Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[Jesster]

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.  

Yeah, that's kinda the feeling I got about him. That's why I stopped taking him seriously at all.

[Astreja]

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.  

Yeah, that's kinda the feeling I got about him. That's why I stopped taking him seriously at all.

It's just one long, drawn-out argument from incredulity.

I have no respect left for creationists.  None at all.  I grok that there's something about evolution that really, really pisses the lot of them off, but I know just enough about biology to suspect that they aren't giving the evidence serious consideration.

Of course, if they did take a serious and unbiased look at evolution, two things would likely happen:

• They would see in short order that evolution is a robust theory supported by physical evidence, and that young-earth creationism in particular is a fucking crock of shit.
  
• They might start applying the same scientific rigor to their beliefs, and see their faith (and any hope of eternal bliss in Happy Fun Jesusland) go spiraling down the loo.
  

[robvalue]

This is at least the third time this guy has come in here and trotted out all this nonsense. I have no idea what he's possibly hoping to achieve. It is a shame his dogma means he has to begin with the assumption of design because it's obviously a barrier to his learning.

I mean, what the hell? Where is the design stage even meant to be? Except for the question of exactly how the first building blocks of life came together (which we are very close to), we have excellent models and understanding about how everything happened without any guidance whatsoever. So the designs must have been before this: either setting up the rules of our reality, or influencing which bits of gunk happen to slowly transition into life or something. Considering theists generally already make the first assumption, I don't know what else needs to be said.

[Astreja]

This is at least the third time this guy has come in here and trotted out all this nonsense. I have no idea what he's possibly hoping to achieve.

I'm not quite sure where he's coming from, either.  Is his faith so pathetically weak that he can't enjoy it in peace unless we agree with him?

[robvalue]

That's seems to be a common theme.

I get the feeling some people come here so they can "beat" atheists, to validate their beliefs.

I think the OP subject here has been played out. I object just as much to attempts to attach atheism to other positions. It's a very simple stance on a single question, and nothing more.

[LadyForCamus]

---

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?

---

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*

---

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.  

---

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.  

---

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.

---

Your original statement was a gross oversimplification of that:

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.

---

LOL.  Many members have pointed out several fatal flaws in your non-argument; not that it's our job to disprove your unsupported assertions.  I suggest you go back and re-read through your previous threads here, just to brush up. You simply fail to foster a positive case for your position, that's all.  Pretending to not understand evolution does not constitute a positive, evidentially supported case for intelligent design.  But you already know that because it's been explained to you a day nauseam, hasn't it it?

[Angrboda]

AAA:

It's clear that your approach to this discussion is driven by several concerns.

1.  denying science, primarily in the form of denying evolution.  It's clear that evolution provides a model for how complexity can arise from simple beginnings, so you resist it at every step.  If evolution can explain how single celled organisms can give rise to humans, the goo to you story becomes much more plausible.  Do you have a pre-existing belief that all life was created essentially as it now stands?  What is that belief based on?

2. god of the gaps, primarily in the form of concentrating on the weaknesses in abiogenesis.  It's true that the search for a solution has been proceeding for some time, but that doesn't mean we should consider the search "closed" to further enquiry.  When determining when to stop looking, one has to take into account the difficulty of the question and how long science has been researching it.  On both scores, it seems premature to close off enquiry at this stage.  One should always prefer to await rational explanations for things, and remain agnostic toward the subject in the meantime.  You don't appear agnostic to the question of abiogenesis.  What drives your desire to close off enquiry?

3. negative arguments, primarily of the form "Not X, therefore Y."  You most certainly realize that this undermines not only those arguments you share with us, but also the arguments you have adopted to support your pre-existing beliefs.  Doesn't the fallacious nature of your negative arguments bother you?

This is the strategy of a creationist.  Call yourself an intelligent design advocate all you want, the truth is you are no different from a creationist in the way you go about your argument.  Do you believe that your God created all the forms of life that exist?  Is that belief rooted in a literal interpretation of Genesis in the bible?

[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.

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.

And if science says one thing and religion says something else (let's not leave all the protestants, Muslims, Jews and other non Abrahamic religions) then the op's attempts to sound reasonable are anything but. Especially with religionists fighting to have their take on creation taught in school as if it were a fact equal to what science has proven.

[Whateverist]

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. 

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.

My bold.

AAA, son, right here is where Jorg handed you your ass.  Please take it with you when you go back to bible camp.

[Tonus]

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.

Mutations can be positive or negative or neutral (in that they don't have an immediate impact and may never have one at all). Some mutations that are bad can also aid in survival, such as the sickle cell disease in African people which is believed to have helped them survive against the onslaught of malaria. Other mutations may provide a benefit in one environment (say, a forest) and wind up being detrimental if the environment changes enough over time (to a grassland or desert). DNA seems to change in every individual over time and is different with each new individual, so I don't think it preserves points in time very well for a population. The fact that so many species have gone extinct indicates that neither the original code nor the mutated variations guarantee more than temporary success with very few exceptions (sharks and crocodiles come to mind).