Is morality objective or subjective?

[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,

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

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Well, you're using "the scientific account" as the synonym for "the Evolutionist story."

They aren't the same. The Evolutionist's story differs from reality, and is not scientifically confirmable. It's a speculation, a narrative trying to describe what might have happened, not what is known to have happened.

Anyone who tells you it's more is simply pulling the wool over your eyes, or does not know what secular Evolutionist Ernst Mayr has so flatly declared: that it's a story, not a fact.

[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.

Well, you're using "the scientific account" as the synonym for "the Evolutionist story."

They aren't the same. The Evolutionist's story differs from reality, and is not scientifically confirmable. It's a speculation, a narrative trying to describe what might have happened, not what is known to have happened.

Anyone who tells you it's more is simply pulling the wool over your eyes, or does not know what secular Evolutionist Ernst Mayr has so flatly declared: that it's a story, not a fact.

Many authors appear in reality. All books contain different stories by different authors..But there is only the ONE same reader of all books.



Not all books that were ever written can be read all at once though, you do realise that don’t you? How many books do you think you will be able to read before you pop your clogs….surely not all of them. You will never know the full whole complete story. You’ll only ever know snippets. So for you IC the whole story that you claim God wrote in his story book the Bible will be unavailable…sorry to inform you that history is dead.

History is dead, and that is a fact. Why do you keep digging up the grave yards ? You cannot bring history back to life you know.

Neichze was right about God, and you were wrong.

[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.

Well, you're using "the scientific account" as the synonym for "the Evolutionist story."

I wasn't specifically thinking of evolution; there's a lot more going on in nature than evolution.

The Evolutionist's story differs from reality, and is not scientifically confirmable. It's a speculation, a narrative trying to describe what might have happened, not what is known to have happened.

You make evolutionary biology sound like some sort of fringe/cult activity. It is a legitimate and thoroughly respected branch of scientific study. I know that, you know that, and everyone else following this thread knows it, so please, please stop this idiotic pretence. If you genuinely believe that your account of human origins is the true one, why on earth do you feel it necessary to resort to dishonesty to make your case?

Anyone who tells you it's more is simply pulling the wool over your eyes,

I am choosing not to be offended by that, but a lot of people would be very offended by such an insult to their intelligence.

or does not know what secular Evolutionist Ernst Mayr has so flatly declared: that it's a story, not a fact.

I have never heard of Ernst Mayr, and I have no idea why you think his opinion would make an impression on me.

[Iwannaplato]

Evolution's a story.
The Bible has stories.
There are other stories.
And what do these stories do?

Harbal wakes up, is patient with the people he encounters here and is playfully snarky on occasion. He doesn't seem to intent on convincing people about evolution, but he'll mention it.

IC wakes up, tells people implicitly or openly that they are in for eternal damnation based on the story he's read if they don't do the right things, believe the right things, and actually expects people to not only believe in such a 'loving deity' but has no problem with this 'plan'.

[Dontaskme]

Evolution's a story.
The Bible has stories.
There are other stories.
And what do these stories do?

Harbal wakes up, is patient with the people he encounters here and is playfully snarky on occasion. He doesn't seem to intent on convincing people about evolution, but he'll mention it.

IC wakes up, tells people implicitly or openly that they are in for eternal damnation based on the story he's read if they don't do the right things, believe the right things, and actually expects people to not only believe in such a 'loving deity' but has no problem with this 'plan'.

Yay!

Team Harbal

I love Harbal.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Well, you're using "the scientific account" as the synonym for "the Evolutionist story."

I wasn't specifically thinking of evolution; there's a lot more going on in nature than evolution.

There certainly is. But most of it has no conflict with Theism, and in fact, is historically due to Theism, in some cases.

The Evolutionist's story differs from reality, and is not scientifically confirmable. It's a speculation, a narrative trying to describe what might have happened, not what is known to have happened.

You make evolutionary biology sound like some sort of fringe/cult activity.

You're not really wrong. If you do the history of the movement, you realize it began long before there was anything close to a pool of data from which to draw any such conclusion. It has a quasi-religious enthusiasm behind it, for sure.

But as for it being a "legitimate" area of study, did you read what Ernst Mayr said about it? Here's the quotation:

"Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." (Ernst Mayr, called, "The greatest Evolutionists of the 20th Century," by the Academy of Achievement, writing in Scientific American, Nov. 2009).

Anyone who tells you it's more is simply pulling the wool over your eyes,

I am choosing not to be offended by that, but a lot of people would be very offended by such an insult to their intelligence.

They shouldn't be. Evolutionism has fooled a lot of people. Until you run into somebody who's willing to challenge that imaginative "reconstruction" or "narrative," you might well be led to think the scientific pedigree it has was secure. But it's not.

[Harbal]

Well, you're using "the scientific account" as the synonym for "the Evolutionist story."

I wasn't specifically thinking of evolution; there's a lot more going on in nature than evolution.

There certainly is. But most of it has no conflict with Theism, and in fact, is historically due to Theism, in some cases.

The Evolutionist's story differs from reality, and is not scientifically confirmable. It's a speculation, a narrative trying to describe what might have happened, not what is known to have happened.

You make evolutionary biology sound like some sort of fringe/cult activity.

You're not really wrong. If you do the history of the movement, you realize it began long before there was anything close to a pool of data from which to draw any such conclusion. It has a quasi-religious enthusiasm behind it, for sure.

But as for it being a "legitimate" area of study, did you read what Ernst Mayr said about it? Here's the quotation:

"Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." (Ernst Mayr, called, "The greatest Evolutionists of the 20th Century," by the Academy of Achievement, writing in Scientific American, Nov. 2009).

Anyone who tells you it's more is simply pulling the wool over your eyes,

I am choosing not to be offended by that, but a lot of people would be very offended by such an insult to their intelligence.

They shouldn't be. Evolutionism has fooled a lot of people. Until you run into somebody who's willing to challenge that imaginative "reconstruction" or "narrative," you might well be led to think the scientific pedigree it has was secure. But it's not.

For the sake of my self respect, I won't dignify this tripe with a response.

[Immanuel Can]

For the sake of my self respect, I won't dignify this tripe with a response.

It's a little disconcerting to realize that even the foremost proponents of Evolutionism confess that what I'm saying about the nature of their "discipline" is true, isn't it?

[Dubious]

But as for it being a "legitimate" area of study, did you read what Ernst Mayr said about it? Here's the quotation:

"Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." (Ernst Mayr, called, "The greatest Evolutionists of the 20th Century," by the Academy of Achievement, writing in Scientific American, Nov. 2009).

How would a single word or sentence of your quote negate evolution as a process It doesn't dispute the events of evolution but only in the ways they may be interpreted, defined and redefined. Of course it's a narrative! All science is defined by its own contextual narrative. What is stated here pertains to evolution itself, not anything external to it as you would force it to be defaulting to some insane Adam and Eve story.

If you insist on denying evolution, don't quote one of the foremost evolutionists of the twentieth century

[Immanuel Can]

But as for it being a "legitimate" area of study, did you read what Ernst Mayr said about it? Here's the quotation:

"Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." (Ernst Mayr, called, "The greatest Evolutionists of the 20th Century," by the Academy of Achievement, writing in Scientific American, Nov. 2009).

How would a single word or sentence of your quote negate evolution as a process

Not the point. The real point is that Evolutionism isn't some confirmed 'science,' but a hopeful narrative. That's the point.

If you insist on denying evolution, don't quote one of the foremost evolutionists of the twentieth century

Why not? If he, of all people, realizes his theory is essentially an ideological narrative project, not the product of pure data-collection or rigorous, conventional scientific testing or experimentation, just as he says, why shouldn't he say so? And why shouldn't I repeat to you exactly what he knew to be true?

Would you prefer to silence "the greatest Evolutionist of the 20th Century"? Does that seem like a scientific decision to you?

[Dubious]

But as for it being a "legitimate" area of study, did you read what Ernst Mayr said about it? Here's the quotation:

"Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." (Ernst Mayr, called, "The greatest Evolutionists of the 20th Century," by the Academy of Achievement, writing in Scientific American, Nov. 2009).

How would a single word or sentence of your quote negate evolution as a process

Not the point. The real point is that Evolutionism isn't some confirmed 'science,' but a hopeful narrative. That's the point.

If you insist on denying evolution, don't quote one of the foremost evolutionists of the twentieth century

Why not? If he, of all people, realizes his theory is essentially an ideological narrative project, not the product of pure data-collection or rigorous, conventional scientific testing or experimentation, just as he says, why shouldn't he say so? And why shouldn't I repeat to you exactly what he knew to be true?

Would you prefer to silence "the greatest Evolutionist of the 20th Century"? Does that seem like a scientific decision to you?

Why would Ernst Mayr be regarded as one of the great evolutionists of the past century IF he believed evolution was a made up story...according to your phrase an ideological narrative project?. Wouldn't that be a complete contradiction? As mentioned, there is not a single sentence within the quote which negates evolution. Your purpose in distorting what he said was only to give credence to the biblical account, which, if taken literally, is one of the dumbest stories ever told.

Evolution must be the most steadfast statistic in existence; the entire planet is a testament to it...a graveyard of relics called fossils due to an unceasing process called Evolution.

[Immanuel Can]

How would a single word or sentence of your quote negate evolution as a process

Not the point. The real point is that Evolutionism isn't some confirmed 'science,' but a hopeful narrative. That's the point.

If you insist on denying evolution, don't quote one of the foremost evolutionists of the twentieth century

Why not? If he, of all people, realizes his theory is essentially an ideological narrative project, not the product of pure data-collection or rigorous, conventional scientific testing or experimentation, just as he says, why shouldn't he say so? And why shouldn't I repeat to you exactly what he knew to be true?

Would you prefer to silence "the greatest Evolutionist of the 20th Century"? Does that seem like a scientific decision to you?

Why would Ernst Mayr be regarded as one of the great evolutionists of the past century IF he believed evolution was a made up story...

Well, it's not me saying he's regarded that way: that's the general acclaim he's gotten from his peers.

And he does believe that. You can see it.

[Dubious]

Not the point. The real point is that Evolutionism isn't some confirmed 'science,' but a hopeful narrative. That's the point.


Why not? If he, of all people, realizes his theory is essentially an ideological narrative project, not the product of pure data-collection or rigorous, conventional scientific testing or experimentation, just as he says, why shouldn't he say so? And why shouldn't I repeat to you exactly what he knew to be true?

Would you prefer to silence "the greatest Evolutionist of the 20th Century"? Does that seem like a scientific decision to you?

Why would Ernst Mayr be regarded as one of the great evolutionists of the past century IF he believed evolution was a made up story...

Well, it's not me saying he's regarded that way: that's the general acclaim he's gotten from his peers.

And he does believe that. You can see it.

No! What I can see is that you are desperate to believe it and will take anything out of context and meaning to prove it...but as everyone has long known, that's nothing new.

[Immanuel Can]

Why would Ernst Mayr be regarded as one of the great evolutionists of the past century IF he believed evolution was a made up story...

Well, it's not me saying he's regarded that way: that's the general acclaim he's gotten from his peers.

And he does believe that. You can see it.

No!

So you can't read his words and interpret them?