You give humanity too little credit.  We are capable of learning from experience, and we have learned that when some things happen to us we don't like it.  We have also learned that when we do something to someone, there is the possibility that it can happen.  Humans (generally) have had it ingrained in their most basic understanding of interpersonal relationships that not offending others will typically lead to reciprocal behaviour which is a desired state.  You can consider it a social contract of sorts.  We learned proper behaviour by analyzing what we do and don't like done to us.  The golden rule really is golden.

And of course as social skills began building in early humans.  We obviously didn't start off knowing morals as a species, though that should be obvious since some people continue to add more rules as time has passed.  Social evolution has not stopped.

============================================ 

2. The Existence of Objective Moral Standards

Relativism leads to absurd conclusions which undermine its credibility. For example, moral relativism impedes our ability to think critically and rationally about moral and ethical issues.

If there is no absolute moral law then there is no basis for making moral judgments or decisions. Would we say that Mother Teresa is no more or less virtuous than Adolf Hitler? If there is no absolute moral standard, how can we call Hitler and the Nazi atrocities absolutely wrong? Is genocide relatively wrong or absolutely wrong?

Pure moral relativism has always been an easily refuted and fallible philosophy. Moral relativity in its purest form would virtually condone all behavior no matter how many rights are violated or the resulting consequences. It continues to thrive because it’s the easy way out. If man is the measure of all things, including morality, then he has no one to whom he is accountable and he can do whatever he likes. The philosophy of moral relativism is simply modern man’s meager attempt to justify his immoral behavior.

But if this is God's world, a personal universe, then we do have reason to believe in absolute moral principles. For one thing, as Immanuel Kant pointed out, we need an omnipotent God to enforce moral standards, to make sure that everyone is properly rewarded and punished. Moral standards without moral sanctions don't mean much. More important, we should consider the very nature of moral obligation. We cannot be obligated to atoms, or gravity, or evolution, or time, or chance; we can be obligated only to persons.

The belief in the existence of an objective morality must imply the existence of God because someone higher than us must have supplied this universal standard. If a person cannot acknowledge the existence of a higher universal standard, then he cannot actually have objective morality. His reference point cannot really be any more valid than that of Hitler or Stalin and he cannot appeal to a higher or better standard to argue otherwise.

In the end, anybody supposing the existence of objective morality must mentally acknowledge the existence of God's standard, if not God himself.

====================================

Sure, if somebody admits the existence objective morality, then yeah, I think it's just one step away from admiting God.

But trying to argue for objective morality is a totally different beast.

Indeed, your arguments are nowhere close to convincing to me.  In fact, to me, "absolute" morality is just a cop-out, almost naive.  It's way too 19th century.

This seems like flawed argument to me (the argument put forward in that article).  Just because different species contain the exact same sequences doesnt mean it is important, it could just as easily mean it is completely unimportant, and as such not affected by the laws of natural selection.  If the genetic sequence in junk sections of dna is never selected for (because it does nothing) then it will never change. 

I was under the impression that was why these 'junk' segments are the same in most species.  But, i was never very interested in genetics, so i never looked much into it.  Therfore, i may be completely wrong. 

What i do remeber is these segments are left out when coding for proteins, and since that is all dna does...if these segments dont code for proteins they do nothing? 

No, it's called Ecstacy or MDMA.

=============================== 

3. The Existence of Rationality

As leading Darwinist mathematician-biologist J.B.S. Haldane realised, "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."  That is, materialism applied to the mind undermines the validity of all reasoning, including one's own, since if our theories are the products of chemical reactions, how can we know whether they are true? Darwin himself expressed his "horrid doubt" that the reasoning of a mind that was the result of chance could not be trusted upon. Thus materialistic science destroys its own base, since scientists must be able to trust the conclusions of their reasoning, but if man's mind was evolved wholly by natural selection for survival value, then all scientific theories, including evolution, would be untrustworthy. Materialists must therefore implicitly exempt themselves from materialism in order to make their arguments for materialism.
 
Even Charles Darwin recognized that if the human brain is a product of blind, non-teleological evolutionary processes, then we have no reason to believe that the brain is capable of producing convictions that are trustworthy:

"With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has always been developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

=========================== 

Uh, this relates to existence of God how?  This is almost an entirely different field in philosophy.

And I am of the camp that do not trust convictions of the mind.  There's nothing overlapping about that and whether God exists or not.

I will read later because it seems interesting, but if there's a God where the fuck is he?
Why won't he pop out and give me a hand?

Okay, your post is just quote after quote after quote.  I'm bored.

Anyway, I got suckered into one of these discussions again.  I am not for or against whether God exists, and I think it'll be kind of nice if there really is a God.  But like many other expressed in this thread, it's outside the realm of our understanding.  You either take a leap of faith or your don't.   

I am against rigorous-sounding arguments for and against God, though.  It just... irks me.  It's like, "Why are you crossing my territory when I've already declared I've got nothing against you?"

there were some interesting stuff, but do we know if god exist nobody does, but we can only believe there is a god. I believe there is a greater power force that exist that created this universe. I won't go any futher with this discussion because it's very dangerous to talk about it. To really be honest Nobody knows anything not even scientist. they can find answers but the answers are never going to be correct. Why because its somthing so above our knowlege we will never find out why. It's not meant to be discovered.

If everything has a beginning then who created God. If everything has an end how do we know he's not already dead? If someone can answer that then they can also tell me who created the creater of our creater?

^God is not a he, or she, or anyway of a human. The fact is god is somthing that we won't fully understand, that's why there is so many religons everyone doesn't believe the same thing because we don't understand. We can only go by what we call Belief and Faith. you do or you don't, nobody can trully explain what you just said and I mean nobody.