How can atheism have morality?

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere

originally posted by: cooperton


Intelligent design actually requires less faith than unintelligent design. It makes sense that a conscious intelligent being could create intelligible laws and organisms, rather than intelligible laws and organisms coming into being by unintelligence

Woah, how do you reason that? You still have to explain how the 'conscious intelligent being' came into existence or explain how it can exist perpetually without a beginning. Most apologists concede and just say something along the lines of "humans can't fathom something without a beginning". In the end it creates more questions than answers and is along a completely illogical line of reasoning. Trying to explain the source of rudimentary elements of life vs. explaining a fully fledged conscious intelligence that transcends time, space and the entire universe that some how always existed.... one is obviously more reasonable than the other.

How does he reason his new assertion?

Let me help you: With plenty of faith as usual.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

For intelligent design you need plenty of faith.
For evolution you need no faith and no belief in the supernatural world. You seem to be very confused when you argue that evolution is somehow based on faith.

Evolution defies various thermodynamic laws, such as polymerization of amino acid monomers in water to form protein chains. It's also never been shown to happen before. If influenza still being influenza is the best example you can find of evolution then there is clearly no evidence that organisms can evolve into other organisms.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
How does he reason his new assertion?

Let me help you: With plenty of faith as usual.

Lol yeah spirituality involves faith, no one is ashamed of that.

But science is supposed to be based on empirical data, and evolution doesn't have empirical examples to show it can happen. Sorry this frustrates you so much but it's the truth. You are therefore left with faith

Again, I am asking you the same question. There is nothing that points to intelligent design in the articles you have linked.

A.C. McIntosh, “Evidence of design in bird feathers and avian respiration,”International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(2):154–169 (2009).

It's literally titled evidence of design in bird feathers...

I can also personally show you the evidence of design of various biological components if you are interested

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere

Woah, how do you reason that?

What is more likely involved in the origin of a logical system:

logic or no logic?

simple question.

You still have to explain how the 'conscious intelligent being' came into existence

This has been discerned Theologically and philosophically.

1) something cannot come from nothing (a physical law)
2) something exists
3) therefore, something must have always existed

This something that always existed is God. God never needed to be created, that is why He is referred to as "unbegotten". Without a beginning, there is no need to have been created. God always existed. This by-passes the infinite regress dilemma.

or explain how it can exist perpetually without a beginning.

If something is not restrained by time, and has no beginning, why would it have an end?

explaining a fully fledged conscious intelligence that transcends time, space and the entire universe that some how always existed.... one is obviously more reasonable than the other.

Temporal beings understanding an atemporal being would be like explaining depth to a shadow.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1

For intelligent design you need plenty of faith.
For evolution you need no faith and no belief in the supernatural world. You seem to be very confused when you argue that evolution is somehow based on faith.

Evolution defies various thermodynamic laws, such as polymerization of amino acid monomers in water to form protein chains. It's also never been shown to happen before. If influenza still being influenza is the best example you can find of evolution then there is clearly no evidence that organisms can evolve into other organisms.

Again, I am asking you the same question. There is nothing that points to intelligent design in the articles you have linked.

A.C. McIntosh, “Evidence of design in bird feathers and avian respiration,”International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(2):154–169 (2009).

It's literally titled evidence of design in bird feathers...

I can also personally show you the evidence of design of various biological components if you are interested

These are nothing more than unsubstantiated assertions just like the ones you have been making all the way through. No evidence exists again.

Evolution is based on evidence and not on faith and the fact that viruses evolve is just one of the countless examples that disproves creationism. I have linked a number of papers on how evolution works. I am sure there is the scientists who author the papers are not conspiring against your deity and your belief in the supernatural world.

The article you have linked is from a notorious creationist who happened to have worked at the University of Leeds in England. He is well known for promoting creationism and his work isn't recognised. He has no relevance to the field of biology or genetics.



en.wikipedia.org...(physicist)

Andrew McIntosh (also known as Andy McIntosh) Emeritus Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion theory at the University of Leeds. He is also the director of the organisation Truth in Science which promotes creationism and intelligent design.

Here is a YouTube video about him with title:

Creationist Professor Andy McIntosh

youtu.be...

Not only there are no scientific papers in creationism but the one you linked is authored by a notorious creationist who is bound to make arguments and conclusions about the validity of creationism.

a reply to: Venkuish1
I'd like to add this that the journal added to that paper:

Editor’s Note: This paper presents a different paradigm than the traditional view. It is, in the view of the Journal, an exploratory paper that does not give a complete justification for the alternative view. The reader should not assume that the Journal or the reviewers agree with the conclusions of the paper. It is a valuable contribution that challenges the conventional vision that systems can design and organise themselves. The Journal hopes that the paper will promote the exchange of ideas in this important topic. Comments are invited in the form of ‘Letters to the Editor’.

Bolding mine.

Those dirty lab coat wearers always suppressing the truth. (Shakes fist at sky)

originally posted by: cooperton
Evolution defies various thermodynamic laws, such as polymerization of amino acid monomers in water to form protein chains. It's also never been shown to happen before. If influenza still being influenza is the best example you can find of evolution then there is clearly no evidence that organisms can evolve into other organisms.

But science is supposed to be based on empirical data, and evolution doesn't have empirical examples to show it can happen. Sorry this frustrates you so much but it's the truth. You are therefore left with faith

I can also personally show you the evidence of design of various biological components if you are interested

What is more likely involved in the origin of a logical system:

logic or no logic?

simple question.

This has been discerned Theologically and philosophically.

1) something cannot come from nothing (a physical law)
2) something exists
3) therefore, something must have always existed

This something that always existed is God. God never needed to be created, that is why He is referred to as "unbegotten". Without a beginning, there is no need to have been created. God always existed. This by-passes the infinite regress dilemma.

"Evolution defies various thermodynamic laws, such as polymerization of amino acid monomers in water to form protein chains."
-What are you referring to here, the lightening striking the primordial ooze theory?


"But science is supposed to be based on empirical data, and evolution doesn't have empirical examples to show it can happen."
-Evolution has plenty of empirical data.... From a quick google search- "Some common “lines of empirical evidence” are shared characteristics between parents and offspring, Mendel's Laws of Inheritance, DNA evidence (such as shared segments), fossil evidence, and even recorded evolutionary events (see Peter and Rosemary Grant's famous Galapagos Finch experiments)." (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) (www.palomar.edu...)- "When scientists speak of evolution as a theory they do not mean that it is a mere speculation. It is a theory in the same sense as the propositions that the earth is round rather than flat or that our bodies are made of atoms are theories. Most people would consider such fundamental theories to be sufficiently tested by empirical evidence to conclude that they are indeed facts. As a result of the massive amount of evidence for biological evolution accumulated over the last two centuries, we can safely conclude that evolution has occurred and continues to occur."


"I can also personally show you the evidence of design of various biological components if you are interested"
- Please do.


"What is more likely involved in the origin of a logical system:

logic or no logic?

simple question. "

-What evidence do you have to show that the universe is a logical system? Why would you think that? Logic is a methodology of reasoning that humans use, to understand the nature of things. The universe is inherently chaotic, essentially an incomprehensible tangle of chaotic systems.


"This has been discerned Theologically and philosophically.

1) something cannot come from nothing (a physical law)
2) something exists
3) therefore, something must have always existed"

- You could just as easily say that the universe itself has always existed, adding a beginning-less intelligent creator to the scenario complicates things further. What we do know is that E=mc2, meaning that a tremendous amount of energy is contained in a small amount of mass and vice-versa. So while energy cannot be destroyed; it can be converted into mass and back again.

"According to quantum theory, the vacuum contains neither matter nor energy, but it does contain fluctuations, transitions between something and nothing in which potential existence can be transformed into real existence by the addition of energy.(Energy and matter are equivalent, since all matter ultimately consists of packets of energy.) Thus, the vacuum's totally empty space is actually a seething turmoil of creation and annihilation, which to the ordinary world appears calm because the scale of fluctuations in the vacuum is tiny and the fluctuations tend to cancel each other out."
- Malcolm W. Browne

originally posted by: daskakik

And even then, some people don't have that capacity.

Well of course they have the capacity to learn, that is my point. My original point was, what is taught?

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere
-What are you referring to here, the lightening striking the primordial ooze theory?

What we don't have is the original makeup of early Earth to play with. What was suggested above has long been discarded. The deal is we are very close in many areas. Even with that, the spark of life has nothing to do with evolution, so two areas are being fought against with creationism, how life began and how life evolved.

I guess we can just say F it and fall back to God spontaneously popped 10,000 of a species into reality.

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere

You forgot pooping and urinating. I remember a psychology teacher of mine used to say that pooping feels good because it's the first thing we ever figure out on our own. (IDK if that's true or not, lol)

I discarded them because crying seems to be an innate response to affect others' reactions whereas pooping and urinating are just biological processes.

BTW what you are talking about is the term anal retention. It's the first thing a human learns to control. That led to the description of an anal-retentive person. "Someone who has an extreme need to control their environment or situations and pays such attention to detail that it becomes an obsession and may be an annoyance to others".

i.e. Don't be so anal...

originally posted by: Venkuish1

These are nothing more than unsubstantiated assertions just like the ones you have been making all the way through. No evidence exists again.

It is a fact that protein monomers do not self-polymerize in water, it is thermodynamically unfavored. That's why proteins will decay in water into their monomeric components over time. Otherwise, there would be malignant masses of proteins forming throughout all water. Abiogenesis requires the opposite of reality.

This is why protein polymerization in cells is a very meticulous process that involves energy input in the form of ATP.

This is not an "unsubstantiated assertion" it is basic biochemistry. If amino acid chains self-assembled in water, life would not be possible. Hilarious how many stars from blindly believing atheists you got, who also are unaware of basic biochemistry hahaha. It's on par. I'm out, you guys just hate logic too much to see it is right in front of you.

Morality
Christian: behave like Christ as best as you can
Atheist: do whatever you want because it's all a random accident anyway. Survival of the fittest.

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere

"I can also personally show you the evidence of design of various biological components if you are interested"
- Please do.

Mitochondrion behave like hydrogen fuel cell generators: article

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1

These are nothing more than unsubstantiated assertions just like the ones you have been making all the way through. No evidence exists again.

It is a fact that protein monomers do not self-polymerize in water, it is thermodynamically unfavored. That's why proteins will decay in water into their monomeric components over time. Otherwise, there would be malignant masses of proteins forming throughout all water. Abiogenesis requires the opposite of reality.

This is why protein polymerization in cells is a very meticulous process that involves energy input in the form of ATP.

This is not an "unsubstantiated assertion" it is basic biochemistry. If amino acid chains self-assembled in water, life would not be possible. Hilarious how many stars from blindly believing atheists you got, who also are unaware of basic biochemistry hahaha. It's on par. I'm out, you guys just hate logic too much to see it is right in front of you.

Morality
Christian: behave like Christ as best as you can
Atheist: do whatever you want because it's all a random accident anyway. Survival of the fittest.

Addressing your morality argument.

You don't need Christ in your life to be moral and to be behave in a descent and acceptable way. You don't need the belief in supernatural forces to be a decent human who has principles and values. This is a reality that most us understand in the 21st century.


Addressing again your arguments from ignorance.

There is not a shred of evidence for the existence of your deity who is the intelligent designer of the universe. It's all a belief and you must have plenty of it to accept probably the greatest placebo that has ever existed.

Every argument you have made shows precisely why creationism cannot be taken seriously. From false arguments to complete misinterpretations and cherry picking of data to fit your worldview. You even referenced Professor Andy McIntosh who is a well known but notorious creationist who have used his position to promote garbage (although he isn't a biologist or geneticist).

As for abiogenesis, this is the only logical conclusion together with panspermia which still relies on abiogenesis but at different parts of the universe. Both are equally plausible. There is more evidence we need to prove it in the future but all the current evidence points there and not into a supernatural entity.

Perhaps you haven't come across the Miller Urey experiment which I have linked earlier in this thread and can be found everywhere online. From Wikipedia:

The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Miller experiment[2]) was an experiment in chemical synthesis carried out in 1952 that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present in the atmosphere of the early, prebiotic Earth. It is seen as one of the first successful experiments demonstrating the synthesis of organic compounds from inorganic constituents in an origin of life scenario. The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), in ratio 2:2:1 and an electric arc (the latter simulating lightning) and resulted in the production of amino acids.

It is regarded as a groundbreaking experiment, and the classic experiment investigating the origin of life (abiogenesis).It was performed in 1952 by Stanley Miller, supervised by Nobel laureate Harold Urey at the University of Chicago, and published the following year. At the time, it supported Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that the conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors

The question has already been answered. What we are waiting is more evidence to have definite proof just as it usually happens in science. You need to wait a considerable amount of time to have all the evidence you require.

I know you are out which means you are unable to continue push your worldview and your completely unsubstantiated claims because not many are willing subscribe to creationism. This is the 21st century if you haven't realised.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

Perhaps you haven't come across the Miller Urey experiment which I have linked earlier in this thread and can be found everywhere online. From Wikipedia:

The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Miller experiment[2]) was an experiment in chemical synthesis carried out in 1952 that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present in the atmosphere of the early, prebiotic Earth. It is seen as one of the first successful experiments demonstrating the synthesis of organic compounds from inorganic constituents in an origin of life scenario. The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), in ratio 2:2:1 and an electric arc (the latter simulating lightning) and resulted in the production of amino acids.

It is regarded as a groundbreaking experiment, and the classic experiment investigating the origin of life (abiogenesis).It was performed in 1952 by Stanley Miller, supervised by Nobel laureate Harold Urey at the University of Chicago, and published the following year. At the time, it supported Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that the conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors

The question has already been answered. What we are waiting is more evidence to have definite proof just as it usually happens in science. You need to wait a considerable amount of time to have all the evidence you require.

I know you are out which means you are unable to continue push your worldview and your completely unsubstantiated claims because not many are willing subscribe to creationism. This is the 21st century if you haven't realised.

Yeah I'm back, I can't let you go unanswered.

This is how I know you don't know what you're talking about. I bring up the thermodynamic hurdle of amino acid polymerization, and you reference an experiment that shows how amino acids are produced. These are two totally separate things. Amino acid polymerization, the hurdle that I was referring to, is when amino acid monomers form together to make protein chains. Whereas the Miller Urey experiment shows the formation of the amino acids monomers themselves. The thermodynamic hurdle is not the formation of amino acids, but the polymerization of them into chains.

You're just a blind believing atheist, along with the others who are starring your comments. It is clear to anyone trained in biology and chemistry that you have no idea what you're talking about. You referencing the Miller Urey experiment for amino acid polymerization shows you don't even understand the thermodynamic dilemma I am talking about. You google on the spot, and shoot from the hip, and it shows.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

You don't need Christ in your life to be moral and to be behave in a descent and acceptable way. You don't need the belief in supernatural forces to be a decent human who has principles and values. This is a reality that most us understand in the 21st century.

I never claimed you need Christ to behave well. Your little attempts to belittle me rely on strawman arguments. You're a cookie-cutter blindly believing atheist that can't defend their worldview.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1

Perhaps you haven't come across the Miller Urey experiment which I have linked earlier in this thread and can be found everywhere online. From Wikipedia:

The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Miller experiment[2]) was an experiment in chemical synthesis carried out in 1952 that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present in the atmosphere of the early, prebiotic Earth. It is seen as one of the first successful experiments demonstrating the synthesis of organic compounds from inorganic constituents in an origin of life scenario. The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), in ratio 2:2:1 and an electric arc (the latter simulating lightning) and resulted in the production of amino acids.

It is regarded as a groundbreaking experiment, and the classic experiment investigating the origin of life (abiogenesis).It was performed in 1952 by Stanley Miller, supervised by Nobel laureate Harold Urey at the University of Chicago, and published the following year. At the time, it supported Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that the conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors

The question has already been answered. What we are waiting is more evidence to have definite proof just as it usually happens in science. You need to wait a considerable amount of time to have all the evidence you require.

I know you are out which means you are unable to continue push your worldview and your completely unsubstantiated claims because not many are willing subscribe to creationism. This is the 21st century if you haven't realised.

Yeah I'm back, I can't let you go unanswered.

This is how I know you don't know what you're talking about. I bring up the thermodynamic hurdle of amino acid polymerization, and you reference an experiment that shows how amino acids are produced. These are two totally separate things. Amino acid polymerization, the hurdle that I was referring to, is when amino acid monomers form together to make protein chains. Whereas the Miller Urey experiment shows the formation of the amino acids monomers themselves. The thermodynamic hurdle is not the formation of amino acids, but the polymerization of them into chains.

You're just a blind believing atheist, along with the others who are starring your comments. It is clear to anyone trained in biology and chemistry that you have no idea what you're talking about. You referencing the Miller Urey experiment for amino acid polymerization shows you don't even understand the thermodynamic dilemma I am talking about. You google on the spot, and shoot from the hip, and it shows.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

You don't need Christ in your life to be moral and to be behave in a descent and acceptable way. You don't need the belief in supernatural forces to be a decent human who has principles and values. This is a reality that most us understand in the 21st century.

I never claimed you need Christ to behave well. Your little attempts to belittle me rely on strawman arguments. You're a cookie-cutter blindly believing atheist that can't defend their worldview.

It's ironic that nobody knows what they are talking about apart from creationists....

You have made a range of attempts to argue in favour of creationism by arguing about dark matter, cosmology, biology, biochemistry, genetics, to name a few. You even postulated that the law of gravitation is out by 2000% without understanding the basic mathematics involved.

Then you have asserted abiogenesis is not true and so does evolution because of your belief in the intelligent designer without a shred of evidence but with plenty of faith in your supernatural deity. I am sure that those who are trained in any scientific field need much more than faith in the supernatural world.

You have repeatedly argued against abiogenesis when the Miller - Urey experiment clearly shows how amino-acids come into existence. Since amino acids are the buildings blocks of proteins and hence the buildings blocks of life you answer the question on how amino acids were formed abf can be formed and you get a very good idea of what leads to life.

I never made any reference to amino-acid polymerization but if you are struggling with grade10 chemistry then I recommend you open a chemistry book. Amino acid polymerization is not a hurdle but a fact that you are unable to accept because of your belief in creationism.

From my link:

It is seen as one of the first successful experiments demonstrating the synthesis of organic compounds from inorganic constituents in an origin of life scenario.

It is regarded as a groundbreaking experiment, and the classic experiment investigating the origin of life (abiogenesis).

If you really think there is no need for belief in the supernatural to have morals then congratulations you have answered correctly the question posed in this thread.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Well of course they have the capacity to learn, that is my point. My original point was, what is taught?

Well, some things you learn on your own and others depend on where you are raised.

Most people are taught to obey the law. That is why some of us have been saying that it is a set of secular morals.

Then you have religious folk who might grow up in an area with a gang problem and despite being religious, learn to break the law and to not cooperate with the cops.

I say this because you keep mentioning big cities. It isn't a lack of religion, it is just a different set of morals held by religious people.

originally posted by: cooperton
You referencing the Miller Urey experiment for amino acid polymerization shows you don't even understand the thermodynamic dilemma I am talking about.

Can you explain why you even think this is a thermodynamic dilemma?

originally posted by: Venkuish1
It's ironic that nobody knows what they are talking about apart from creationists....

No, plenty of atheists know about chemical thermodynamics, you don't though. The worse part is you pretend you do, and you get exposed for it.

Do you admit the miller-urey experiment you presented is irrelevant to amino acid polymerization?

You have repeatedly argued against abiogenesis when the Miller - Urey experiment clearly shows how amino-acids come into existence. Since amino acids are the buildings blocks of proteins and hence the buildings blocks of life you answer the question on how amino acids were formed abf can be formed and you get a very good idea of what leads to life.

I never made any reference to amino-acid polymerization but if you are struggling with grade10 chemistry then I recommend you open a chemistry book. Amino acid polymerization is not a hurdle but a fact that you are unable to accept because of your belief in creationism.

From my link:


It is seen as one of the first successful experiments demonstrating the synthesis of organic compounds from inorganic constituents in an origin of life scenario.

It is regarded as a groundbreaking experiment, and the classic experiment investigating the origin of life (abiogenesis).

Oh great joy, you STILL don't know the difference between amino acid polymerization and monomer formation. I never argued that amino acids cannot form with thermodynamic favoribility, I argued that the resultant amino acids are not thermodynamically favored to polymerize into chains in water. You even had a chance to google it bro, come on now. This is why it is so hard to discuss science with atheists, you all don't know what you're talking about, and then assume because I believe differently than you that I must be wrong. But you consistently get caught arguing against well-known chemical facts. Real facts, not the speculative mutant ape progeny speculation

originally posted by: daskakik
Can you explain why you even think this is a thermodynamic dilemma?

polymer chains spontaneously decompose over time into monomers, not the other way around. A perfect example is boiling vegetables, the polymers break down and the food softens. You can't return a baked potato into its raw counterpart by just sitting and waiting. It is well-known that dead organisms decompose, this is due to the thermodynamic fact that protein and DNA polymers tend towards monomerization, rather than polymerization. It requires cellular machinery to create polymers from amino acid monomers

a reply to: cooperton

Why would we assume the initial concentration was all potassium? We never see 100% pure samples of anything in nature, not even gold. Yet we're supposed to believe isotopes are magically the only exception in order to maintain that everything is super old?

I totally see the hang-up here.

Original is moot.

Say you have this sample that is analyzed with a certain percentage of all elements and isotopes.

You go by what's the available percentage of Ar-40 vs the percentage of K-40. If there is 45% Ar for 55% K in the sample you know that the sample has been decaying at least as long as it took for 45% of the K to decay into Ar.

So if it takes X for half of K to decay into Ar, you just go from there.

You know for certain at which point all the Ar-40 in the sample was K-40. As there are no original concentrations of Ar-40. And you can say for certain that rock has been there for at least that long.

originally posted by: cooperton
Do you admit the miller-urey experiment you presented is irrelevant to amino acid polymerization?

But it isn't, it is the first step in process.

And I did a quick google and it seems amino acid polymerization in water as well as on rocks is possible. Maybe you should be googling as well because your data seems to be dated.

Polymerization of beta-amino acids in aqueous solution
Polymerization on the rocks: beta-amino acids and arginine