Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

Well, either way, I'm not going up the garden path.

Right. But if it's not "the garden path"...?

Show it to me; I'll soon tell you if it's the garden path.

Okay.

[Immanuel Can]

And to this day, many people remain oblivious to the fact that the simian-to-human link has long ago been replaced.

Dare I ask what has replaced it?

There's no agreement. As with all things in Evolutionary theory, the key trick is to keep stretching the timeline every time a paradox appears. (A quick survey a few minutes ago gave me the numbers 3 million, 10 million and 25 million years ago for the alleged "common ancestor"). Go figure.

As Live Science puts it:

"While we don't have a complete fossil record for humans or chimps, scientists have combined fossil evidence with genetic and behavioral clues gleaned from living primates to learn about the now-extinct species whose descendants would become humans and chimps.

"We don't have its remains, and I'm not sure if we'd be able to place it with certainty in the human lineage it if we did," Isbell said. Scientists think this creature looked more like a chimpanzee than a human, and it probably spent most of its time in the canopy of forests dense enough that it could travel from tree to tree without touching the ground, [Lynne] Isbell[UC Davis] said."

So some are content to go back to a sort of hominid, or even a group of hominids, without being able to say where that appeared from; others want to go back to the primordial ooze, and argue that some single-cell entity was the original common ancestor, and nothing since.

"Most scientists think the 'last universal common ancestor' — the creature from which everything on the planet descends — appeared about 3.6 billion years ago." (NBC)

The truth is, none of them know. Everything's a guess. There actually are no fossil records of this early "ancestor" that is supposed to have existed, and its existence is being assumed from the requirements of the theory.

Interestingly, all of these various theories, separated by millions or even billions of years, and none having evidence of this "common ancestor" continue to all be floated as "THE SCIENCE."

[Sculptor]

You can't seriously think this is an objection I haven't heard. Seriously?

You are fooling no one
You come out with moronic things like "timorousness of modern Atheists", as if to say they cannot face the truth of "survival of the fittest" then after the event you contradict yourself
Your thinking is just not joined up.

[Sculptor]

There's no agreement. As with all things in Evolutionary theory, the key trick is to keep stretching the timeline every time a paradox appears.

Science knowelge grows - that is its strength.
We read several books rather than rely on one.

[Harbal]

Maybe I am in need of some kind of spiritual therapy, but none of the "options" I am aware of remotely appeals to me, least of all Christianity. I have long suffered from a psychological condition that causes me to perceive most human activity as ridiculous, including my own, and I have never been one to join in, so any spiritual practice I might consider would have to be a solitary one. Given these circumstances, do you have any suggestions?

I do recommend signing up for my life changing 10-Week Email Course. It's a way to get started! It's ridiculously expensive but worth every dollar.

I would, but I'm ridiculously stingy with money.

[Sculptor]

Interestingly, all of these various theories, separated by millions or even billions of years, and none having evidence of this "common ancestor" continue to all be floated as "THE SCIENCE."

You are not paying attention, because the truth of the matter destroys your simple minded world.

[Immanuel Can]

There's no agreement. As with all things in Evolutionary theory, the key trick is to keep stretching the timeline every time a paradox appears.

Science knowelge grows -

Well, its "knowelge" has not "grown" enough in this area, clearly.

[Sculptor]

There's no agreement. As with all things in Evolutionary theory, the key trick is to keep stretching the timeline every time a paradox appears.

Science knowelge grows -

Well, its "knowelge" has not "grown" enough in this area, clearly.

Pathetic.
You'd do well to run along and latibulate.

[Dubious]

As Live Science puts it:

"While we don't have a complete fossil record for humans or chimps, scientists have combined fossil evidence with genetic and behavioral clues gleaned from living primates to learn about the now-extinct species whose descendants would become humans and chimps.

"We don't have its remains, and I'm not sure if we'd be able to place it with certainty in the human lineage it if we did," Isbell said. Scientists think this creature looked more like a chimpanzee than a human, and it probably spent most of its time in the canopy of forests dense enough that it could travel from tree to tree without touching the ground, [Lynne] Isbell[UC Davis] said."

It's not the process but the details which are in dispute which combine into a near endless series of factors. Obviously, within a period of such length there reside many mysteries still to be explained or to be corrected.

One thing's for sure: it ain't an Adam and Eve story living in the Garden of Eden committing the first most original sin by using the brains' god gave them, which they weren't supposed to do!

[Immanuel Can]

As Live Science puts it:

"While we don't have a complete fossil record for humans or chimps, scientists have combined fossil evidence with genetic and behavioral clues gleaned from living primates to learn about the now-extinct species whose descendants would become humans and chimps.

"We don't have its remains, and I'm not sure if we'd be able to place it with certainty in the human lineage it if we did," Isbell said. Scientists think this creature looked more like a chimpanzee than a human, and it probably spent most of its time in the canopy of forests dense enough that it could travel from tree to tree without touching the ground, [Lynne] Isbell[UC Davis] said."

It's not the process but the details which are in dispute which combine into a near endless series of factors...

I would say it's a theory that's trying very hard to find the data to substantiate it. But the theory's already been embraced as non-negotiable, no matter how the data goes.

But it has been understood for a very long while what's really at stake. It's not science. Science will continue to work without Evolutionism. What's so attractive about the theory is that that Darwin proposed the first plausible explanation of how we could have a universe without reference to God. So what's at stake is really mankind's sense of obligation to the Creator, Supreme Being and Judge of the world.

I would say that that's what makes the theory so beloved...not its scientific demonstrability, but the metaphysical implications it would offer to a world desperate to get God out of the equation. If it were not so, then Human Evolutionism would be treated like any other scientific theory...and be allowed to stand or fall on its demonstrability.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The truth is, none of them know. Everything's a guess. There actually are no fossil records of this early "ancestor" that is supposed to have existed, and its existence is being assumed from the requirements of the theory.

Immanuel, friend, you are religiously crazy and you cannot reason. Your religious views are a thousand times less definite, less probable, than the notion of the likelihood of evolution. Even if there are gaps.

But you are mad as the Hatter. Possessed. Yet you dress yourself up in philosophical garments and presume that because of your delivery that you should be listened to. But you are dismissed with an imperious gesture of the hand. Away! Away!

[Immanuel Can]

The truth is, none of them know. Everything's a guess. There actually are no fossil records of this early "ancestor" that is supposed to have existed, and its existence is being assumed from the requirements of the theory.

Immanuel, friend, you are religiously crazy and you cannot reason.

Reason should tell you that when people have a theory and are desperately trying to find evidence to make it work -- and cannot -- and fabricate some, and then it fails -- and they just revise the theory and persist, that these are desperate people, and that their motivation is not science and their method is not reason.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You are therefore a very very desperate person. You incriminate yourself.

You are one of the greatest inadvertent teachers I’ve ever encounters. Thank you!

[Gary Childress]

It sounds like IC's science teachers weren't very adept at the subject. I met some very amazing people when I went to college and studied. It sounds like most of IC's experience has been tempered with dogmatic ideologues.

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

[Dubious]

I would say that that's what makes the theory so beloved...not its scientific demonstrability, but the metaphysical implications it would offer to a world desperate to get God out of the equation. If it were not so, then Human Evolutionism would be treated like any other scientific theory...and be allowed to stand or fall on its demonstrability.

The complex operations of evolution on a microscale is already evident in a petri dish. It's also no-longer the theory of evolution but evolution as fact...there's nothing "metaphysical" about it.

During the four billion years of earth history, much more was happening than a silly Adam and Eve story.