How can atheism have morality?

a reply to: cooperton
Wrong, things decompose because of microorganism breaking them down.

That was the big deal about the soft tissue in dino bones. They lasted 40K years, according to you, they didn't decompose, so stop trying to have your cake and eat it too.

originally posted by: Degradation33

You go by what's available the 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 is the sample was K-40. And you can say for certain that rock has been there for at least that long.

So you can determine minimum age, but not maximum.

And the missing un

Yes that is the methodology they use. But consider how unlikely it would be that this ratio at any point, even at the initial point of formation, would have ever been 100% K-40. There's no pure samples of K-40 that we have found in nature so this is especially a stretch.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: cooperton
Wrong, things decompose because of microorganism breaking them down.

Micro-organisms do accelerate this process, but even in an aseptic aqueous environment, proteins and DNA polymers will break down into monomers, rather than form spontaneous polymers. It is thermodynamic fact.

originally posted by: daskakik
But it isn't, it is the first step in process.

He said they solved the thermodynamic problem of polymerization, but they did not. Amino acids form with thermodynamic favorability. It is not shocking that amino acid monomers form.

a reply to: cooperton
No, they are favored to break down but given the right conditions the opposite happens.

That is what all this boils down to:

You: Those conditions never existed

Others: They could have

You are talking absolutes without knowing what conditions have existed. You could look at geology and see that there are all kinds of different conditions throughout the globe.

Then we have panspermia, which pole vaults over your thermodynamic dilemma hurdle.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: cooperton
No, they are favored to break down but given the right conditions the opposite happens.

What do you mean the right conditions? Even if heat or pressure is increased, this will actually amplify monomerization, as exhibited in boiling soup.

You: Those conditions never existed

Others: They could have

You are talking absolutes without knowing what conditions have existed. You could look at geology and see that there are all kinds of different conditions throughout the globe.

Sure, you could use the same logic to explain the existence of a flying spaghetti monster creator.

Then we have panspermia, which pole vaults over your thermodynamic dilemma hurdle.

Yeah but it also regresses the thermodynamic problem to another planet. You could argue that thermodynamics are different elsewhere in the universe

a reply to: cooperton
Amino acid concentration, pH, heat but not boiling temps, minerals that act as catalysts.

Sure, you could use the same logic to explain the existence of a flying spaghetti monster creator.

It is what you use to explain the existence of your god.

Pot, meet kettle.

Yeah but it also regresses the thermodynamic problem to another planet. You could argue that thermodynamics are different elsewhere in the universe

But it multiplies the chances of there being the right conditions to an unimaginable number.

a reply to: cooperton

But your missing the implication of Ar-40 here.

It IS ONLY the decay product of K-40.

Okay, Igneous rock. Let's say we want to date a magmatic flow. There is an ancient supervolcano under Arizona, Kingman to be precise. Using The Cardenas Lava Flows near the Grand Canyon. They formed 810 MYA, and were dated as followed.

It is assumed in geology that argon is excluded from igneous rock as it cools, thus no Ar-40 exists in the original sample. (That has been confirmed by recent deposits studied)

We know it started as all potassium. So when we do the measurement of K-40 vs Ar-40 we know know how much parent became daughter and can do a minimum age.

It's not like the rock loses potassium or it leaves the sample except by decay. An amount of K was there when the magma cooled. And from there it is only lost through decay.

There's no conundrum, there are always comparable parent/daughter in isotopes to determine minimum age.

And because K is present at the crystallization of most rocks, it's the most common one for concluding when the rock crystalized.

You really can't dispute anything but the assumption concentrations of potassium are present in most newly crystalized rock. It's 1/40th of the crust, after all.

originally posted by: daskakik
It is what you use to explain the existence of your god.

Pot, meet kettle.

Yeah I was using it as an example in response to you saying that absence of evidence doesn't disprove something, in order to maintain the potential validity of evolution and abiogenesis.

Amino acid concentration, pH, heat but not boiling temps, minerals that act as catalysts.

Yeah low pH was one of the leading theories for a while with the underwater vents. The problem is, that even if polymerization were to occur at these low pH's, it would denature the resulting structure of the protein. Denaturization is irreversible.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: cooperton

But your missing the implication of Ar-40 here.

It IS ONLY the decay product of K-40.

How do they know that? Is there a pure sample you can point to that proves this? Ar-40 could occur naturally by other means, especially during initial formation usually isotopes form in ratios.

originally posted by: cooperton
Yeah I was using it as an example in response to you saying that absence of evidence doesn't disprove something, in order to maintain the potential validity of evolution and abiogenesis.

But it is exactly what you do when asked who created god. You propose a condition, that may or may not exist, and want to state it as a fact and then want to claim you are objective and being scientific about the subject.

Yeah low pH was one of the leading theories for a while with the underwater vents. The problem is, that even if polymerization were to occur at these low pH's, it would denature the resulting structure of the protein. Denaturization is irreversible.

pH is a scale, who said it had to be a really low pH? And the other variables are unknown. I linked a paper talking about polymerization happening on rocks. So even this amino acids can't do that in water isn't a nail in that coffin.

originally posted by: cooperton

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

Not really as it's the beginning of the process. Without amino acids there would be no proteins and hence no life. The Miller Urey experiment is not irrelevant to amino acid polymerization it's only irrelevant to those who pretend they understand science but they try to promote creationism. There is no amino acid polymerization without amino acids.

Amino acids are the buildings blocks of proteins and so the buildings blocks of life and question in how the amino acids are formed is already answered.

I will quote myself from my last post but it's relevant to my answer here

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.

Amino acid polymerization is not a hurdle or a mystery but knowledge at a very basic level. There is no need to discuss it. The main question is how amino acids are formed but this question has been answered already.

And from the relevant Wikipedia page for the Miller Urey experiment:

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're struggling with the basics that's another issue but try to open a book rather than arguing the gravitation law is by 2000% off and there is a supernatural mystery that involves amino acid polymerization. Grade10 chemistry will help the situation.

originally posted by: daskakik

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

The poster obviously lacks basic knowledge and tries to bring his belief in the supernatural world in...amino acid polymerization!

Same thing happened when he tried to bring his belief in the supernatural world in cosmology and especially when he talked about dark matter.

originally posted by: cooperton

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.

I really have no idea why some Christians think that without God, the non believer lives as if there are no consequences for their actions. Like they are incapable of empathy. You remind me of my mother's husband with that statement above. He truly is of the position that people who "believe" in or study evolution, are just in it to justify their flesh and deny God.

I will point out that there are many upstanding people that don't need your specific God, and some that don't need any. So to act like the non-Christian is in it only for themselves and their worldy pleassures is an ignorant thing to believe.

I don't broadbrush all Christians into a single like minded group. I don't sit here wondering if you (Coop) are organizing the next Westboro Baptist type protest. You'd be the first to say not all Christians are the same, so don't act like all non Christians are the same.

Another thing, the bad actors of secular scientists are just as bad as bad actors in "creation science" but I've never seen you acknowledge that. Only cling to their questionable findings and go with them to fit your narrative. The road goes both ways, is my point.

a reply to: Venkuish1

Cooperton is not a scientist. He has no credentials. Has never been in a lab. Knows nothing about polymerization or any other chemical reaction. Information he picks up from the internet is simply reconfigured to fit his narrative.
He has never posted one iota of evidence, no laboratory results, no research, no nothing. Just high volume rhetoric which is incoherent.

a reply to: cooperton

Everything you need to know, you'll find the problems useful.

geoinfo.nmt.edu...

Yes, we assume a closed system and the sublimation of argon from the sample initially. This has been confirmed by new examples having no argon present.

But this does have its long standing criticism.

Because the K/Ar dating technique relies on the determining the absolute abundances of both 40Ar and potassium, there is not a reliable way to determine if the assumptions are valid. Argon loss and excess argon are two common problems that may cause erroneous ages to be determined. Argon loss occurs when radiogenic 40Ar (40Ar*) produced within a rock/mineral escapes sometime after its formation. Alteration and high temperature can damage a rock/mineral lattice sufficiently to allow 40Ar* to be released. This can cause the calculated K/Ar age to be younger than the "true" age of the dated material. Conversely, excess argon (40ArE) can cause the calculated K/Ar age to be older than the "true" age of the dated material. Excess argon is simply 40Ar that is attributed to radiogenic 40Ar and/or atmospheric 40Ar. Excess argon may be derived from the mantle, as bubbles trapped in a melt, in the case of a magma. Or it could be a xenocryst/xenolith trapped in a magma/lava during emplacement.

But when so many samples paint the same picture of argon accumulating over time, the instances where excess/depleted argon can cause faulty readings don't invalidate the accuracy as a whole. Just certain samples, which are averaged with others.

There are some interesting and humorous criticisms.

Here's one of yours. It's a neat experiment on "negative testing" K/Ar dating.

When muscovite (a common mineral in crustal rocks) is heated to 740°-860°C under high Ar pressures for periods of 3 to 10.5 hours it absorbs significant quantities of Ar, producing K-Ar "ages" of up to 5 billion years, and the absorbed Ar is indistinguishable from radiogenic argon (40Ar*).

See when we saturate a sample with argon we can show an erroneous age, thus we can discredit this method entirely.

There are problems, but the instances of excess and depleted alike still alive at an average that laughs at the creationist timescale.

originally posted by: Degradation33

There are problems, but the instances of excess and depleted alike still alive at an average that laughs at the creationist timescale.

The age of the earth is never given, it was said to have existed when God began creation. I don't know how old the earth is, nor does anyone else.

originally posted by: Phantom42338 Knows nothing about polymerization or any other chemical reaction.

Patently untrue, amino acid polymerization is thermodynamically unfavorable in water. It's a fact. That is literally knowing something about polymerization.

originally posted by: cooperton
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.

Jesus lived by example far better than his Father did.

Our Morality vs. God's Morality

An old thread with examples from scripture of God approved rape, slavery, Capital Punishment for stupid "crimes", examples of God personally killing people, and even an example where he seemingly accepted a human sacrifice.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

An old thread with examples from scripture of God approved rape, slavery, Capital Punishment for stupid "crimes", examples of God personally killing people, and even an example where he seemingly accepted a human sacrifice.

These stories have context that are important. Death and suffering is not necessarily 'bad', it is stages of conscious development that are helpful to raise a soul into the eternal realms. Even Jesus went through immense suffering and death...

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

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.

I really have no idea why some Christians think that without God, the non believer lives as if there are no consequences for their actions. Like they are incapable of empathy. You remind me of my mother's husband with that statement above. He truly is of the position that people who "believe" in or study evolution, are just in it to justify their flesh and deny God.

Huh? It's matter of fact. Christians try to resemble Christ. Atheist's have a more open morality. If atheism is true, then it opens a broad road of justifications. I never said atheists can't be good people. I am reflecting on when I was young and atheist, and my fellow atheist friends, there was no reason not to steal from Sheetz, for example, they were just some corporate structure that was profiting off oil stolen from the Middle East, the average person deserves their dividends from paying taxes to seize the oil reserves.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

The poster obviously lacks basic knowledge and tries to bring his belief in the supernatural world in...amino acid polymerization!

Same thing happened when he tried to bring his belief in the supernatural world in cosmology and especially when he talked about dark matter.

Do you know the difference yet between amino acid polymerization and amino acid formation? Come on, you were acting like an expert, I expected more from you! You even had a chance to do a few google searches and you dropped the ball.

And yes, it still remains a fact that dark matter was theorized due to the gravitational equations missing a remarkable amount of observable matter on the galactic level. You just never will admit you that I was right because you're not objective.

originally posted by: Phantom42338
a reply to: Venkuish1

Cooperton is not a scientist. He has no credentials. Has never been in a lab. Knows nothing about polymerization or any other chemical reaction. Information he picks up from the internet is simply reconfigured to fit his narrative.
He has never posted one iota of evidence, no laboratory results, no research, no nothing. Just high volume rhetoric which is incoherent.

Their arguments have become very absurd and what anyone would expect as time passes from a creationist. You need to take a look at our conversations when you can get the main idea. All their arguments are based on misinterpretations, falsifications, misunderstandings, and plenty of faith in the supernatural world which comes as fact free.

They believe they can argue about concepts and principles they don't understand and this gives them credit to argue about creationism. In reality the opposite happens as anyone can spot the obvious lack of understanding of understanding of the basis in science which makes them lose all credibility.

The argument is so absurd as to agree the creation of amino acids has a natural causes but amino acid polymerization has supernatural causes!

Earlier it was the same argument about dark matter or the absence of it. The behaviour of stars in spiral galaxies (see galaxy rotation curves) and the fact they are rotating faster then they should was seen by creationists as having supernatural causes.

The highlight of our conversation was when I asked whether he can find peer reviewed scientific papers and reviews on creationism. They are none but I was given a list with papers that show nothing about intelligent design. But when I asked again i was given the works of Professor Andy McIntosh who is a notorious creationist who used his position as an academic to promote the garbage of creationism without succeeding.

Truly amazing how creationism is still regarded as true but the lazy and the lame like you said.