- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @fmfNo I said I the only way one moral claim can be any more correct than another is you assume that objective moral truth exists. Else it's free for all.
I am not stretching my imagination at all. You repeatedly framed your opinions regarding morality as "objectively" true ~ as opposed to mine, which you labelled "subjective" ~ during the 12 or so months you were posting as Fetchmyjunk. Indeed, there were times when it seemed as if the "objective truth" of your personal opinions was just about the only thing you wanted to talk about.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
29 Sep 17
Originally posted by @black-beetleIf your statement is fully subjective it only applies to yourself and to no one else anyway so why should I bother?
My fully subjective statement that your conclusion is false, is accurate.
If you think my statement does not hold, you have to prove that my statement is false😵
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
29 Sep 17
Originally posted by @black-beetleYou are wrong and my statement that your conclusion is false, is accurate.
In fact, none of your opinions are objectively true. Some of them are false and some of them are accurate. According to our collective subjectivity, that is😵
If you think my statement does not hold, you have to prove that my statement is false. 😵
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
29 Sep 17
Originally posted by @fmfYour statement "There aren't any "objective truths" in any of the speculative, hopeful, fearful. superstitious stuff you come out with" can only apply to me if it is objectively true, so there you've shot yourself in the foot already.
There aren't any "objective truths" in any of the speculative, hopeful, fearful. superstitious stuff you come out with. Meanwhile, I am willing to listen to and engage people with a range of ideologies, perspectives and experiences. It that's what you mean by 'taking them seriously', then I don't have any difficulty with that.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
29 Sep 17
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraDo you have to be a biologist or geologist to understand what unprovable assumptions are made by biologists and geologists? Or do you just accept everything you read on wikipedia as objectively true?
I never pretended or claimed to be a biologist or geologist.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
29 Sep 17
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeYou don't have to be an expert to understand that there is a lot of speculation, circular reasoning, creative imagination involved, not to mention plenty of unprovable presuppositions that have to be made.
You not think truth is more likely located in the research of experts in the field of evolution, rather than in your personal interpretation of it?
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
29 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerIt's like talking to Lego.
You don't have to be an expert to understand that there is a lot of speculation, circular reasoning, creative imagination involved, not to mention plenty of unprovable presuppositions that have to be made.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraI don't believe you are foolish enough to suggest there were no core tenet(s) before the discovery of DNA. The core tenet of evolution has always been that there is a mechanism akin to natural selection that could account for all of life evolving from a common ancestry.
Or perhaps you are wrong in thinking my presupposition that you are presupposing evolution is wrong is wrong.
At its core, the theory of evolution in the modern synthesis relies on these ingredients:
- DNA reproduces
- DNA mutates
- DNA affects the phenotype
For the theory of evolution to be incorrect, one of these ingredients must be incorrec ...[text shortened]... hen attacking the theory of evolution implies you do not understand the basic idea of evolution.
Natural selection (variation within species) was understood to exist before Darwin formulated his theory. He used NS as a springboard for launching a (suppositional, not proven) theory that all the differences between every form of life on earth could be the result of a different kind of selection process. So the fact that evolutionists have zeroed in on DNA and claim this is the mechanism Darwin anticipated comes as no big surprise.
I think you are smart enough to avoid claiming there were no core tenents of evolution before the discovery of DNA, but who knows... you seem desperate to always prove me wrong, so maybe you will be tempted to argue with this as well.
29 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerI did. Kindly please read my first post on page 33 of this thread. What you, a person whose diciple is Physics, thinks that color as we perceive it, is? Kindly please let me know where exactly my presentation as regards this matter does not hold water.
You are wrong and my statement that your conclusion is false, is accurate.
If you think my statement does not hold, you have to prove that my statement is false. 😵
😵
29 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerMy fully subjective statement that applies to myself is also scientifically concrete and as such is accepted by our collective subjectiveness, which you appear to understand as "objectivity", dj2 becker.
If your statement is fully subjective it only applies to yourself and to no one else anyway so why should I bother?
Of course you do not have to bother at all. You could merely apply critical thought and evaluate, in case you feel so. As easily as I demonstrated that your ideas are not scientific but religious, this easy should be for you to show me where my evaluation is wrong if it is indeed wrong and educate me, and you are most welcome;
😵
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
29 Sep 17
Originally posted by @black-beetleWhat does 'hold water' mean if there is no objective truth? 😵
I did. Kindly please read my first post on page 33 of this thread. What you, a person whose diciple is Physics, thinks that color as we perceive it, is? Kindly please let me know where exactly my presentation as regards this matter does not hold water.
😵
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @black-beetleSounds like argumentum ad populum. 😵
My fully subjective statement that applies to myself is also scientifically concrete and as such is accepted by our collective subjectiveness, which you appear to understand as "objectivity", dj2 becker.
Of course you do not have to bother at all. You could merely apply critical thought and evaluate, in case you feel so. As easily as I demonstrated ...[text shortened]... where my evaluation is wrong if it is indeed wrong and educate me, and you are most welcome;
😵
29 Sep 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @lemon-limeWe're living after the discovery of DNA, meaning any criticism directed towards the theory of evolution should also address the way DNA has been incorporated into the theory in the mid-20th Century.
I don't believe you are foolish enough to suggest there were no core tenet(s) before the discovery of DNA. The core tenet of evolution has always been that there is a mechanism akin to natural selection that could account for all of life evolving from a common ancestry.
Natural selection (variation within species) was understood to exist before Darwin ...[text shortened]... perate to always prove me wrong, so maybe you will be tempted to argue with this as well.
Natural selection isn't "variation within species" BTW.
29 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerDo you believe we've both shot ourselves in the foot in this conversation or do you think it is only me who has?
Your statement "There aren't any "objective truths" in any of the speculative, hopeful, fearful. superstitious stuff you come out with" can only apply to me if it is objectively true, so there you've shot yourself in the foot already.