, it interacts with chemicals in the cell.  And what is the 'that' which is conveyed?  Apples?  Oysters?  Ideas? Calling the sequential pattern in DNA information is just a subtle way of begging the question.

So you have two definitions, both of which refer to teleological metaphors which implicitly imply that the article is designed.  You might as well have just skipped the argument and declared, "They're designed because I say they are."  Your definitions of information and specified don't point to anything concrete that can be identified purely from a description of the thing you're referring to.  Your definitions are too high level to be of use for anything beyond cloaking your assumptions.

So do you deny that the DNA code provides blueprints for a desired function? Yes it's all based on chemical interactions, but the fact of the matter is that a DNA sequence (sometimes) codes for an mRNA molecule which codes for a protein which functions in a specific way.

 I'm curious how you would describe the function of DNA.

And it is conveyed by a sequence of things like it says in the definition. And it does convey the production of proteins based on its chemical properties. If you have problems with me calling the genetic code information, then you can email the authors of my biochemistry textbook. I left the book at school, but they titled a section of the book something to the effect of DNA and informational molecules. 

I understand that identity is the first law of logic, but you're taking these definitions too far. You're clearly one of the brightest people on this forum, and it would be a shame to not get your evaluation of the concept of the argument (which I think you understand) just because you want to spend the whole time defining two words which are being used in a common, non-subliminal way.

---

And when did evolutionary forces produce higher complexity?

You mean, other than the evidenced examples....of...for example...every living thing?  Unless, ofc, your "higher complexity" is a floating trashcan term.  Are human beings more "complex" than single celled organisms? If the answer you would provide is yes, then you've answered your question..if it's no, you've rendered your question meaningless.  

And for the third time, I am not saying that design is the only cause. I'm saying that it is the only known cause.

You keep saying it, but it's no more true now than it was the first time.  That's kind of the problem.  

There has been a thorough search, but obviously not all possibilities have been considered. So we literally have to investigate every possible explanation for any observation before we can say that we believe one stands out as best?

"We" wouldn't have to do that, a known explanation already stands out as the best explanation.  All available evidence poins to it without a single dissenting peice of evidence.   You might have to, though, since you'd rather not refer to the theory we have.  

And I've used positive evidence. We see intelligence creating information all the time. Scientists are constantly creating RNA sequences in the lab to guide CRISPR-CAS 9 machinery. If I go back to my university and create a functional protein by linking a series of amino acids in a desired way, then will I have given positive evidence that intelligence is an adequate cause?

Indeed, which isn't a problem forevolutionary theory - it's kind of the crowning achievement, and is only accomplished by leveraging evolutionary theory.  You can't really refer to their success without tacitly approving of the body of knowledge they use to accomplish it.  Are they achieving consistent results by accident, by leveraging an incorrect theory?  It's happened before, just figured some clarity was in order.  Did "god" do it exactly like modern synth did it?  What's the problem?

I believe that the designing intelligence is God, but that is simply not the type of claim that ID is making. There are ID proponents who do not believe this.

Actually, that -is- the claim that ID made, which is why it appeals to you..unfortunately, they failed to support that claim and ultimately discredited themselves by hanging their hats on an irreducible complexity that does not exist.  Meanwhile modern synth continues to collect evidence...there is still no evidence to the contrary, and it produces results like crispr, above, that you seem to be quite enamoured with.   I can't, for the life of me, figure out how it is you're trying to argue -against- modern synth by presenting a litany of corroborating points of data for the theory with which you have a religious objection to.........

You don't seem to understand that you are just asserting that the mechanism by which humans are more complex than a cell is evolution. 
If design is not the only known cause that is capable, then why has nobody proposed another one? If you are talking about natural selection acting on random mutations, we don't know how much information this can produce. This is why it is such a difficult question. We don't know how to quantify information. What we do know is that living systems (specifically eukaryotes) seem to have nearly infinite information contained within their genome. We also know that natural selection and mutation produce information at a nanoscopic rate.

And I don't think that you can just credit the crowning achievements of biologists to the theory of evolution. The fact is that the theory results in many similar predictions that one would make from design. We also don't know how quickly science would progress if people had design as their point of reference. It may be faster.

---

Again, I think that some of these scary features of our world that you are referring to can be considered mechanisms to ensure that the genetic integrity is maintained. For example, we have mechanisms to avoid bacterial infections. When we have a poor diet/ lifestyle, we are more susceptible to being overcome by these infections. They may be a mechanism to weed out those who are not living healthy lives.

Again, you don't seem to grasp how evolution works.

Do you think that poor diet/lifestyle has a genetic basis that is acted upon by natural selection?

It absolutely does, but that's not even what I was trying to convey. We are less susceptible to diseases and infections if we eat plant based foods and exercise. Therefore, those who do not live this healthy lifestyle are more likely to be removed by the purifying force that is infection. At least this is a possibility.