If Hitchen's challenge is correct, then why are there ethical lapses?

[KungKras]

BenVTrigger said:

Jay520 said:

BenVTrigger said:

Jay520 said:

BenVTrigger said:

Answer the question.  If you came up to the Mona Lisa or Statue of David which is more logical.  To believe that they created themselves or that a sculpture / painter made them.

Poor argument. You are bringing up human-made objects and asking if they were created. Of course they were created by humans. But for every human-made object, there's infinitely many more natural objects in the universe. And you can't use human-made objects to infer things about nonhuman-made objects.

Sure you can.  The single cell alone pretty much trumps the idea of chance.  You get into the whole realm of irriducibly complex parts and systems that had to coalesce simultaneously but that alone is a novel in itself.

So just because you have proved that some things were created, that means all things were created?

I....I don't know what to say to that.

Of course you dont know what to say.  Your dodging the debate.

Explain to me how the single cell, the basic building block of life, has irriducibly complex parts and systems that had to simultaniously come together happened by chance.

Go ahead.  And this is a single cell were talking about here.  We havent even gotten deep yet were still treading in the shallow water.

Lipid bubbles are very similar to cell membranes in how they work. Combining lipids and RNA, and some basic building blocks, scientists have been able to create rudimentary forms of life.

It's not perfect, but it's bringing us closer to finding out how the early life formed were formed.

My point is, that we've managed to create life that uses much simpler components than the high-end cells that life consists of today.

EDIT: I have to ask out of curiosity. Evey time you show up in one of these threads, you claim to be a non-believer, but you keep arguing for the creationism side. What exactly are your beliefs?

EDIT: @ Richardhutnic

It's a shame that the thread became so off-topic with religions vs non-religion. I assume you want the soloution to what you see as an ethical paradox in Hitchens' challenge?

I think the answer to your question in the OP is that you have misunderstood and convoluted what is a pretty simple statement. Being able to be just as moral as a religious person, plus not being burdened by the more questionable stuff in the doctrine, does not make you a perfect super human, you're still human. And that's pretty much it.