Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

You would never concede that human beings evolved from primitive organisms, under any circumstances, and no matter what evidence was presented to you. At least let's not pretend it otherwise.

I would never concede that water is dry, that the moon is made out of cheese, or that pigs can fly, either. But I don't think that's a stroke against me.

Okay.

[Dubious]

You would never concede that human beings evolved from primitive organisms, under any circumstances, and no matter what evidence was presented to you. At least let's not pretend it otherwise.

I would never concede that water is dry, that the moon is made out of cheese, or that pigs can fly, either.

...except if the bible says so!

BTW, in evolution there is no such thing as "missing link". That implies an intent of some kind, especially as humans are concerned. Evolution has no purpose, progression, intent, etc.; it's totally devoid of attempting to forge some kind of higher entity. As far as evolution is concerned, we don't exceed anything else which lives or has ever lived on the planet.

[Dontaskme]

I would never concede that water is dry

Water dries.

Water shapeshifts from one form to another, it's not just wet water all the time.

[Dontaskme]

That's not really new information. It has long been known that Neanderthals and humans interbred.

Then that means they were not distinct species at all. What makes a cat a distinct species from dogs, or dolphins from whales, is that they cannot interbreed. Apes and humans, too, cannot interbreed...though I know nobody personally who has tested that hypothesis.

We were promised "the origin of species," and only got "the many variations within a single species." Quite a bait and switch, really.

Quite a switcheroo yes.

Like the quote in the Bible that says:





Correlated with: Bringer of light.LUCA, it stands for Last Universal Common Ancestor. It is hypothesized to have been a common ancestral cell from which the three domains of life, the Bacteria, the Archaea, and the Eukarya originated. It is suggested to have been a “cellular organism that had a lipid bilayer and used DNA, RNA, and protein” Termed LUCA by scientists, the last universal common ancestor is believed to have been a single-celled organism whose DNA functioned as the foundation for all forms of life.

[Dontaskme]

Then that means they were not distinct species at all. What makes a cat a distinct species from dogs, or dolphins from whales, is that they cannot interbreed. Apes and humans, too, cannot interbreed...though I know nobody personally who has tested that hypothesis.

We were promised "the origin of species," and only got "the many variations within a single species." Quite a bait and switch, really.

Humans and animals are constantly evolving shedding less-favorable characteristics for features that maximize the odds of survival [source: ABC Science ]. This process began with the very first living creatures and will continue until there's no life left.

Infinity never completes. Meaning, no one gets to witness evolution.

In other words, life comes from ? and returns to ?

All FORMS are but appearances only, here today, gone tomorrow, appearing, disappearing, and reappearing in infinite shapes and forms, infinitely for eternity.

Fill in the mystery ? with whatever WORD you like IC

John 1:1
New International Version
The Word Became Flesh
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

See the distinction IC? you are just playing with concepts/words...it's ok, we all do it, we all parrot the same old words and platitudes, with the only tools we have available, namely, names, concepts, labels, in other words...SOUND heard as words... etc etc ... Nothing here but an elaborate SOUND & LIGHT show for No One.

What to BELEIVE eh IC What to believe?

From belief to clarity = I don't know. I know nothing. Nothing knows itself.

[Dontaskme]

Then that means they were not distinct species at all. What makes a cat a distinct species from dogs, or dolphins from whales, is that they cannot interbreed. Apes and humans, too, cannot interbreed...though I know nobody personally who has tested that hypothesis.

Cat - Dog - Dolphin - Whale - are concepts IC ..they are simply 'ideas', not 'literal entities' distinct from their origin. Their origin has to be of the same place, at the base level of any constructed mentation seen or heard as 'understanding' or 'comprehension', via THOUGHT, which is an illusion.

Concepts are fixed within their man-made meaning. For example: a Dog is never a Cat, and a Dolphin is never a Whale, each concept known is fixed within their knowing, the only knowing there, which is consciousness, and yet even consciousness is not excluded from a concept known.

All that can be known here are concepts, and that which is known, ie: a concept, knows nothing of it's creator without making that creator into another concept known. The buck stops there, why, because infinity never completes and nature never repeats exactly, every thing is brand new in every moment. The past never happens, and the future never arrives. Infinity is now, and it never moves an inch.

FYI ..A dog was once a wolf. So you're argument for this particular animal species being distinct from another animal is a false dichotomy.

Conceptually speaking: A Wolf is never a Dog...because concepts are fixed within human understanding.

[Harbal]

.
Considering that this:
.

35-day-old-human-embryo.jpg

.
Regularly evolves into something like this:
.

Adult human.jpeg

.
The idea that we were once similar to this:
.

Chimp.jpeg

.
Doesn't seem out of the question.

[Will Bouwman]

...logic underlies all scientific explanation. If the explanation isn't "logical," then that's the definition of an implausible style of explanation.

Well, explanation is only one part of science and not the most important. Here's the introduction to the article I've already cited:
With which of these three propositions do you most agree? A scientific theory must be:
(1) A logically coherent explanation.
(2) Supported by evidence.
(3) Useful.
If you are firmly of the opinion that one of these is the defining feature of science, then in philosophical terms you are either (1) a rationalist, (2) an empiricist, or (3) a pragmatist. Moreover, if you happen to be a scientist, then it is likely that your main interest is (1) Theoretical, (2) Experimental, or (3) Instrumental. More generally, you might just like to (1) Have an idea about how something works, (2) Find out how it works, or (3) Just make it work.
When philosophers of science are doing what they are paid for, one of the key things they consider is what blend of the above elements makes an activity a science. On the face of it, it shouldn’t be all that difficult to work out. There are only three variables; how hard can it be?
https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia

Explanations don't actually make any difference to what the world does or is like (except in some pretty far out theories), and in fact multiple explanations can account for the same observation. I'm sure you've heard the joke that the difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense; so it is with phenomena and hypotheses - science and explanation. The world does what it does and, regardless of whether we explain why it does so, we can observe, measure and predict the behaviour. It is ideologically convenient for theists who wish show 'scientific' reasons for the existence of their chosen God to overstate the importance of logic, because the only evidence for any God is words.

...how has the great god Evolution managed to arrange that all members of any species arrive at precisely the same point at exactly the same time, so as to form their distinct species, rather than having so many variations and differences that there is no such thing as an identifiable "species" at all?

Even identical twins don't have identical genes. Your conviction that we are all the same simply isn't true.

[FlashDangerpants]

Explanations don't actually make any difference to what the world does or is like (except in some pretty far out theories)

Don't let Vesibule Aquafresh catch you writing that sort of heresy

[Immanuel Can]

With which of these three propositions do you most agree? A scientific theory must be:
(1) A logically coherent explanation.
(2) Supported by evidence.
(3) Useful.

Those aren't mutually exclusive options. In fact, if a theory lacks one of these elements, it becomes suspect.

I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make here.

Explanations don't actually make any difference to what the world does or is like

That depends, of course, on whether you regard human cognition as part of "what the world does or is like."

But it's not clear to me that any of what you're saying has anything to do with logic. After all, the right comparison is mathematics. Mathematics doesn't change physical arrangements in the actual world either: but it is a useful and coherent tool for obtaining purchase on the facts of the world, and is essential to guiding our decisions and choices in the real world. Just try to make bridge or a skyscraper without using mathematics.

And logic isn't an ideological thing. It will happily serve any "user," like maths will. It is required by both the Theist and the skeptic in equal measure, depending on the available premises; because every argument -- even arguments trying to doubt logic -- depend on logic for their coherence and success.

...the only evidence for any God is words.

Well, that's decidedly not true. Even a reasonably-informed skeptic knows that. The whole of Creation itself is clear evidence of God, as is the rationality of the universe and science itself, and mathematics, and they human psyche, and all of that is without taking into account anything that includes any direct or any written revelation at all.

Your conviction that we are all the same simply isn't true.

I've never said we are "all the same." I've said what Darwin said, which is that we are "of the same species," which miraculously always seems to be at exactly the same stage of alleged "evolving." That's an objective, scientific analysis, not a partisan one. You can see it by the rule of infertility, even if you don't have access to DNA. But if you have DNA, you've got the certain confirmation of it.

[Harbal]

...the only evidence for any God is words.

Well, that's decidedly not true. Even a reasonably-informed skeptic knows that. The whole of Creation itself is clear evidence of God, as is the rationality of the universe and science itself, and mathematics, and they human psyche, and all of that is without taking into account anything that includes any direct or any written revelation at all.

If someone looked at the world and said, "nope, the scientific account isn't good enough to explain all this", then God would just be one alternative theory. Maybe an advanced race of extra-terrestrials were responsible, or perhaps "reality" is just some sort of illusion, or maybe any number of fanciful notions one might dream up.

[Dontaskme]

The whole of Creation itself is clear evidence of God

No, the whole of Creation is self-evidence of itself only. It is already self-evident of itself as one reality, not two. There is not such a thing as a creator separate from it's creation.

There is no one to claim themself as the creator of all creation, meaning EVERYTHING.

You can however claim to be the creator of the brick house you built for yourself, and that would be true...that too is self-evident.
But the creator of everything, now that cannot be known, as any image of the absolute creator of everything claimed to be known to exist by that which is only relative and temporal is absurd IC. You are simply mistaking the relative to be the absolute. The absolute cannot know it is the absolute, because the absolute is all there is, one without a second.

[Dontaskme]

If someone looked at the world and said, "nope, the scientific account isn't good enough to explain all this", then God would just be one alternative theory.

Yes, that's very true Harbal, God is just another theory superimposed upon what is ultimately a mystery to plant, man and animal alike.

Reality is one without a second, One is not a theory. One, or beingness is a self-evident fact that cannot be refuted or negated, no more than any conscious sentient creature can experience their own absence.

[bahman]

You cannot disprove the existence of a supernatural being that gives shape to nature. You cannot prove it either. Evolution is not a very precise practice. Even physics is not a very precise practice as things can be manipulated in digits that are beyond the precision of physics.

[Harbal]

If someone looked at the world and said, "nope, the scientific account isn't good enough to explain all this", then God would just be one alternative theory.

Yes, that's very true Harbal,

Yes it is, and even a reasonably-informed skeptic knows it's true.