Is morality objective or subjective?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Dontaskme »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2023 2:26 am
And just how well has the sexual revolution worked out? And how is the state of the family today, as a result?
Well, you'll have to ask God that question. He was the one who thought it was a good idea to split 'Adam' into two diametrically opposed people.

So how did that work, is what you should be asking God, not people. :shock:

Did Adam ever complain to Eve that she was his property, manifesting from his rib and all?
Poor Eve, imagine not being able to belong to yourself, how awfully binding that must have felt.
Will Bouwman
Posts: 523
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:17 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Will Bouwman »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 5:42 pm
Will Bouwman wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 11:32 am...there is a wealth of evidence for the evolution of creatures that became increasingly human like.
Let's see that "wealth," then.
A Google search for 'evidence of human evolution' returned "About 493,000,000 results". This is the first page:
https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... evolution/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z ... revision/5
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/human-evolution.html
https://www.britannica.com/summary/human-evolution
https://www.nature.com/articles/hdy200814
https://australian.museum/learn/science ... evolution/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithson ... 180979271/
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 8:30 pm...I've found that skeptics will disallow any evidence, and then just claim it's not evidence at all. Even such things as logic, inductive evidence, historical artifacts or mathematical proofs don't impress such skeptics. Heck, even a miracle wouldn't impress them. And they'll never tell you what would.

So one cannot beat such a strategy. It's just a determination to remain ignorant.
Looks like a straightforward case of projection.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9261
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Harbal »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2023 6:01 am
Harbal wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2023 4:59 am
The sexual revolution wasn't about "more marriages." :lol:
What are you getting at?
That it was never about love. It was certainly never about commitment. It also turns out it wasn't about children.
I didn't know it was supposed to be about any of that.
It wasn't about a new society. Or personal health. Or new freedom for women. Or about most of the things it was promoted as being about.
And what was it promoted as being about? It seems to me that it actually was about a new society, and about freedom, and I wouldn't even call it a sexual revolution; I think it was just part of a more general questioning of societal constraints. I would also like to think it was a kick up the arse for religious authority, and its stifling, outdated attitudes.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 4858
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 11:59 pmDo you consider that a reasonable test? Has Jesus Christ promised you to manifest upon request, especially for the satisfaction of a skeptic?
The entire premise of a god that would materialize to anyone is part of a rather odd and archaic way of perceiving reality. I proposed it moreover as a thought experiment for you-know-who: a man seeming to be trapped in resentment for life itself and angry at any conceived metaphysical entity that could have created such a “hell hole”.

But as you could gather, but have a supremely difficult tine understanding why, the only divinity I can recognize is that which a man discovers within himself. Naturally, I refer to Self in both the Jungian sense but not excluding the Vedic sense. If there is no human, there is no Self, and no apperception of “higher metaphysics”. When higher metaphysics are conceived, they are conceived through symbols, stories and myths.

Through this description I have a means to understand you: an obsessed, religious nut and fanatic. I then proceed to categorize you as a man stuck at a lower level of visualization in the depths of the Platonic Cave. If my metaphor holds, I stand above and over you with a greater grasp of “reality” and certainly more freedom. And this explains why I (and everyone) talks down to you. Where I may differ from them is that I do not negate the power and relevance of “symbols of the Self” nor a work of psychological integration of self-symbols.

Mostly, you have become for me an opportunity to study a man locked down into intellectual and spiritual structures that keep him from what I perceive as “advancement”. I do however recognize and accept that millions and even billions need the “pictures” that contain metaphysical predicates.

For me it all turns back to something that resides in me. Consciousness, awareness — this is what should concern us. How these are understood and honed — that is question and the challenge.

When a possessed fanatical lunatic like you speaks of Jesus or God I listen closely not because you could show or teach me something, but to see how a religious ideology conditions and molds social and political outlook. Again, the Cave metaphor is apt here.

Insofar as Christianity is a metaphysical science and is infused with these notions, in my view it is extremely valid. But it all depends on how it is looked at and who is doing the looking.

You are the most outrageously poor apologist for any “valuable kernel” within Christianity and your *work* is to destroy any sort of ‘conceptual ramp’ to understanding or appreciation what is there. You have almost no redeeming attribute.
Gary Childress
Posts: 7749
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Gary Childress »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2023 2:25 am
Gary Childress wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2023 12:40 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2023 12:28 am
You should read some more modern history, then, I'd suggest. As recently as the middle of the last century, most people in the modern West still believed in God, went to church or synagogue, believed in basic morals in common...the "Judeo-Christian" consensus, as they used to call it. It used to be the basic requirement of being a sort of respectable, law-abiding citizen.
Yes, and there were "witch trials",
In the 1950s?
wars,
Vietnam, Korea, Cuba WW1 and 2, the Cold War, the Russian Revolution, Cambodia, Angola..? All obviously secular conflicts. Apparently the human propensity for war is not related to religiosity.
Germany went through romanticism (idealizing the past), it reached pretty high intensity around Hilter's time.
Romanticism, meaning the official artistic movement, was long over before then. That was the era of things like Abstract Expressionism and Dada, actually.
Sorry, I didn't catch the "middle of the last century" part. At first, I thought you were going further back to earlier times when religion was much more dominant in society (more dominant than in the 1950s).

What was remarkably better about the 1950s than today?
Gary Childress
Posts: 7749
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Gary Childress »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2023 1:09 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 11:59 pmDo you consider that a reasonable test? Has Jesus Christ promised you to manifest upon request, especially for the satisfaction of a skeptic?
The entire premise of a god that would materialize to anyone is part of a rather odd and archaic way of perceiving reality. I proposed it moreover as a thought experiment for you-know-who: a man seeming to be trapped in resentment for life itself and angry at any conceived metaphysical entity that could have created such a “hell hole”.
Alas, if only there were fewer non-Christians in the world. If we could just get rid of them, everything would be fine like it was in the 1950s.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 4858
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Woodstock, an early phase:

Image
IC wrote: It wasn't about a new society. Or personal health. Or new freedom for women. Or about most of the things it was promoted as being about.
Harbal wrote: And what was it promoted as being about? It seems to me that it actually was about a new society, and about freedom, and I wouldn't even call it a sexual revolution; I think it was just part of a more general questioning of societal constraints. I would also like to think it was a kick up the arse for religious authority, and its stifling, outdated attitudes.
My view, based on what Harbal has written, is that he does not sufficiently understand the revolution of the Sixties. So he seems not to grasp that though the entire movement sold itself as utopian and as a sort of New Dawn for man, it had, at the least, dual functions and results.

No one can deny, it seems to me, the emotionalized enthusiasm* expressed in the lyrics of the Sixties songs Get Together and, for another example, Woodstock. So in a sense that is easily discerned, these songs express Christian Universalism through emotional and ideological terms that make it seem natural, necessary, inevitable. The stance taken by those who were deeply influenced by these messages is one of absolute certainty that their values, their plans for society and for the planet, were good & proper and beyond any critical doubt or counter-argument. In this sense, in my view at least, these songs demonstrate the power of enthusiastic religion and a whole set of premises that extend from Christian Universalism.

Let me state it in another way: It is not possible to find the root of these moods, these messages, this longing if you will, outside of Christian Universalism.

However right there alongside this motivation, this deep emotional longing, this metaphysical certainly that the aspiration was right & good and literally blessed by God, there was another tendency: the destruction of established hierarchies. The attack on institutions of long standing. I know my references here are brief, and the fuller picture is expertly described in Robert Bork's Slouching Toward Gomorrah, but my view is that one has to see and understand the duality of the results of the movement in order to understand what Immanuel refers to -- decadence, degeneration -- and why it is that conservative Protestant Evangelical (semi-Calvinist) ideologues long for a return to a former world that both existed and also did not really exist. Longing and nostalgia are powerful warpers of memory, and when one is captured by these longings -- a sense of loss, of something one once had that has left and may never return -- it warps one's historical perspective as well. When histories are written by people with this understanding, one ends up with views similar to Patrick Buchanan et al.

It may sound as if I am critiquing the longing but that is not quite so.

What I would wish to point out is that any proposition to alternatives to the progressiveness that we all have been deeply influenced by, and indeed we cannot see any alternative to it, is met with something that rises up inside of ourselves: that certainty that the ideals we hold to are the right & proper ones. This ideological mood is noticed strongly on this forum by Sculptor, Flash, Lacewing, Gary and many others.

What Immanuel proposes is a cartoon version or as I recently said the Family Bible version of metaphysical conservatism. To get where he wants to go you have to re-amalgamate yourself with an Evangelical cult with a certain sense of cultural and social regulations. It is very true though that the roots of Christianity, and Christian doctrine itself, contains so many vestiges of conservative social doctrine which had been infused into it. But it also seems more true that Christianity is far less a friend of genuine metaphysical conservatism than is supposed. Why? Because it is tyrannically universalist and uniformist. This impetus derives from its Judaic roots: an absolutely intolerant, tyrannical god-concept that actively and violently invalidates any concept except its own. It mind-fucks people at a central, metaphysical level.

In order to see through it, in order to oppose it, one has to confront it. And as we all clearly see here by example we deal here with a man whose unity of self would crash and fall into bits if he ever abandoned his ideological position.

The core questions though: personal health and wellbeing; the role of woman; sane social organization; respect for regional differences and autonomy; and a wide set of metaphysical predicates that challenge so many of those in our hyper-liberal realities that are so powerful such that we cannot oppose them without provoking in internal crisis -- these things are largely unknown to us because those who think in these terms are suppressed.
I think it was just part of a more general questioning of societal constraints. I would also like to think it was a kick up the arse for religious authority, and its stifling, outdated attitudes.
When understood from a Nietzschean perspective, and that conceptual platform where a child's picture of divine and metaphysical truth was imploded from within, becoming impossible to believe, and leading to a state of bereavement and loss of the ground under our feet (or the *horizon* if you wish), we arrived at an understanding that an entire World must be reconstructed. But modernity, and liberal culture, and liberal universalism, and universal nihilism, and a world-level business-model which subsumes us all, becomes for us the core ground on which we live.

It was more than just *questioning* since it had to do with both toppling and reconstruction. This was definitely so when the family was thought on. The family, in Leninist terms, is an oppressive institution that needed to be abandoned. In regard to sexuality, the Christian prudish view was targeted, and any alternative to it was seen as good & necessary. But there are certainly schools of thought that would necessarily resist unbridled hedonism and non-restaint in sexual practice. But the rebellious mood -- a child's rebellion against parents and authority -- will always tear down all barriers. Because there is no longer a sound, believable, metaphysical undergirding.

Around us now, but always seem to manifest with a certain inflicted debility, or is it uncertainty, or ideological unclarity, there are numerous challenges to the established Liberal models. The so-called Right-tending resistance movements. They are always described as *fascistic* and therefore *evil*. But they all seem to desire to re-imbue social ideology with more traditionalist metaphysical ideas.
__________________________

*Enthusiasm
[Pejorative use]

During the years that immediately followed the Glorious Revolution, "enthusiasm" was a British pejorative term for advocacy of any political or religious cause in public, i.e. fanaticism. Such "enthusiasm" was seen in the time around 1700 as the cause of the previous century's English Civil War and its attendant atrocities, and thus it was an absolute social sin to remind others of the war by engaging in enthusiasm. The Royal Society bylaws stipulated that any person discussing religion or politics at a Society meeting was to be summarily ejected for being an "enthusiast."

During the 18th century, popular Methodists such as John Wesley or George Whitefield were accused of blind enthusiasm, a charge against which they defended themselves by distinguishing fanaticism from "religion of the heart." Methodists who enthusiastically preach about and experience the new birth (first work of grace) and entire sanctification (second work of grace) often have emotional experiences.
"Methodist preachers have been known for their enthusiasm in promulgating the doctrines of the new birth and entire sanctification to the public at events such as tent revivals and camp meetings, which they believe is the reason that God raised them up into existence."
Will Bouwman
Posts: 523
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:17 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Will Bouwman »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 11:35 pm
Will Bouwman wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 1:26 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 12:10 pmSo, those who see nature as it really is see realistically and maturely when compared to any romantic or mythological view.
Gus, just because you are nasty, brutish and short, it doesn't mean all of nature is similarly hobbled.
Nature is not hobbled, it simply is. The perspective I offered seems to me realistic. Do you see things differently? How?
With a few more actors than just predator and prey. This guy for instance:
https://www.pbslearningmedia.org/resour ... sterpiece/
Isn't that romantic?
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9261
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Harbal »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2023 3:05 pm
IC wrote: It wasn't about a new society. Or personal health. Or new freedom for women. Or about most of the things it was promoted as being about.
Harbal wrote: And what was it promoted as being about? It seems to me that it actually was about a new society, and about freedom, and I wouldn't even call it a sexual revolution; I think it was just part of a more general questioning of societal constraints. I would also like to think it was a kick up the arse for religious authority, and its stifling, outdated attitudes.
My view, based on what Harbal has written, is that he does not sufficiently understand the revolution of the Sixties. So he seems not to grasp that though the entire movement sold itself as utopian and as a sort of New Dawn for man, it had, at the least, dual functions and results.

No one can deny, it seems to me, the emotionalized enthusiasm* expressed in the lyrics of the Sixties songs Get Together and, for another example, Woodstock. So in a sense that is easily discerned, these songs express Christian Universalism through emotional and ideological terms that make it seem natural, necessary, inevitable. The stance taken by those who were deeply influenced by these messages is one of absolute certainty that their values, their plans for society and for the planet, were good & proper and beyond any critical doubt or counter-argument. In this sense, in my view at least, these songs demonstrate the power of enthusiastic religion and a whole set of premises that extend from Christian Universalism.

Let me state it in another way: It is not possible to find the root of these moods, these messages, this longing if you will, outside of Christian Universalism.

However right there alongside this motivation, this deep emotional longing, this metaphysical certainly that the aspiration was right & good and literally blessed by God, there was another tendency: the destruction of established hierarchies. The attack on institutions of long standing. I know my references here are brief, and the fuller picture is expertly described in Robert Bork's Slouching Toward Gomorrah, but my view is that one has to see and understand the duality of the results of the movement in order to understand what Immanuel refers to -- decadence, degeneration -- and why it is that conservative Protestant Evangelical (semi-Calvinist) ideologues long for a return to a former world that both existed and also did not really exist. Longing and nostalgia are powerful warpers of memory, and when one is captured by these longings -- a sense of loss, of something one once had that has left and may never return -- it warps one's historical perspective as well. When histories are written by people with this understanding, one ends up with views similar to Patrick Buchanan et al.

It may sound as if I am critiquing the longing but that is not quite so.

What I would wish to point out is that any proposition to alternatives to the progressiveness that we all have been deeply influenced by, and indeed we cannot see any alternative to it, is met with something that rises up inside of ourselves: that certainty that the ideals we hold to are the right & proper ones. This ideological mood is noticed strongly on this forum by Sculptor, Flash, Lacewing, Gary and many others.

What Immanuel proposes is a cartoon version or as I recently said the Family Bible version of metaphysical conservatism. To get where he wants to go you have to re-amalgamate yourself with an Evangelical cult with a certain sense of cultural and social regulations. It is very true though that the roots of Christianity, and Christian doctrine itself, contains so many vestiges of conservative social doctrine which had been infused into it. But it also seems more true that Christianity is far less a friend of genuine metaphysical conservatism than is supposed. Why? Because it is tyrannically universalist and uniformist. This impetus derives from its Judaic roots: an absolutely intolerant, tyrannical god-concept that actively and violently invalidates any concept except its own. It mind-fucks people at a central, metaphysical level.

In order to see through it, in order to oppose it, one has to confront it. And as we all clearly see here by example we deal here with a man whose unity of self would crash and fall into bits if he ever abandoned his ideological position.

The core questions though: personal health and wellbeing; the role of woman; sane social organization; respect for regional differences and autonomy; and a wide set of metaphysical predicates that challenge so many of those in our hyper-liberal realities that are so powerful such that we cannot oppose them without provoking in internal crisis -- these things are largely unknown to us because those who think in these terms are suppressed.
I think it was just part of a more general questioning of societal constraints. I would also like to think it was a kick up the arse for religious authority, and its stifling, outdated attitudes.
When understood from a Nietzschean perspective, and that conceptual platform where a child's picture of divine and metaphysical truth was imploded from within, becoming impossible to believe, and leading to a state of bereavement and loss of the ground under our feet (or the *horizon* if you wish), we arrived at an understanding that an entire World must be reconstructed. But modernity, and liberal culture, and liberal universalism, and universal nihilism, and a world-level business-model which subsumes us all, becomes for us the core ground on which we live.

It was more than just *questioning* since it had to do with both toppling and reconstruction. This was definitely so when the family was thought on. The family, in Leninist terms, is an oppressive institution that needed to be abandoned. In regard to sexuality, the Christian prudish view was targeted, and any alternative to it was seen as good & necessary. But there are certainly schools of thought that would necessarily resist unbridled hedonism and non-restaint in sexual practice. But the rebellious mood -- a child's rebellion against parents and authority -- will always tear down all barriers. Because there is no longer a sound, believable, metaphysical undergirding.

Around us now, but always seem to manifest with a certain inflicted debility, or is it uncertainty, or ideological unclarity, there are numerous challenges to the established Liberal models. The so-called Right-tending resistance movements. They are always described as *fascistic* and therefore *evil*. But they all seem to desire to re-imbue social ideology with more traditionalist metaphysical ideas.
__________________________

*Enthusiasm
[Pejorative use]

During the years that immediately followed the Glorious Revolution, "enthusiasm" was a British pejorative term for advocacy of any political or religious cause in public, i.e. fanaticism. Such "enthusiasm" was seen in the time around 1700 as the cause of the previous century's English Civil War and its attendant atrocities, and thus it was an absolute social sin to remind others of the war by engaging in enthusiasm. The Royal Society bylaws stipulated that any person discussing religion or politics at a Society meeting was to be summarily ejected for being an "enthusiast."

During the 18th century, popular Methodists such as John Wesley or George Whitefield were accused of blind enthusiasm, a charge against which they defended themselves by distinguishing fanaticism from "religion of the heart." Methodists who enthusiastically preach about and experience the new birth (first work of grace) and entire sanctification (second work of grace) often have emotional experiences.
"Methodist preachers have been known for their enthusiasm in promulgating the doctrines of the new birth and entire sanctification to the public at events such as tent revivals and camp meetings, which they believe is the reason that God raised them up into existence."
As I remember it, when things started to open/lighten up in the late 60s, people didn't go into the depth of analysis that you have, they just went with the flow, man. 8)
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Lacewing »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2023 6:01 am
Harbal wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2023 4:59 am
The sexual revolution wasn't about "more marriages." :lol:
What are you getting at?
That it was never about love.
:lol:

Free love... love the one you're with... peace and love... oh, yes, people were learning about new levels of love beyond conventional and superficial structures. You ought to know: marriage does not ensure love. Marriage is a contract. Love doesn't require contracts.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 4858
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Harbal wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2023 4:41 pm As I remember it, when things started to open/lighten up in the late 60s, people didn't go into the depth of analysis that you have, they just went with the flow, man. 8)
Did I once ask you before if you’d read On Chesil Beach by Ian MEwan?
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 4858
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Lacewing wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2023 5:28 pm Free love... love the one you're with... peace and love...
I found all these in my parent’s record collection (actual vinyl).

You didn’t mention this arrangement.

I used not to like this era of music. Now I can’t help but see how talented these people were.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9261
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Harbal »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2023 5:44 pm
Harbal wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2023 4:41 pm As I remember it, when things started to open/lighten up in the late 60s, people didn't go into the depth of analysis that you have, they just went with the flow, man. 8)
Did I once ask you before if you’d read On Chesil Beach by Ian MEwan?
I don't remember your asking me, but no, I haven't read it.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Lacewing »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2023 5:49 pm
Lacewing wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2023 5:28 pm Free love... love the one you're with... peace and love...
I found all these in my parent’s record collection (actual vinyl).

You didn’t mention this arrangement.

I used not to like this era of music. Now I can’t help but see how talented these people were.
Although it was before my time, I discovered -- and was immersed in -- the music and psychedelics in my twenties. I think that era (the sixties) was an immensely beneficial and transformative BURST of awareness and love in response to the rigid conventional culture, war, and stunted human evolvement.

Indigenous people throughout history have used psychedelics in a respectful way, recognizing the greater levels of personal awareness that can be achieved. Such awareness is actually a threat to modern religion, and truly, anything that denies responsible awareness should be regarded as promoting slavery to ignorance... possibly for nefarious purposes.

The music and messages of that era seem extraordinarily applicable again... which tells me that we need another BIG BURST of awareness and love. Maybe that's why psychedelics are becoming legal and more widely used for 'medical' purposes. On some level, maybe we know what we're denying.

Crown of Creation (lyrics)

You are the crown of creation
You are the crown of creation
And you've got no place to go
Soon you'll attain the stability you strive for
In the only way that it's granted
In a place among the fossils of our time

In loyalty to their kind
They cannot tolerate our minds
In loyalty to our kind
We cannot tolerate their obstruction

Life is change
How it differs from the rocks
I've seen their ways too often for my liking
New worlds to gain
My life is to survive
And be alive for you
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22030
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Will Bouwman wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2023 10:08 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 5:42 pm
Will Bouwman wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 11:32 am...there is a wealth of evidence for the evolution of creatures that became increasingly human like.
Let's see that "wealth," then.
A Google search for 'evidence of human evolution'...
You can take the Wikis etc. at face value, of course. Or you can recognize in them, and in their various and contradictory claims, their shifty rationales and their ever-expanding timespans, a graphic display of how high the stakes are in this question, and of the many convolutions through which people are prepared to go to bolster the project of elimnating God from the universe.

Take your pick, I guess.
Post Reply