Atheism growing in America

[Lunar Shadow]

Quote: (Originally Posted by SecretWeapon)

4 - Both male and female forms would need to make themselves and be near each other in space and time - OR asexual bacteria
would have to change into sexual bacteria, how could this happen?

I can adress this one right away
the process goes as follows

You get asexual first, then viruses acting like sperm, then male/female, etc.

it will take a little time to respond to all points underlined mind you but a good start for you is try and find online (I don't know your internet connection speed) and download the NOVA series from PBS that deals with the origin of our solar system the title of the 4 part series is called "Origins"


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/

and also you can learn more about Abiogenesis in the mean time at www.talkorigins.com

I will be back but alas I must do soem research and I also have to be at work early tomorrow morning

I do have my work cut out for me answering you and UD in the next day or so

[SecretWeapon]

Quote:

You get asexual first, then viruses acting like sperm, then male/female, etc.

Oh ok. But where do the viruses come from?

http://www.mrs.umn.edu/~goochv/CellB...rus/virus.html

Quote:

A virus can not reproduce on its own, it must infect a living cell in order to reproduce. The nucleic acid directs and utilizes the host cell machinery to reproduce more of itself. It is important to note that the viral component is only a small part of the large reproductive machinery needed to make a new virus or a new cell. The bulk of that reproductive machinery (most enzymes, energy supply, ribosomes, basic building block components, right environment) comes from the living cell that was invaded. The virus simply replaces the coding part of the cell and redirects that coding. (A poor analogy would be thinking of a virus as a replacement steering wheel on a car, whereby you certainly would not call a steering wheel a car, but it can dramatically affect the direction of the car.)

Quote:

Is a virus alive?
Yes - They reproduce which is a definite form of organization. True, they can not do it on their own, yet all living systems are open systems and depend upon their environment for survival. It is just that the environment a virus requires is another living cell. This is actually true for many symbiotic and parasitic cells.
No - A virus is not a living machine . It is only part of a machine, namely the blueprints. The virus only provides the plans, the cell has done the real living work. Outside of its host the virus shows no living qualities.

Were they randomly created alongside the "extremely simple"
new life form? They would have had to have been created
(being not alive, technically) while the primitive life form(s)
was already alive and functioning, and in the same exact point
in space and time to be able to find the life form(s). This only adds
to the improbability. Does it not?

[Lunar Shadow]

my apologies for not yet responding....... my 9 month old did something to my computer that ended up frying the mother board and I am trying to fix it it may take a few more days (due to the fact that I do have a job not to mention 2 small children.

I am over at my parents house right now using their computer but it is rather late.


warmest regards,

Lunar Shadow

[uncertaindrumer]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow)

If you'd like I can get you materal on objective natualistic morality. gimmie a bit here I need to go out and run some errands.

I suppose I wouldn't mind although most of the relevant material I have read always starts bordering on pantheism, which I can barely even talk about it is so pathetic.

Basically I am wary of reading anything on the subject because it seems useless. As soon as one says "objective morality" it means something beyond humans (since, if it isn't higher than it isn't objective). And that seems to deny atheism right away. I guess one can make the argument that the moral law is not a God per se, but it is still higher than humans, and it has to have come from somwhere, and that somewhere also *has* to be higher than humans, which would then, effectively deflate any notion that humans are as high as it gets, which is what most atheists mean by their atheism.

There are many other problems with "morality outside God", such as how we know of this morality, but the first one is the one which just seems to nip the whole darn thing in the bud.

[SecretWeapon]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

I suppose I wouldn't mind although most of the relevant material I have read always starts bordering on pantheism, which I can barely even talk about it is so pathetic.

Basically I am wary of reading anything on the subject because it seems useless. As soon as one says "objective morality" it means something beyond humans (since, if it isn't higher than it isn't objective). And that seems to deny atheism right away. I guess one can make the argument that the moral law is not a God per se, but it is still higher than humans, and it has to have come from somwhere, and that somewhere also *has* to be higher than humans, which would then, effectively deflate any notion that humans are as high as it gets, which is what most atheists mean by their atheism.

There are many other problems with "morality outside God", such as how we know of this morality, but the first one is the one which just seems to nip the whole darn thing in the bud.

Add that to the fact that we can't go back in time and see where
religion allegedly "began". Apearantly every culture in Earth's past
seems to have had some form of moral code, or at least higher being
to hold them acountable. So, from a historical standpoint, it would
seem that it can't be proven by "particular" evidence that morals have
been around longer than religion. Thus, methinks, atheists attempt to
prove their argument by way of psychology, etc, which basically
means that they are attempting to using the realm of "absolutes" to
prove that absolutes are natural (the pack of wolves argument) and
not supernatural.

However, if a young healthy son risks his life for his
old, decrepid father who is terminaly ill... where is the "natural"
advantage in that? For a young, healthy person, still able to mate
and bring about offspring, to sacrifice their own lives/health for a
person who is, by evolutionary standards, worthless is, by all natural
explanation, unimaginable. (Assuming the son has no offspring) Yet
I'm sure it's happened at least once in history. And few doubt that it
is capable of the human species.

[Lunar Shadow]

Quote: (Originally Posted by SecretWeapon)

Yeah, I know ABiogenesis is complicated, and I'm not too stupid to
understand that.



Show me where I said that ABiogenesis is this simple. I don't recall ever
saying that it is simple at all. After following that link and reading that
article, I left alot of these points not underlined, but if you could explain
away the underlined ones (without being rude) I'd be much obliged.
Ignore the ones not underlined. Number one will most likely make you
flip out, like you usually do. Ignore it. Yes, please forgive me, I got it
from a "fundie" website, but if you do not explain I will be forced to believe
that you cannot.

1 - Spontaneous generation has been scientifically disproved

2 - Instant success would have to be necessary for the life form to survive

3 - Thousands of essential body parts and thousands more of essential chemical compounds would have to instantly form themselves

4 - Both male and female forms would need to make themselves and be near each other in space and time - OR asexual bacteria
would have to change into sexual bacteria, how could this happen?

5 - Law of mass action would immediately destroy chemical compounds

6 - Water is never enough to produce life chemicals

7 - There is no lab equipment out in nature

8 - Condensation problem: Water must be carefully removed for fats, sugars, and nucleic acids to derive out of protein

9 - Precipitation problem: Enzymes would immediately be destroyed

10 - Most life chemicals not found in watery environment

11 - Lightning bolts only damage and kill and could not be the energy source

12 - Oxygen problem: Life could not originate where there is oxygen

13 - Life could not survive without continual oxygen

14 - Oxidized iron is found in rocks existing where life is said to have originated

15 - Life can not originate without water. But there can be no water without oxygen

16 - A reducing atmosphere (no oxygen) would produce life-killing peroxides

17 - Ultraviolet light in reducing atmosphere would immediately kill life

18 - Without oxygen, there would be no protective ozone layer

19 - Proteins would immediately hydrolyze and destroy themselves

20 - There would not be enough chemicals available to form even the simplest protein

21 - Nitrogen is in most biochemicals, but there is not enough concentrated nitrogen in nature to form life

22 - There is not enough available phosporus in nature either

23 - Scientists have no idea how to make fatty acids or how they could make themselves

24 - The atmosphere throughout the world would have to instantly change from no oxygen to its present oxygen-rich content

25 - Extremely complicated chemical combinations not found in nonliving material exist in living tissue

26 - Residue problem: Since such extremely rich chemical mixtures are found in living things, we should find residues of them in nature, but they do not exist

27 - Accidental formations of amino acids would produce equal amounts of left- and right-handed forms which exist in animal life

28 - Dissolution problem: Even if correct chemicals gather together, the next instant they would spontaneously disintegrate by forming with other chemicals

29 - Immediate, complete duplication and reproduction of DNA, Protein enzymes, fats, cells, etc. would be needed for survival

30 - There is not the remotest possibility life could originate by itself. There is not enough time and space in all the universe and in all eternity to product our present myriad of living species on earth


I'm also interested in how the Cambrian Explosion is explained. Apearantly
a "boom" of complicated creatures came out of nowhere, with no fossil
evidence of more simple creatures before them.

Also, if the "fundie" websites have a good point I'm going to use it. If you
dismiss a fact just because of who said it then I say you are ignorant.
I could say that my hair is brown and you could choose to disbelieve it
just because my name is Ryan, but that doesn't make much sense, does it?
Of course not. Just because a website that is "fundie" says something
doesn't mean that you should ignore just because it came
from a "fundie" site, even if it's true.

rather than quote mining and taking up Steves bandwidth I am just gonna post a link for a rebuttle it is on you to read it and if you don't thats not my problem..... if you have any questions then we'll talk. Go HERE


and to answer the Macroevolution question you can go HERE

[Lunar Shadow]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

I suppose I wouldn't mind although most of the relevant material I have read always starts bordering on pantheism, which I can barely even talk about it is so pathetic.

ok UD there are really only 3 elements that are required for a natural moral code to exist

sentience (awareness)
a sense of value
and a sense of reciprocity

using these three things a basic moral code can emerge... if you need a more detailed explaination just ask.

[uncertaindrumer]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow)

ok UD there are really only 3 elements that are required for a natural moral code to exist

sentience (awareness)
a sense of value
and a sense of reciprocity

using these three things a basic moral code can emerge... if you need a more detailed explaination just ask.

Umm, let's say for the moment that this is true. Where did our "sense of value" come from? It seems to me just a different way of saying we have the capability to look at things and say one is better than the other. Where did these values come from? Why do humans alone do things that might *not* benefit themselves or even their species, but instead follow some morality? Where did these values come from?

Even if we take this as a valid premise (that we need only sentience, a sense of value, and a sense of reciprocity, whatever you mean by that), let alone the questions regarding what those three things even ARE, it is not really doing anything for the argument. Not only does it fail to explain why a moral law would be useful, (or even a "law" at all; again, if no one has to live by it, who gives a crap), but it fails because a law needs a judge and we don't have one, a law needs authority and it has none, and a law still has to come from seomwhere.

[Lunar Shadow]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Umm, let's say for the moment that this is true. Where did our "sense of value" come from? It seems to me just a different way of saying we have the capability to look at things and say one is better than the other. Where did these values come from? Why do humans alone do things that might *not* benefit themselves or even their species, but instead follow some morality? Where did these values come from?

Even if we take this as a valid premise (that we need only sentience, a sense of value, and a sense of reciprocity, whatever you mean by that), let alone the questions regarding what those three things even ARE, it is not really doing anything for the argument. Not only does it fail to explain why a moral law would be useful, (or even a "law" at all; again, if no one has to live by it, who gives a crap), but it fails because a law needs a judge and we don't have one, a law needs authority and it has none, and a law still has to come from seomwhere.

you misunderstood the use value... hmmmmm lest see you have value for something you worked for like say your paycheck so if some one tried to steal it from you you would fight to keep it it has more value than just a dollar to you because you worked for it. now if you put up some sort of fight for it you will probably win because the fact that the one trying to steal it doen't value your paycheck as much as you do for the one fact that he didn't work for it.

look at value this way see if this makes more sense to you.

[uncertaindrumer]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow)

you misunderstood the use value... hmmmmm lest see you have value for something you worked for like say your paycheck so if some one tried to steal it from you you would fight to keep it it has more value than just a dollar to you because you worked for it. now if you put up some sort of fight for it you will probably win because the fact that the one trying to steal it doen't value your paycheck as much as you do for the one fact that he didn't work for it.

look at value this way see if this makes more sense to you.

No I figured that was what you meant. So I ask you a few things;

A) Who decides what is more valuable?

B) Where did we even get the sense of value anyway?

C) How does this lead to morals, since a sense of value would very well look at what is important to US, not other people.

I dunno. I am simply not getting why this makes the unworkability of a moral law with a moral judge somehow workable.

[Lunar Shadow]

It is there morality is based on the 3 things I list above and at some point(IMHO) it got a wash of religion and that is where the idea that a god handed down some sort of moral code. This type of basic morality is obsevable in many areaa out side of the "human world".


do tell me UD why don't you masturbate or have sex or swear or anything like that go deeper than "it is wrong becasue god (or the bible) says so." Why is it wrong there has to be some logical rationality for your decision. There is someting there that has nothing to do with god it is you who makes that decision of why or why not you do something. what is it (we know that one thing you'll say is god so you can go ahead and skip that) but there has to be something deeper.

[uncertaindrumer]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow)

It is there morality is based on the 3 things I list above and at some point(IMHO) it got a wash of religion and that is where the idea that a god handed down some sort of moral code. This type of basic morality is obsevable in many areaa out side of the "human world".


do tell me UD why don't you masturbate or have sex or swear or anything like that go deeper than "it is wrong becasue god (or the bible) says so." Why is it wrong there has to be some logical rationality for your decision. There is someting there that has nothing to do with god it is you who makes that decision of why or why not you do something. what is it (we know that one thing you'll say is god so you can go ahead and skip that) but there has to be something deeper.

I think you are confused. God is as deep as it gets. He made a Natural Law, and it is that law which lets people know what is right and wrong.

It is strange that YOU are arguing for something deeper. I have the answer. God created the moral law. You have no answer. For you, there can be no law because there is nothing higher than humanity. Without anything higher than humanity, there simply can't be a higher law. It is a pure contradiction. You can try to throw up as many smokescreens as you want but when you get down to it, when I ask you if you have ever done something for someone besides yourself, and you answer "yes", you have no justification for it. There is no reason to if there is no God.

[Lunar Shadow]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

I think you are confused. God is as deep as it gets. He made a Natural Law, and it is that law which lets people know what is right and wrong.

You have just admited that there is a natual moral law, Thank you for coming to you senses. now lets just say for one second here that "god" created natual moral law. There are pleanty of people who don't believe in god nor do they believe in your god but they lead moral lives. Christians believe that there are people who will never hear god but they still live a moral life why is that? it is because morality is inherent therefore the arguemnt of god is superfulous because it (morality) is built in to the system.

If you look at animals they also have moral codes weather it be chimps, bird, or bees... They ALL demonstrate altruism in one matter or another.... every animal demonstrates altruism at some point or another when they are parents therefore morality is not unique to humans it is natual and inherent, built in to the system weather your god put it there or not doen't matter because it is there and you don't have to believe in a god to be moral bacause I highly doubt that a honey bee knows who or what god is let alone ponders it on a daily basis.

now to apply Occum's Razor to the question of god.... Now Occum's Razor states that the explainations with the fewest X factors (unknows) is gonna be the most correct.

now thinking about all the X factors that are required to justify god being reposible for morality...

Has to have a vested interest in the world
Has to have an Emotional interest in the world
Has to be real (exist)
Has to be activly in volved
(none of the are provable therefore they are X factors)
(mind you the list of X factors can go on and on)

VS.

god is not responsible for morlaity in anyway
(hmmm no real X factors here)


therefore god is probably not responsible for morality.

Quote:

It is strange that YOU are arguing for something deeper. I have the answer. God created the moral law. You have no answer. For you, there can be no law because there is nothing higher than humanity. Without anything higher than humanity, there simply can't be a higher law. It is a pure contradiction. You can try to throw up as many smokescreens as you want but when you get down to it, when I ask you if you have ever done something for someone besides yourself, and you answer "yes", you have no justification for it. There is no reason to if there is no God.

as you see from what I have stated above you are the one who contradicted yourself.... there is no reason to continue this post. you are beaten

[SecretWeapon]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

I think you are confused. God is as deep as it gets. He made a Natural Law, and it is that law which lets people know what is right and wrong.

It is strange that YOU are arguing for something deeper. I have the answer. God created the moral law. You have no answer. For you, there can be no law because there is nothing higher than humanity. Without anything higher than humanity, there simply can't be a higher law. It is a pure contradiction. You can try to throw up as many smokescreens as you want but when you get down to it, when I ask you if you have ever done something for someone besides yourself, and you answer "yes", you have no justification for it. There is no reason to if there is no God.

Exactly. Most, if not all theists freely admit that they don't have all the answers, whereas atheists claim that they can find an answer to every
morality puzzle. This should cause a little red flag to pop up. Mortal
philosophy has been wrong in the past, who's to say that atheism is
infallible truth?

[Lunar Shadow]

who said Atheism is infallible truth? It is so funny how you sit there and point out all the mistakes of Atheistic Philosophy. When Christianity has been wrong just as much it is seriously the pot calling the kettle black.


Whats up Secret Weapon? where is your resopnse to me?? did you finally realize that also believe in Abiogenesis? mind you a different kind of Abiogenesis but still Abiogenesis none the less.