Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

What is this compulsion you and IC have that makes you want to get everyone else to believe what you believe?

I've answered that, of course, more than once; and you say you don't believe the answer.

But it doesn't really matter, to be perfectly honest. If what the speaker is saying is true, it's not relevant why he says it. If it's false, then all the sweet motives in the world won't make it good for you to believe.

Clearly, the question is not why the speaker speaks; it's whether or not what the speaker says is true.

Well I find myself much more interested in why anyone would invest the time and effort into persuading me of something than what they are trying to persuade me of. The more effort they put into it, the more suspicious I become.

[Sculptor]

You didn't read it. Interesting that you think you know what it is.

What a oke.

Yep, okay.

That's about your level.

[Immanuel Can]

What is this compulsion you and IC have that makes you want to get everyone else to believe what you believe?

I've answered that, of course, more than once; and you say you don't believe the answer.

But it doesn't really matter, to be perfectly honest. If what the speaker is saying is true, it's not relevant why he says it. If it's false, then all the sweet motives in the world won't make it good for you to believe.

Clearly, the question is not why the speaker speaks; it's whether or not what the speaker says is true.

Well I find myself much more interested in why anyone would invest the time and effort into persuading me of something than what they are trying to persuade me of. The more effort they put into it, the more suspicious I become.

What are you suspicious about? What do you think it implies?

[Harbal]

I've answered that, of course, more than once; and you say you don't believe the answer.

But it doesn't really matter, to be perfectly honest. If what the speaker is saying is true, it's not relevant why he says it. If it's false, then all the sweet motives in the world won't make it good for you to believe.

Clearly, the question is not why the speaker speaks; it's whether or not what the speaker says is true.

Well I find myself much more interested in why anyone would invest the time and effort into persuading me of something than what they are trying to persuade me of. The more effort they put into it, the more suspicious I become.

What are you suspicious about? What do you think it implies?

Suspicious that I'm being led up the garden path.

[Dontaskme]

Only in the case of human beings is the theory of Evolutionism a no-go. And there, you're right: it would have very serious theological implications. Fortunately, the case for human evolutionism has proved to be by far the weakest case for the theory that can be made, and the history of it is fraught with telling frauds and failures, such as the Monkey-to-Man theory, now embarassingly dead, but once held up as core orthodoxy in Evolutionist teaching.

Almost as embarrassing as that story of how the very first human was somehow just magically fashioned out of dust of all stuff, then placed in a garden called eden to then be duplicated in the form of another person fashioned out of his rib bone, changing from one human to two humans.

In all of this, you can see the desperation to shore up a doomed theory: that men came from monkeys, which the Evolutionist community was determined to salvage, no matter what evidence it lacked, or even how many errors or outright frauds they had to approve. But that's a familiar phenomenon today: a community of information-controllers desperately trying to shore up a shaky narrative in order to induce public belief. It happens all the time. So we ought not to be surprised, really.

Yeah, this all sounds very familiar, so no surprise at all really, the stories we tell ourselves, the webs we weave, in our vain attempt to try and make some semblance of sense of what we can never know. But does not stop us making something up, and any of our old or new to become old theories will do in this endless quest to nowhere continues in little finite chapters, never quite reaching the ending of the story, leaving an ever more widening aching and longing to know.

The more we attempt to close the gap, we are simultaneously opening it up, such is the nature of the human mind.

[Gary Childress]

Only in the case of human beings is the theory of Evolutionism a no-go. And there, you're right: it would have very serious theological implications. Fortunately, the case for human evolutionism has proved to be by far the weakest case for the theory that can be made, and the history of it is fraught with telling frauds and failures, such as the Monkey-to-Man theory, now embarassingly dead, but once held up as core orthodoxy in Evolutionist teaching.

Almost as embarrassing as that story of how the very first human was somehow just magically fashioned out of dust of all stuff, then placed in a garden called eden to then be duplicated in the form of another person fashioned out of his rib bone, changing from one human to two humans.

Humanity is in a sad state. Some people believe in a flat Earth. Some believe Elvis is still alive. And some believe that a talking snake conned the first humans into eating an apple that instantly bestowed them with knowledge. I suppose the only advice to give Christians is to stay away from knowledge. God likes his chosen ones stupid and deluded.

[Will Bouwman]

...modern Darwinism doesn't propose a common ancestor after the early primordial-ooze stage...certainly not monkeys or monkey-like beings anymore.

What?

Charles Dawson, an amateur archeologist, was responsible for the Piltdown Man fraud. That was a lie and it fooled some people.

More than a few. It ended up on t-shirts and coffee mugs, in museum dioramas, in mass media, and -- most concerning of all -- in major scientific textbooks and in public education materials. In fact, it was a scientific "orthodoxy" of the middle of the last century. But Piltdown was only the first discovered failure of the monkey-to-man theory, as others were to follow. "Nebraska man" turned out to be built out of a peccary tooth. "Java Man" turned out to be a gibbon monkey. "Ramapithecus" was an orangutan. And the famous "Neanderthal Man" turned out to be a normal guy with a rickets-type disease...

Who is feeding you this nonsense? Piltdown Man was never universally accepted and definitively exposed as a fraud in 1953. Nebraska man was a misclassification, an honest mistake. Java man was described by its finder as like a giant gibbon, but to this day is considered an example of Homo erectus placing it firmly in the human evolutionary tree. Ramapithecus is no longer widely thought to be part of human ancestry, being part of the heritage that split from the other great apes: chimpanzees, gorillas and ourselves, about 14 million years ago and became, as you say, orangutans. Neanderthal Man turned out to be a different species that only went extinct about 40 thousand years back, and not because of rickets. Then there are the many remains of hominids that, along with "monkey-like beings" and Java Man, do appear to be part of a lineage that resulted in modern humans.

In all of this, you can see the desperation to shore up a doomed theory...

Too right I can!

Why "of course"? How do you think 'survival of the fittest' is understood in evolutionary theory?

I'm citing Nietzsche, actually. Here's what he wrote: "Pity, on the whole, thwarts the law of evolution, which is the law of selection...The weak and ill-constituted shall perish, and one shall help them to do so." (from The Antichrist)

What makes you think that Nietzsche is an authority on contemporary evolutionary theory?

[Harbal]

...modern Darwinism doesn't propose a common ancestor after the early primordial-ooze stage...certainly not monkeys or monkey-like beings anymore.

What?

Charles Dawson, an amateur archeologist, was responsible for the Piltdown Man fraud. That was a lie and it fooled some people.

More than a few. It ended up on t-shirts and coffee mugs, in museum dioramas, in mass media, and -- most concerning of all -- in major scientific textbooks and in public education materials. In fact, it was a scientific "orthodoxy" of the middle of the last century. But Piltdown was only the first discovered failure of the monkey-to-man theory, as others were to follow. "Nebraska man" turned out to be built out of a peccary tooth. "Java Man" turned out to be a gibbon monkey. "Ramapithecus" was an orangutan. And the famous "Neanderthal Man" turned out to be a normal guy with a rickets-type disease...

Who is feeding you this nonsense?

I imagine there are books dedicated to (falsely) discrediting scientific discoveries that undermine the Bible. I doubt that even IC has all this fake information stored in his memory, waiting to be accessed as and when appropriate. The fundamental Christian movement no doubt have their very own propaganda department.

[Sculptor]

Piltdown Man, although always seen skeptically by many scientists shows the emense power of science.
It was the advent of radiocarbon14 dating that demonstrated that the jaw belonged to another skull, confirming the simian origin already poined out by primate anatomy. Subsequent DNA analysis confirmed the species.

You cannot stop people cheating, but if you have good science you can expose the frauds. In the same way that thousands of relics of the "true Lord" such as; the thousands of fragments of the cross, which would run to a great forest; the fingers of saints whose number would make of them a very strange species; and, my favorite the Turin Shroud which is about as authentic as superman's genuine cape.

Evolution was established long before Piltdown, and never relied on it. SInce that time there is such a wealth of so-called "missing links" that the term is utterly redundant.
The only missing link around here is the link between IC's brain and reality.

[Sculptor]

...modern Darwinism doesn't propose a common ancestor after the early primordial-ooze stage...certainly not monkeys or monkey-like beings anymore.

What?

More than a few. It ended up on t-shirts and coffee mugs, in museum dioramas, in mass media, and -- most concerning of all -- in major scientific textbooks and in public education materials. In fact, it was a scientific "orthodoxy" of the middle of the last century. But Piltdown was only the first discovered failure of the monkey-to-man theory, as others were to follow. "Nebraska man" turned out to be built out of a peccary tooth. "Java Man" turned out to be a gibbon monkey. "Ramapithecus" was an orangutan. And the famous "Neanderthal Man" turned out to be a normal guy with a rickets-type disease...

Who is feeding you this nonsense?

I imagine there are books dedicated to (falsely) discrediting scientific discoveries that undermine the Bible. I doubt that even IC has all this fake information stored in his memory, waiting to be accessed as and when appropriate. The fundamental Christian movement no doubt have their very own propaganda department.

IC relies on a third rate novelist who think he is a scientist, peddling the pseudo-science intelligent design.
He gave me this amusing reference: "The Devil's Delusion," by Berlinski.

[Walker]

Well I find myself much more interested in why anyone would invest the time and effort into persuading me of something than what they are trying to persuade me of. The more effort they put into it, the more suspicious I become.

What are you suspicious about? What do you think it implies?

Suspicious that I'm being led up the garden path.

- Explaining why you say what you say is not persuasion.
- Persuasion is an attempt to change the thoughts and actions of another.

- Intent distinguishes the two.
- You are projecting the intent of persuasion, upon explanations.

- You misperceive explanations as persuasion because truthful explanations are difficult to deny for a thinking man such as yourself.

[Walker]

Humanity is in a sad state. Some people believe in a flat Earth. Some believe Elvis is still alive. And some believe that a talking snake conned the first humans into eating an apple that instantly bestowed them with knowledge. I suppose the only advice to give Christians is to stay away from knowledge. God likes his chosen ones stupid and deluded.

The snake whisperer whispers in snake for those who understand the snake language.

Was not that snake regulated to crawling only after his advice to the humans? How did he locomote before that, or did he?

Little Eva.

[Walker]

Some believe Elvis is still alive.

Incarnation
3: a concrete or actual form of a quality or concept
especially : a person showing a trait or typical character to a marked degree

[Walker]

Some people believe in a flat Earth.

Everyone uses thought and belief to conceptually make round the earth.

[Will Bouwman]

The fundamental Christian movement no doubt have their very own propaganda department.

There's an entire cohort of them. Mostly charmless berks; this guy at least is funny:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A