Hey Max, I am trying to ignore the messages on the scam group and just respond here. The title is "Objective Moral Values Prove() God Exists" That would be fine if you could show evidence for objective morals. The god in the OT and the New T, are both immoral. You say you don't go to church. So, if I may ask, where do your beliefs come from? You believe everything in the bible. Why? Did you go to church at one time? I believed because my parents (esp. mom) told me it was true. I enjoyed going to church, wearing a tie, singing in the choir, etc., I had no desire to leave. I was just reading the bible when it happened. There are some moral rules in the Bible we can agree on (subjective), but there are none which weren't already stated years before. You said recently that slavery is objectively moral. Unless you have some explanation, as you did for cutting a child open...., I don't understand how you think this. If rape is bad (we agree), then holding someone for extended periods (slavery) with the possibility of rape, torture, etc. would seem to be at least usually 'bad". Subjectively immoral. Against modern laws. To me, this clearly shows that we have developed over the years and that things which were acceptable even by a God in older times, are considered illegal now. Keep reading. Peace.

Well either way it seems that slavery would be a subjective moral value like polygamy and alcohol use. I don't really think your example stands a chance in the objective moral value compass. Its too vague and is given to much interpretation which means your points are just too weak to respond too. Objective morality is laid out in the Scriptures and Objective Morality is a learned beneficial quality even if ones does not know the meaning of objective morality and practices it anyway. Objective moral values benefit the individual who abides in them and those that don't are subject to all kinds of torments psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually. In your case obviously there was a perverted understanding of these objective values and that is why you constantly misinterpret scripture to your own destruction spiritually. These values are not just a Christian teaching, or a Jewish teaching we find them in all aspects of law and other religions as well. This being the case that these qualities are trans-religious and encompass just about every level of society that one can possible imagine also point to an Objective Moral status. There is too much evidence to ignore here.

I'm not talking about boss/employee status. Bosses pay their employees and they let them go home at the end of the day. I am talking about an actual slave. I have never seen a slave.

sorry...I spend my days around 18 year old students, I'm used to people being smart asses. I thought you were pointing out that GreedyCapybara7 was all one word. To be honest I don't care what you call me, I just wasn't sure you knew that Capybara was an actual word.

This message is copied from another group sponsored by Maximus Mcc Max - Then really you don't know what Objective Morality is then do you? cs - No sir. I have said that all along. You seem surprised. Max - You have expressed it several times in saying that the Holocaust was bad. That we should not rape and murder the innocent no matter what lifetime we are in. You are expressing objective morality. Subjective morality is that it may be OK for them but not OK for you. Why is it that you cannot understand this? cs - Because the people who tell this to me have "subjective human minds." They are telling me that their subjective opinion -is- objective, but they will not, or can not tell me where I can learn about it. I am glad that my subjective opinion about rape and murder match your idea of objective morality. I still don't agree they are they same thing. Same results, yes, but not for the same reason. Those two examples are on the extreme end of the right and wrong spectrum. Let's look at an example which is not such an easy target. Is it always wrong to have someone slice open your child's stomach, without anesthesia or sterile instruments? If there is such a thing as objective morality, your answer can only be yes or no. I will be glad to give my answer and explain it once I hear yours. thanks

2/10/2012 moving over from evolutionscam.com

The question shows me that you do not understand anything about Objective Morality. The answer to your question of course is no, its not always wrong to slice open my child's stomach in such a way. There may be a very good reason medically why this would have to happen. This is a very weak premise to operate under when trying to illustrate your point about subjective morality. Like I said before what may be right for you is not right for someone else, that is subjective morality which would depend on the time, place and situation. I asked you a very pertinent question, When is it OK to rape and murder a child and you claim that you gave me a subjective answer but, that don't fit the bill because you said that it don't matter what lifetime you are in it is wrong to rape and murder a child. That is objective morality, not just a general consensus. Don't try to feed me the BS you don't know where it comes from, you know very well where it comes from and that is supernatural laws. Don't give me that crap about your so called evidence either. How can I know you love your children, what test can I do to give me the evidence that I need to prove you love your kids. Its hard to take you seriously sometimes Calvin!

Good for you. You do understand that sometimes things which are horrible are necessary for the greater good. Max - Like I said before what may be right for you is not right for someone else, that is subjective morality which would depend on the time, place and situation. cs - Does it also depend on who is doing the act in question? For instance, we agree subjectively that it is always wrong for one person to kill large numbers of other people. Is it also wrong for a god to kill large numbers of people? if the god disagrees with us and kills the people, can he claim to be objectively right to do so? Max - I asked you a very pertinent question, When is it OK to rape and murder a child and you claim that you gave me a subjective answer but, that don’t fit the bill because you said that it don’t matter what lifetime you are in it is wrong to rape and murder a child. cs - I have answered the question repeatedly, In my subjective opinion it is never right to rape or murder a child. Max - Don’t try to feed me the BS cs - Your language is atrocious. Matthew 15:10 And he (Jesus) called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: 11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. Max - you don’t know where it comes from, you know very well where it comes from and that is supernatural laws. cs - I know people have told me they think it comes from the bible, but that can't be true, so I keep asking. Max - Don’t give me that crap cs - see above. My mother would have washed my mouth out with soap. Did I say something about loving my children? In general I do but it depends are how they are (were) acting at the moment. It is subjective to my opinion at the time. Max - Its hard to take you seriously sometimes Calvin! cs - Fine, I take you seriously. I think you and others who claim to be Christians are seriously tearing our society apart.

Max (from the other group) - MaximusMcc Calvin let me ask you a question seriously. Why are you quoting from a book that you don’t even believe in? just for your enlightenment I will entertain your madness. Luke 12: 30 For all these things do the nations of the world seek after: and your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things. Now do you see that the Father knows you have need of these things. So if its coming to you from the father don’t turn it down or you are rejecting the fathers provisions. That would be like my kid refusing to eat supper, or refusing for me to buy her a house or a car. Just because I have it does not mean that I have not given. You are much mistaken. This is not a life of poverty as you suppose, it is a life of riches. Anyone in a successful business will tell you that you have to give as well as take. Sometimes you are given more, whats wrong with that? Just because Calvin thinks I have too much does not mean a hill of beans to me. I will not reject the fathers goodness to me and my family. I see why you are not a Christian anymore, you misinterpret everything!

I am glad you mentioned my language is atrocious because that illustrates your "subjective" opinion. Subjectively I will respect that and refrain from using terms that offend a sensitive conscience. I am glad you had good parents I did not. If something is subjective however that means in itself it comes from something objective. I do not see how you cannot make the connection. Something that is "sub"jective is not self originating. The fact that you are arguing this point that you can only have something that is subjective is crazy in itself. When something is subjective it is based on something else, isn't it? I think its funny how you quote Matthew 15:10 when it says nothing about cussing but he is speaking of "reasoning". Yet, like every Bible verse you quote you are more than far off the mark.

16 “Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. 17 “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”

Why would you say that I am trying to tear society apart? I don't see how you make that connection.

moving from the other group - Max - Wow Calvin I am surprised you came up with that analogy. So you are saying that it takes imagination to believe in evolution? Just curious because from your accusation above I can conclude in the affirmative. Yet just like everything else you misquote those as well. The talking snake no doubt you are referring to the story of Adam and Eve and the serpent that tempted Eve. No doubt the donkey that talked to Balaam is your other reference. We have seen many movies where this same thing has been done. Its called ventriloquism. I am sure that you have thought about that. However if there are spiritual beings and entities which are proven scientifically they exist I am sure they too can use ventriloquism. As far as something being on fire and not being consumed, you evidently never used a gas stove or a gas furnace. Not much imagination there at all. However to believe in supernatural causes which I do I favor such things like the origin of the universe, origin of life, etc. For this I do have an imagination on how God created everything. I do not doubt it that God had made it I am just wondering what is the process for harnessing energy to atoms and molecules with a word. I am wondering exactly where the natural world stops sometimes and the supernatural takes over. What is light? How are dreams made? Why 5 digits on each hand? What is consciousness? Why feelings when mathematics is precise? What would it be like to see sound and hear blue? What determines a supernatural cause? Science does not deal with this because it is limited to natural causes are natural causes all there is? Hell no, far from it. There are tons of things that happen that cannot be repeatable, observable and testable. Supernatural events are such things.

still moving - I will answer these later MaximusMcc Who cares who they are owned by? Are you for real here? If you are hungry and I have a sandwich are you going to refuse it because I own it? Lets say that there are 2 maps. I own one an evolutionist owns the other. You are telling me you are going to use his just because he is an evolutionist? Whats your reasoning here? It sounds like hate to me. Well you reject the Bible and the dictionaries I see whats wrong here you just want to reason in circles and there is no absolute truth. Let me ask you a question. Is there absolute truth?

Max - I am glad you mentioned my language is atrocious because that illustrates your “subjective” opinion. cs - I'm not sure why you would want to waste words illustrating something I have claimed from the beginning. Max - Subjectively I will respect that and refrain from using terms that offend a sensitive conscience. cs - I appreciate that, thank you. Max - .... If something is subjective however that means in itself it comes from something objective. cs - Subjective means it is influenced by a human mind. There is an object and a subject observing the object. Anything and everything the subject thinks about the object is subjective. Whether the input of data comes through the human senses or from machines invented by humans which display the data as points on a graph, etc., it is influenced by the human minds which analyze the data. With more observers and more machines collecting data, people can arrive at a consensus about the object and feel comfortable with their understanding of it. They might even be tempted to call the knowledge "objective", but if the data changes tomorrow, they were wrong. I prefer to think of human interactions as subjective. I'm here (on earth and in this forum) to learn. Max - I do not see how you cannot make the connection. Something that is “sub”jective is not self originating. cs - Right. It is a thought about an object which is perceived (correctly or incorrectly) by a mind. Max - The fact that you are arguing this point that you can only have something that is subjective is crazy in itself. cs - I'm starting a notepad file keeping up with the times people use words like "crazy" instead of explaining why they don't agree. These remarks are not conducive to civil conversation and are a waste of time. I don't agree with your ideas and I want to understand more about them. I will leave labels such as "madness" and "crazy" to others. Max - When something is subjective it is based on something else, isn’t it? cs - Yes. It is based on the prior knowledge and present state of the mind considering it. Max - I think its funny cs - Do you mean "ironic" here? Max - how you quote Matthew 15:10 when it says nothing about cussing cs - I didn't say anything about the verse mentioning "cussing". Again, you obfuscate instead of addressing the issue. Max - but he is speaking of “reasoning”. cs - Please show the word "reason" in any form or tense in Matthew 15. I checked the whole chapter (twice now) and do not see that. Max - Yet, like every Bible verse you quote you are more than far off the mark. cs - You say it but you do not show it. I quote from the KJV on biblegateway com. I read at least a few lines before and after what I quote. I do try to keep the quotes short. That goes back to earlier days when there were limits on word count. I will give more each time I use a quote from now on. You have several times accused me of misquoting. That would be a serious offense and I don't take it lightly. Please, either show where I have once (much less "every" time) misquoted the bible, or use some other word, such as "misinterpret", "misunderstand," etc. I have not and will not misquote the bible. I will tell you what it says to me and you can tell me your interpretation. Max quoting Matthew 15:16 “Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. 17 “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? cs - We, imso (in my subjective opinion,) agree on what Jesus is saying here. Tell me if I am wrong. Matthew 15:18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. cs - I won't nit pick about words coming from the mind rather than the "heart," just mentioning it in passing. Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts cs - This is what I was referring to. Your language seems to come from evil thoughts. imso. Matthew 15:19... —murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.” cs - I put the language you use under the first thing he mentions, "evil thoughts." Some other things you say would come under "false testimony" and "slander" (I know slander refers to the spoken word, but my interpretation is that Jesus would also include "libel" if he had lived in a society that wrote more.) Max - Why would you say that I am trying to tear society apart? I don’t see how you make that connection. cs - By your stubborn refusal to accept the evidence of science, you are cutting children off from the greatest amount of information which has been known to humans. You hypocritically use the fruits of science, (your car, computers, sound and audio equipment,) then spit in the face of science when it does not agree with your subjective feelings about an old book and something you call "Objective morality" which has not been shown. You say you follow Jesus and the old book, then interpret the clear words to suit your modern life style. You are innocent of being a Christian.

a comment from Capybara on the other forum: "Max if he murdered someone, and that was okay under those conditions then morality (even if only around that one event if you ignore all of human history) is subjective, different things are right and wrong depending on the situation. For example it was okay to kill them to save the family, but probably not okay to kill them if they were just walking down the street."

on another forum Greedy said - When sacrificing the child to your desert God or someone's daughter has been sold to you as a sex slave...during the time of the Old Testament of course. However because I lack the knowledge of the Bible held by Calvin and obviously not yourself I cannot quote the passages.

Calvin you don't have to copy and paste everything. I think you were getting on me about that before. You keep repeating everything when you cut and paste. I can see what you write and what I write very plainly and so can all the readers. [Yes there are other readers who wish to observe and not participate in our conversations] I don't know what you mean by wasting words it seems like your doing that enough here. Now I have already given the definition of "subjective" here is the meaning of "Objective" Now I only included the 3 definitions out of 8 but you know the other meanings of the word "objective". Reference Now I am hoping that you can see my point about Objective Moral Values, if not then I don't think that you are playing with a full deck mentally. I know that Greedy does not like the dictionary definitions, he likes to make up his own meanings as he goes along and unlike you he cusses all over my site with not the slightest but of respect, yet I expect that from an evolutionist so I let him carry on so.

5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion. 6.intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book. 7.being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective). 8.of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

I will end this answer here and continue on with your next points in another post for the sake of not rambling.

If you want to keep track of how many times I say "crazy" or "funny" that's does not matter to me. Yes it that irritates you too I will try to refrain from using this as well so you can better concentrate on the subject. Quit getting distracted, that's "crazy"! pun intended but Ill try not to let it happen again Ok going back to your Bible quotes that you like to use. Matthew 15:10 10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. If you don't know how that relates to "reason" then I don't think I can help you. But just in case, yes just in case you want the dictionary meaning of reason here it is. rea·son  [ree-zuhn] Show IPA noun to urge reasons which should determine belief or action. Calvin you have to be toying with me, whats the meaning of all of this? This is simple stuff. You left Christ because of these reasons? You seem like a good guy with some caliber morals and values. Some of them even sound spiritual not by what you say but by the tone in which you say them. Listen to yourself telling me that I spit in the face of science as if it is a God or something. I love science and learning I just don't accept all of the evolution theory. I think its mixed with lies. I can accept science I know that it is a learning process with success and failures. Evolution climes to be a lot more than science. In science I can reject some things and accept others but with evolution politically, I am not allowed to do that. You are telling me that I am not allowed to have the freedom to pick and choose what I want out of science, really? Since I drive a car I need to accept evolution, really? Since I have indoor plumbing I need to bow to evolution? Evolution sounds like a beast to me and all the world is following it. Ill stick with science, I can still pick and choose what I want there, I like my freedoms, God given freedoms.

I already responded to this on the other forum.

Well I think its IRONIC here that Greedy will readily admit here that he does not have Bible knowledge but he is willing to take your word over mine without testing the evidence? These are the people that are teaching kids? hmmm I am glad my kids go to private school!

Max - Calvin you don't have to copy and paste everything. cs- I disagree. When two or more people are talking (writing, discussing) about important subjects (objects for discussion) such as, "Objective Moral Values Proves God Exists," It is imperative to present what one is responding to. Max - I think you were getting on me about that before. cs - No sir, I pointed out that you were copying and pasting large chunks of other peoples thoughts and writings. Max - You keep repeating everything when you cut and paste. cs - Not everything, just what I am replying to at the moment. Max - I can see what you write and what I write very plainly and so can all the readers. cs - Yes, once I get to the forum I can also see all the messages. When I wake up in the morning, I see multiple emails with similar "subjects" and I do -not- see what everyone writes. I copy and paste only what I am responding to. You have offered this wonderful forum with no known character limit so we could discuss this one important subject. You can end the conversation immediately by telling your viewers, "What is the source of (for) Objective morality. thanks. Max - [Yes there are other readers who wish to observe and not participate in our conversations] I don't know what you mean by wasting words it seems like your doing that enough here. Now I have already given the definition of "subjective" here is the meaning of "Objective" Now I only included the 3 definitions out of 8 but you know the other meanings of the word "objective". cs - The only important one is the one you mean when you start a forum with the word "Objective..." in the title. Max - Reference Now I am hoping that you can see my point about Objective Moral Values, cs - No, I don't. Max - if not then I don't think that you are playing with a full deck mentally. cs - That comment will be added to my "Max - evil thoughts" folder. More later. Max - I know that Greedy does not like the dictionary definitions, he likes to make up his own meanings as he goes along and unlike you he cusses all over my site with not the slightest but of respect, yet I expect that from an evolutionist so I let him carry on so. 5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion. 6.intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book. 7.being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective). 8.of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality. I will end this answer here and continue on with your next points in another post for the sake of not rambling.

Ok well you do what you want as far as copy and pasting I am sure people are not wanting to read everything twice though. I am sure though in a regular conversation you don't repeat what the other person is saying then respond to it every time. Just out of curiosity in your worldview how many sub-sub-subjectives can we go? Like you obviously don't cuss even though your kids might hypothetically. So how long does it go until there is actual punishment administered subjectively and is it just? Now you said your mother would wash your mouth out with soap. She is obviously acting on her subjective mind because I subjectively see no problem expressing yourself with language. Now we can take this to other levels city, county, state, country, world etc. What does "objective" mean to you?

Objective - "1a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind " *** - independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers - ***

per·cep·ti·ble/pərˈseptəbəl/Adjective:(esp. of a slight movement or change of state) Able to be seen or noticed

Your fooling yourself, Objective Moral Values do exist

Objects exist, we agree. The object is perceptible. I have not yet perceived Objective Morality. Still waiting for someone to direct me to it.

Are there things that are wrong that are not subjective? I know that you are thinking that subjectively there is not objective values. This is not up for debate however, Objective Moral Values exist because right and wrong exist. Whether you choose to recognize it or not is immaterial. We have been focusing on the negative part of objective moral values there is also a positive side to Objective Moral Values too that are right just because they are right. For example if someone knew that 911 was going to hit and they made the phone call, had the building evacuated before thousands of people died. That may be subjectively right but its more importantly Objectively right because being negligent in this regard is objectively wrong. you think that because you have a subjective mind that you cannot think of objective things? Here is another example, the earth rotates. Now I could say all day long that it does not but that does not matter does it because objectively it does.

Objective Moral Values Proves God Exists Max - Are there things that are wrong that are not subjective? cs - Thanks. There may be. I am saying all I have is a subjective mind. You keep saying OM (objective morality) exists. It is up to you to tell me why x is wrong objectively. We agree that flying planes into buildings is wrong, but obviously there are those who disagree. Max - I know that you are thinking that subjectively there is not objective values. This is not up for debate however, Objective Moral Values exist because right and wrong exist. cs - This is how you sound to me: FSM - I know that you are thinking that there is no Flying SM. This is not up for debate however, FSM exists because right and wrong exist. Max - Whether you choose to recognize it or not is immaterial. We have been focusing on the negative part of objective moral values there is also a positive side to Objective Moral Values too that are right just because they are right. cs - Good, please tell me. Max - For example if someone knew that 911 was going to hit and they made the phone call, had the building evacuated before thousands of people died. That may be subjectively right but its more importantly Objectively right because being negligent in this regard is objectively wrong. cs - And yet, the religious fanatics did it. They thought "they" were right. What is up with that? How can I know objectively? (Remember, I agree with you subjectively that it was wrong.) Max - you think that because you have a subjective mind that you cannot think of objective things? cs - No. I think of objective things using the only brain I have, which makes my opinion subjective. Max - Here is another example, the earth rotates. Now I could say all day long that it does not but that does not matter does it because objectively it does. cs - Is it Objectively Morally right or wrong for the earth to rotate?

OK you can play the stupid game all day long, Objective Moral Values do exist. Raping and killing children is wrong, warning people of danger is right no matter what time period you are in. You acting like they don't exist makes you look like a complete nincompoop. I gave you clear illustrations of Objective Moral Values, in your mind they don't exist for some reason but I think there are more than this that don't exist in your skull. Subjective is; "that dress makes you look fat its just wrong for you to wear it". If you cant see the difference I think its time to make an appointment with the psychiatrist.

OK you can play the stupid game all day long, Objective Moral Values do exist. Raping and killing children is wrong, warning people of danger is right no matter what time period you are in. cs - ad hominem. I know someone who is serving in a foreign country. Should I advise her to let known terrorists know that they are in danger by her comrades? February, 2012. Max - You acting like they don't exist makes you look like a complete nincompoop. cs - Failure to show evidence for OM, ad hominem. Max - I gave you clear illustrations of Objective Moral Values, cs - We disagree. Max - in your mind they don't exist for some reason but cs - Lack of evidence. Max - I think there are more than this that don't exist in your skull. cs -ad hominem. Max - Subjective is; "that dress makes you look fat its just wrong for you to wear it". cs - "That dress does not show off your best features", is subjective, we agree.The question is about "objective morality." You were going to explain why it is objectively moral for a soldier in combat to warn the enemy of danger. Max - If you cant see the difference I think its time to make an appointment with the psychiatrist. cs - ad hominem.

Max - Calvin I reply to most of the comments on this site. I have replied to you over there as well. You can speak where ever you wish. cs - Thanks.

What would you consider to be an Objective Moral Value? Is there anything that is objective? If so explain that you know what objective is before you argue this point any further.

Max - What would you consider to be an Objective Moral Value? Is there anything that is objective? If so explain that you know what objective is before you argue this point any further. cs - Sir, I have been asking you the question for weeks now. I do not claim to have any knowledge of "objective morality." What do you consider "objective morality?"

You have not been asking anything you have been denying, here is the way your madness works. You are a person that is not really looking for an answer you are more like a heckler that don't really care about the answer but is motivated by some other ambition. In the following example I am going to call your position "The Pretender" I will call my position "The Science" Q. What are objective moral values, I don't know what they are? - The Pretender A. Objective moral values is a claim that there actually exists right and wrong morally speaking no matter what the circumstances. eg. Rape and murder of an innocent child is really wrong. -The Science Q. That's not Objective Moral Values, Objective Moral Values don't exist so you cannot claim that. - The Pretender A. You claimed that you don't know what Objective Moral Values are and I told you, by saying this you are implying that you know what Objective Moral Values are but at the same time denying they exist. -The Science Q. I believe that these are subjective moral values because as a society we can say something is right and wrong and impose this belief on others. So where are Objective Moral Values?- The Pretender A. When would it ever be right to rape and murder an innocent child? When would it be right to kill someone? I have posed these 2 rhetorical question to you to illustrate the point. One of course is subjective but the other one is that you cannot escape the objective value that is assigned to the other. If you believe that raping and murdering an innocent child would be ok at some point and time within human history that would be just evil or objectively morally wrong. There is no justification for such a scenario like when Hitler tried to annihilate the Jews. So if you subjectively feel that its right or that it could be right you are objectively evil which means you are really evil. -The Science -The Science

Calvin claims that Objective Moral Values do not exist, lets illustrate this with a picture. In this picture we see a baby abandon and dead in a trash can. The background to this story is that the mother did not want the child so when it was born she raped it, killed it then threw it away. Is she justified? Is this a subjectively right thing Calvin? Are there any circumstances that justify this act of cruelty? Tell me your madness and show me the justification objectively for evil.

Max - Have you ever heard of Schindler's List? Slavery is objectively moral, cs - Please, reply to me on this forum. thanks

Max - Have you ever heard of Schindler’s List? cs - Yes, I have it here on my shelf. It is 397 pages and does not have an index. Please tell me where I should look in there. (It is on my reading list, but my email/forum messages keep me busy these days...) Max - Slavery is objectively moral, cs - My jaw did not literally drop, but the muscles loosened in preparation. How can slavery be objectively moral if, even in my subjective human opinion it is wrong? Max - ...we are all slaves to something. cs - from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equivocal - Equivocal 1.a : subject to two or more interpretations and usually used to mislead or confuse cs - You are equivocating (using a different meaning for the word than what I was referring to) "slave" Max - You could call employees slaves to their boss, people a slave to their ambition etc. cs - I could, but that would be equivocating, which I try to avoid. Max - I think your point is weak, do you have anything better to illustrate your point? cs - Let's move this to the other forum. Stop replying to me here. thanks.

I did

Well I need to know what kind of slavery you are talking about. There are many different kinds, be more specific.

Max - Calvin claims the Objective Moral Values do not exist, cs - No sir, I am pleading ignorance of them. Please inform me. Educate me. Max - lets illustrate this with a picture. cs - Illustrate something I never claimed? No thanks. Max - In this picture we see a baby abandon and dead in a trash can. cs - Calvin thinks that is wrong. He is only a human and only has his subjective opinion, but even he, an outspoken agnostic, atheist, anti-theist can not think of any case where it would be right for this to happen. Why do you go on about it? Max - The background to this story is that the mother did not want the child cs - There was once a child I wanted to be born. The mother disagreed. Her decision caused me pain. Still, I respect her decision. Max- so when it was born she raped it, killed it then threw it away. Is she justified? cs - Not in my puny human subjective opinion. Why do you say these strange things? Max - Is this a subjectively right thing Calvin? cs - No sir. Max - Are there any circumstances that justify this act of cruelty? cs - Not in any world I want to live in. Max - Tell me your madness and show me the justification objectively for evil. cs - We are now in the "Objective Moral Values," forum. I do not have, nor claim to have, any justification for evil. go ahead

Thanks for asking. I am talking about one human being having control of another human being.

Ignorance is bliss to those who claim innocence by it.

We see that every day in society. Do you have something better to illustrate your point? I really have not idea where you are going with this.

Max - Ignorance is bliss to those who claim innocence by it. cs - I do not claim "innocence", What I claim is ignorance of "objective morality."

Comes over here to see what the big deal is...find's Max says things just as dumb here as on the other forum.

Are you going to refer to anything or are just going to leave a stupid comment like that and leave? WOW, your smart!

cs - There was no reply button, so, I feel the need to quote: Max - .... In your case obviously there was a perverted understanding of these objective values and that is why you constantly misinterpret scripture to your own destruction spiritually. These values are not just a Christian teaching, or a Jewish teaching we find them in all aspects of law and other religions as well. cs - We don't find anything in U.S. law requiring the worship of one god. We do find some god figure in nearly every culture. If they all agreed, I could go along. They don't. Max - This being the case that these qualities ... cs - The qualities of the different religions are different. They could not be talking about the same god(s). Max - are trans-religious and encompass just about every level of society that one can possible imagine also point to an Objective Moral status. There is too much evidence to ignore here. cs - The multitude of gods is the first argument against gods.

no reply button:Max - Objective morality is laid out in the Scriptures .... cs - Where is rape condemned in the scriptures? You have already indicated you think slavery is ok under some circumstances (please explain). On second thought, don't explain. I will give you a point for being a Christian on that one. Jesus had no problem with slavery or torture. In my subjective opinion (imso), slavery would be a good candidate for "objectively immoral." Moral (in Calvins' subjective world) : be nice, etc. _______ _______ ------------------------------ Immoral: Slavery Murder Rape Theft Abuse Lying Hypocrisy please add more, to be considered by the larger community.

If you ever did believe in God you would understand that he is outside time. space, matter and therefore he would be outside OMV and they would not apply to him. In other words you cannot tell the creator of the universe the laws he must obey like the law of gravity, just because we must adhere to it does not mean he has too. Your point has no substance in relation to the God of the Bible. As far as my personal life goes I was born to a single mother who's father had died when she was 13, she was 17 when she had me. She went to church off and on until Jehovah's Witnesses Knocked on her door about 1977. She dove in head first burnt her Christmas tree and adopted all the teachings. To make a long story short at first it was fun and new then she married a guy in that organization. He was lets just say a very Objectively Immoral person my 2 brothers and I were subject to horrendous treatment. Whippings until we bled, locked in our room for days without any bathroom privileges, electric shock, drug by horses with a rope all in the name of God. Needless to say I left this and ran away when I was 14. I returned to the cult when I found out they had disfellowshipped the tyrant in order to please my mother. I excelled in their organization and found out when I became a leader that it was all fake and made up and witnessed horrible things within the organization. I started writing letters to their governing body asking them for clarifications in the text I was reading because I noticed there were a lot of things in the text that were just way off the wall. I was told to keep my mouth shut and if I talked to anyone about this I was going to lose my family, I had a wife and a daughter. I could not live a lie so I followed the evidence not my heart and it led me right out of that. My wife divorced me and I lost my family and I became an atheist. I was an atheist for quite a while and at first I felt like the all the burdens were lifted off of my shoulders and I felt free. I believed in evolution so I absorbed myself in that study and was completely content that there was no God especially with my experiences. I hated all churches and I mean all of them. This animosity I had eventually just turned to a cold dull feeling to all people who had some faith. I was like Greedy, I thought everyone was an Idiot. I was absorbed in evolution and loved the programs on it, I still do. However I kept noticing gaps, lots of gaps and every time I investigated them I would come up short. I visited the Pittsburgh Museum trying to put the pieces together but failed. I indulged myself into this subject obsessively considering origins and I found out that most of the skeletons missing pieces were make from plastic. That was bothersome at the time but the professionals knew what they were doing at least I thought in my mind. Well one by one my atheist world began to crumble but I had to be tough and let the evidence truly lead me. I did much research about irreducible complexity and weighed the counter arguments against it. I found myself back in a cult figuratively speaking only it wasn't called Jehovah's Witnesses it was called Evolutionism. I still cannot find the will to go back to a Church not because I don't believe that there are good ones, I do. However in my experience in dealing with organized religion I do not want my Children subject to such torments spiritually and emotionally. My children are free to investigate whatever they wish, by daughter excels in biology and get 100% on all her biology papers in school. I know they teach her evolution and some of it is true its the "evolution of the gaps" that I am concerned about. My mother has not talked to me in years, she is one of Jehovah's Witnesses as well. There is a lot more aftermath from that horrible experience of mine but I am content now with the outcome of everything.

Calvin- You said recently that slavery is objectively moral. Unless you have some explanation, as you did for cutting a child open…., I don’t understand how you think this. If rape is bad (we agree), then holding someone for extended periods (slavery) with the possibility of rape, torture, etc. would seem to be at least usually ‘bad”. Subjectively immoral. Against modern laws.

When you combine slavery with rape and torture then of course you are violating Objective Moral values. Slavery by itself is not Objectively Immoral some people enjoy this status and who are you to say they are wrong? Cruelty and slavery are not the same thing. Modern laws are just as perverted and even more so as the old ones. Modern laws justify murder, child abuse, etc. When I went to my school for help when I was abused as a child there was nothing they could do. The law is not right and wrong objectively and I think we both know that.

I would have to argue here that your logic don't add up. You say that in nearly every culture we see a God/Gods etc and if they all agreed you could go along. The fact that there is a God or Gods in every culture is significant in itself. As I mentioned before I don't think the law is a good measuring tool for right and wrong even though it use to state or states on the dollar bill "In God We Trust". Lets address your multitude of Gods argument. If your entertaining this as an argument against gods then I don see how this is so. Let talk about Presidents can there be more than one? Of course. Does the Bible mention more than one god? Yep. Your argument is debunked. Every religion in the world had more than one god, that's what the whole problem is. Think of the first commandment "You must not have any other gods" that statement in itself is recognizing that there are other gods. How about this one "Let 'US' make man in our image" then "In Gods image he made man" its no secret. In the monotheistic there is an Almighty God, called God of Gods. Its all through the Bible and other literature. The fact that there are multiple Gods in every society and every faith shows that they are all harmonious. There is a common denominator in fact there are many.

Don't you know that I don't care about the subjective idea? Of course most of these things can be subjectively wrong but they can be subjectively good as well. When you are totally subjective you make your own rules up and you live in imagination land where you are the king and get to make all the rules. Society sometimes as a whole live in this imagination land like Nazi Germany. When you try to create a world in opposition to OMV then you will experience many problems. However if you exist in a world that promotes their subjective moral values like you do you can take refuge that there is Objective Moral Values. I experienced this personally as a child and I am sure that the Jews experienced this in Nazi Germany. Objective Moral Values are the greater good not just because you or I say they are, they are just because they are.

cs - Again, no "reply" button under this comment and it is not clear what you are responding to (so I quote): Max - Well either way cs - ? I don't know to what you are referring. Max - it seems that slavery would be a subjective moral value like cs - Whoa Hoss. I will explain "subjective", you explain "objective." How is it ever morally right to hold another person as a slave? Max - polygamy and alcohol use. cs - If you are using the Bible as your guide, you can find arguments for both sides. It is the subjective opinions of the various authors. You were going to explain the objective view. Max - I don’t really think your example stands a chance in the objective moral value compass. cs - You are correct. I do not claim to give any example of "objective moral value." That was assigned to you. Max - Its too vague and is given to much interpretation which means your points are just too weak to respond too. Objective morality is laid out in the Scriptures and Objective Morality is a learned beneficial quality even if ones does not know the meaning of objective morality and practices it anyway. cs - I defer to others to respond to this. Max - Objective moral values benefit the individual who abides in them and those that don’t are subject to all kinds of torments psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually. Max - In your case obviously there was a perverted understanding of these objective values and that is why you constantly misinterpret scripture to your own destruction spiritually. cs - Is this the sort of personal attack you were talking about? Max - These values are not just a Christian teaching, or a Jewish teaching we find them in all cs - Has anyone mentioned how you use exaggerated words, such as, "all", 100, etc.? Max - aspects of law and other religions as well. This being the case that these qualities are trans-religious and encompass just about every level of society that one can possible imagine also point to an Objective Moral status. cs - Do they "point to it", or do they show evidence for it? Max - There is too much evidence to ignore here. cs - You have let your words overload your engine.

Max - "....monotheistic .... " cs - Mono means 1.

1.)

cs – Whoa Hoss. I will explain “subjective”, you explain “objective.” How is it ever morally right to hold another person as a slave?

Answer- "If they want to be" There are so many things wrong with your proposition. There is nothing Objective about it. We can consider prisoners slaves and force a murder to work against their will to pay for a horrible crime they committed. Slavery is not an objective moral value like rape and murder of the innocent. Your point is useless in this discussion. 2. ) polygamy and alcohol use If you misinterpret the Bible you can find false evidence against both of these practices but I will argue that they are not there. 3. ) I gave examples of violations of Objective Moral Values. Rape and murder of the innocent. Nazi Germany etc. There is nothing subjective about these events they are wrong whether you believe them to be or not or whether the Nazi's believed them or not. 4. ) Why would this be a personal attack when you yourself claim to be anti-theist? Are you or aren't you? 5. ) Exaggerated words Whats your point? 6. ) I hate it when you break up my words like that and make no point at all. Here is what I said:

These values are not just a Christian teaching, or a Jewish teaching we find them in all aspects of law and other religions as well. This being the case that these qualities are trans-religious and encompass just about every level of society that one can possible imagine also point to an Objective Moral status.

Do you understand that Objective Moral Values are a common denominator? It is impartial and outside the scope of personal feelings. It would be the bottom number in 1/10th the 10 being the whole. All values are based on it but do not necessarily reflect it because subjective would be partial to the Objective as well as personal feelings. What is so hard for you to understand here? 7. ) Words overload my engine? Explain.

Yeah so what?

Monotheism and polytheism are different things. A monotheist believes in one god. You and others who claim to be Christian are polytheists.

cs – Whoa Hoss. I will explain “subjective”, you explain “objective.” How is it ever morally right to hold another person as a slave? Max - Answer- “If they want to be” There are so many things wrong with your proposition. cs - Thanks. I apologize for being away so long, you have lead me to some new (for me) thoughts. The problem for me is that I can not imagine a willing slave. If they want whatever you are doing to them, they are not a slave. If they want to be raped or murdered (as I understand your logic), it is not wrong for you to do that to them. In my world, (just saying), this is an abuse of word meaning. No one "wants" to be raped, murdered or enslaved. It might be fun in someones subjective bedroom to pretend about the power or weakness involved, but to use these words on a public forum discussing morality is, IMO, an abuse of the words. ymmv

well...on the other page you seem to think Abiogenesis, Evolution, Nuclear Fusion and Big Bang Theory are all Evolution and think that Evolution itself can be divided into several categories that don't exist. You think that Evolution claims that putting a fish on land will turn it into a Tetrapod and that if you wish to grow wings you will. You lack a grade school understanding of Chemistry, Physics and Biology and prefer tales of your bronze age desert God over actual observation and experimentation you seem to think that Taxonomy is unusable but still prefer your imagery and impossible to define "kinds" to actual observation. On this forum you seem to just lack a grade school understanding of Ecology...so no I'm not just going to leave one comment, I shall return to the other forum...later bitches!

For example, Gabriel, Jesus, Mary, Satan, Devils and other prophets are all technically Demigods because they have God like powers (magic, impossible acts, etc.) but only those given to them by Full or True Gods. So technically few religions are monotheistic in that sense however Christianity, Judaism and Islam are still classed as such as they forbid the worship of all but one God "...Thou shall have no others before me" thus worship of Jesus, Mary, Satan, etc. is forbidden making them by default monotheistic in terms of what can you worship.

So now you are going to tell me what I think huh? Funny how that offends you but you go ahead and do it to other. Do me a favor save your straw men for someone else. The only imaginary person here is you evolutionist, you imagine everything. That is where this whole evolutionary process started, in the imagination because it certainly isn't science. We see evolution everywhere in the world today, in fact we cannot even turn on the TV without some references to it. Some of it is true some of it is imaginary and if you can't see the difference then shame on you. Anyway we are on an Objective Moral Value subject here. What could you possibly have to add to this conversation that would stimulate any thinking what so ever?

Do you think that I am saying that there is no such thing as subjective moral values? I know there is subjective moral values. All I am saying is there is a balance and a limit to subjectiveness and that is when it reaches the objective limit. I think the limits are clear and to ignore this is to pretend they don't exist and I don't like to pretend they don't. When we pretend such things like evil does not exist we have people like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini.

Please enjoy these modified quotes: "[Abiogenesis, Radiometric dating, Nuclear Fusion] isn't that all evolution?"-Max "Micro-Evolution...Marco-evolution"-Max "[Evolution states] putting a fish onto dry land will turn it into a frog...it would never get started"-Max "I want to grow wings, and so did my grandfather...so [we should]...have wings"-Max "evolution is a religion", "evolution isn't a science", "it doesn't matter if evolution is science, I'm searching for truth", "you cannot know...", "evolution is imagination"-Max And yes, I only came over to check if you were as uneducated in this field as in science. Then you asked for evidence, I presented such, and that brings us to now...I guess I'll see you on the other forum, trying to confuse religion as science as you do every single post. -regards "Greedy"

Well like I said this is an Objective Moral Value discussion and although there may be some avenues where we will talk about such things like abiogenesis being a debunked theory I don't think what you are bringing up this forum is related to the discussion. There are plenty of other posts on this website where I will argue those points with you. Here are some 30 reasons Why Evolution is Wrong! Blood Vessels in Dinosaur Fossils Whale Evolution? Really? Other than that don't ever quote me again please because as usual you just get it wrong as you just did here.

Max - Other than that don’t ever quote me again please because as usual you just get it wrong as you just did here. cs - Please show where any one of the things he quoted is wrong.

shouldn't comment...but I have to you can't quote wrong, all it's all copy-paste+annotation so I don't have to copy-paste an entire paragraph, and I've seen your "30 reasons Why Evolution is Wrong!" post, 19/30 have nothing to do with Evolution and all are wrong to some degree...I refuse to get burred in further posts when you refuse to listen to me on the post you named after me. When you start listening to what I have to say on my original post, then I will consider venturing to other posts. Thank you Calvin for trying to stand up for me, but he will not listen anyway. From my experience (however limited it may be) he'll probably complain about me making a predication, push forward a notion without evidence, post a link to "answersingenesis.org" or something along those lines drop the conversation entirely and then proceed to bring it up again later pretending like this hasn't been dealt with. -regards Greedy

no reply button - Greedy wrote - "Please enjoy these modified quotes: “[Abiogenesis, Radiometric dating, Nuclear Fusion] isn’t that all evolution?”-Max “Micro-Evolution…Marco-evolution”-Max “[Evolution states] putting a fish onto dry land will turn it into a frog…it would never get started”-Max “I want to grow wings, and so did my grandfather…so [we should]…have wings”-Max “evolution is a religion”, “evolution isn’t a science”, “it doesn’t matter if evolution is science, I’m searching for truth”, “you cannot know…”, “evolution is imagination”-Max" cs - I asked Max to show where Greedy had misquoted him, assuming that I could use Max' instructions to search for text. I did not find the first 3 I searched for. My hypothesis is: Either Greedy modified Max's comments beyond recognition -or- Max' search did not work for me -or- I have made a mistake along the way. Please, one of you give more information about any of the "modified quotes." They sounded so much like Max, I "believed" they were. thanks. I will be glad to say "I was wrong" either way. peace

Calvin try this...you'll need to read the comment directly preceding it to get context though: Isn’t that all evolution? ev·o·lu·tion·ist other than that, it seems my rant on Taxonomy, Max's rant about how if evolution were correct we should all have wings because he wants them, his assertion that because fish don't grow legs when they are thrown onto land evolution must incorrect, most of his references to "Micro and Marco-Evolution" seem to be gone...they were there a couple of days ago, I swear...strange. -regards Greedy

Greedy - seem to be gone…they were there a couple of days ago, I swear…strange. -regards Greedy cs - Thanks Greedy. I guess he removed them.

lets not jump to conclusions Calvin, there are several possibilities. All we know for sure is that when I put it into a voice search they don't show up, this could be any number of things.

Okay, correct me if I'm wrong but this is what I'm getting from this post: Max-is there such a thing as evil? Calvin-debatable Max-is there such a thing as good? Calvin-debatable Max-(ignoring responses) therefore Allah...I mean Yahweh! A similar version goes like this: Max-do you believe the Earth is perfectly round? Calvin-to a degree Max-do you believe the sun is perfectly round? Calvin-to a degree Max-(ignoring responses) therefore the Earth and Sun are actually two giant meatballs resting in the one true God; The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Close. I would agree there is evil, I just don't know where the Objective standard is. To me it looks like this: Max - I have a golden apple (Objective morality) Calvin - Let's see it. M - What? You don't believe in apples? C - I believe in apples, I just haven't seen a golden one. M - You see them all the time, you just choose to ignore them. C - ?

Max - Blood Vessels in Dinosaur Fossils cs - You have already been shown this is wrong. To say it again is dishonest.

Do you even know what the hell you are talking about? If you don't want to agree with science don't claim that you are using it to support your beliefs. Here is the evidence Blood Vessels in Dinosaur Fossils

Why do you want to mislead my audience? I never said such things. You are a liar! Yes I am stating that "Objectively" as well I know you wont understand so I am not even going to try I have time right now I just wanted to get this out there.

Yes your wrong Greedy, in fact you are wrong 95% of the time. That's why you failed the test that I gave you. Shame on you!

What are you looking for? I don't remove anything. You guys are always jumping to conclusions. Do you find it hard to believe that I believe in free thought? I am not an evolutionist you know!

Just as a side point and I really don't want to discuss on this forum. Evolutionist claim giraffes have long necks because they were constantly trying to feed on leaves in trees. They claim that though natural selection and years of stretching the neck to feed that we have the result we have today. Look at the reasoning here? DUH?

Those are not quotes Calvin those are made up statements of what Greedy thinks I believe. Evolutionist do this to creationist all the time. They frequently use straw men arguments as you see Greedy doing here. I think they like to lie to themselves anyway that's why you guys are Atheist and I am not.

My apologies. Blood vessels, yes. The last time you brought up Mary Schweitzer, you were saying "blood". That is what I was referring to above.

You wrote an entire book on my post and I have responded to every post! I cant wait until I have time to make a movie out of this. The producers are going to have a hay day!

Mislead your audience? I was giving my personal opinion. Your audience can take it or leave it. I didn't say you said such things, I said that is how our conversation looks to me. You keep talking about Objective morality but you have not begun to show it.

Look them up Calvin you will be able to see plainly he quoted wrong.

Are you saying personal opinions do not mislead? Hmmm I don't think your being honest again Calvin!

I'm saying all I have to offer is my personal opinion. I have said that all along. If it misleads your audience, you are here to put them back on track. How about stop being side tracked and tell your audience where they can find Objective morality?

I see what you mean. Max-your being misleading! Calvin-no, just my opinion Max-your saying opinions cannot be misleading! Calvin-...

Calvin...seriously? technicalities, I'm pretty sure that's what he meant...I've said it enough times; "there are no RED BLOOD CELLS", soft tissue is found of which blood vessels are...unless I misspoke (if I did I sincerely apologise) I'm not sure what the confusion is. Red Blood Cells don't last 2 weeks in most organisms (it's a bitch when trying to study them)...let alone 70 million years, not even the few thousand it takes for fossils to form. However lipids (the chemicals of which cell membranes are constructed) can last...wait for it...almost indefinitely in the right concisions, we've known this for years. The problem is that fossilisation as we currently understand it does not supply such conditions...so the question is not "how did they last so long?", because we know how they "can" last so long...the question now is; "how did they avoid fossilisation?". What normally happens when soft tissue lasts this long is it becomes fossilised with the bones (this is how we get fossil fur, feathers, mussel and skin tissue) but it is a curious situation in the Late Cretaceous (the period in which all these samples are discovered)...and then only in North America, Southern Europe and one sample here in North Queensland from a Mutabarasaurs (look it up it's awesome!)...we don't know how they avoid fossilisation and are trying hard to find out.

Thanks GCB, As far as I can tell, on these two forums of Mx's, you and I are the main audience. I did see one new name today. best wishes

Well if you would listen to what I am writing over and over again may be you can get a clue. There is nothing that can be subjectively right about raping and murdering an innocent child because of objective moral values. Now we talked about things not existing scientifically. If science is your only answers for truth then I guess you would live in a dark reality and are retarded in your world view. Sorry I cant fix retarded.

Here's another retard in denial. Why am I the only creationist dumb enough to talk to you guys? Gees!

A wonderful reply GCB, thanks. I would like to see the stretchy substance -before- all the mineral was removed. They certainly appear to be blood vessels. How is that a problem for biology and not a wonderful addition to our data base of knowledge? It would only be a problem for young earth creationists (YECs,) who think/believe that the earth is only "thousands" of years old. ymmv

Yes you know what this means, I NEED TO RAISE MY VOICE HERE.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS? ANSWER - SCIENCE IS WRONG AGAIN!

Now you know why science is not the only source for truth. Oh yeah I know you will try to play it off like you always do but you know the real truth. Science is a tool not a solution! Remember that it just might save you life one day!

My old computer is slowing down. I hope to get a newer one soon. Until then, Happy trails to you......

Yeah there were a couple, I disproved one that wanted to kill Greedy the other day! Yes it was a creationist, ok so we are not all as good as me! lol

I dont know how old the earth is but I know soft tissue cannot last as long as Greedy says it can. 65 million years? Give me a break!

you too Calvin

Science has saved my life three times now. I am fortunate to have good insurance to pay for health care. It is ok to be wrong in science. It is only wrong when you (the scientist) try to convince other people it is right, when you have done the experiment and know it is wrong.

MaximusMcc commented on Objective Moral Values Proves God Exists. in response to maximusmccullough: Objective Moral Values Proves God Exists Max - Well if you would listen to what I am writing over and over again may be you can get a clue. cs - Sir, I have read every word of yours. Max - There is nothing that can be subjectively right about raping and murdering an innocent child cs - We agree. Max - because of objective moral values. cs - This is the main subject. Please show a difference between your idea of OM and mine about subjective morality. Going by your previous "logic" concerning slavery being ok if the "slave" wanted it, I would think you would say that rape is ok if the victim "wanted" it. I hope you will see how psychopathic it would seem to suggest a rape victim "wanted" it, just as I see your comment that a "slave" might want to be a slave. Max - Now we talked about things not existing scientifically. If science is your only answers for truth then I guess you would live in a dark reality and are retarded in your world view. Sorry I cant fix retarded. cs - I agree. Reply Comments

Max - Here’s another retard in denial. Why am I the only creationist dumb enough to talk to you guys? Gees! cs - Don't flatter yourself. This is not the only forum I visit. "Gees" is an abbreviation for "Jesus," your Lord's name. In my view of the world, you, as a proclaiming Christian, are breaking the commandment concerning, "Do not take the Lords name in vain." Where is the objective decision about this?

Max - I dont know how old the earth is but I know soft tissue cannot last as long as Greedy says it can. 65 million years? Give me a break! cs - So, why did you post the video about it?

Max-"Here’s another retard in denial. Why am I the only creationist dumb enough to talk to you guys?" Greedy-because your the only Creationist that lacks a High School Education and is dumb enough to go around parading your ignorance like a badge of honour, your the only Creationist dumb enough to ignore the answers to your own questions after it's been dealt with no less than 21 times (by my count...possibly more), your the only Creationist dumb enough to deliberately confuse Evolution by Acquired Characteristics with Evolution by Natural Selection, your the only Creationist dumb enough to deliberately confuse Abiogenesis by Spontaneous Generation with Abiogenesis by Chemical Progression, your the only Creationist that goes around thinking that your imagery "kinds" have some bearing on reality and not even pretend to put up a case for this, your the only Creationist dumb enough to say "there are definite barriers" to Evolution but provide no evidence for this case, your the only Creationist dumb enough to ignore ALL transitional forms...most at least call them faked, your the only Creationist dumb enough to think that Nuclear Fusion, The Strong Force, Big Bang Theory, Abiogenesis, Chemical Bonding, The Electromagnetic Force, Evolution and Cultural Development are all covered under the heading "Evolutionism". Does that answer your question?

Lipids are fatty acids joined with a phosphate group to a "R" group (this can be any sugar, protein or other structure), this Phosphate group is what is broken down in cellular decomposition, this can be done by chlorine and other group 7 elements (wither dissolved in water or as a gas) or by a protein (again either dissolved in water or it's pure form), without these processes there is nothing to decompose the lipids...without this the lipids should last indefinitely (as do most compounds when left alone), the problem is not that they can last so long, because we know they can but how they didn't decompose during the fossilisation process.

Do you know what this means? Science; it works bitches!

it's not a problem for Biology per-say, but for Biochemistry/Chemistry...we know how things fossilise, but we don't know how soft tissue could avoid being fossilised. It's not a problem for the age, because we know how long some chemicals can last. But a problem of A+B=A+B when it should be A+B=C and is in most cases, but something about this geological period and these locations that doesn't facilitate the fossilisation of some soft tissue.

keep in mind problems are good in science. It gives something to do...to quote my motto; "Science doesn't know everything, but we know that otherwise we would stop"

You can't see it before all mineral is removed, because it's in the mineral. Think of like this: you have a jelly in the middle of a Hill, is it possible to get to the soft toy without removing the hill? Dig to it? Any equipment capable of digging to the jelly (remember we have no idea where it is or if it is there at all) would break it...all we can do is dissolve it, Geology is not my chosen science however but from a Biology point of view, cells (especially ones that are no longer functioning) are incredibly fragile and very hard to detect in solution when you don't know where they are, I can't imagine trying to find a cell in solid rock.

soft toy?...da fuck...I meant jelly

Knowledge and understanding has saved your life Calvin. Science was just a tool to aid in it. You talk about Science like its a god or something, pathetic!

Changing an "F" to an "A" is the easiest of all. WLC is a smooth talker. I have listened to him for years. His arguments were refuted before he was born. He tells great anecdotes. You both start with a faulty premise and proceed to build your house of cards on a foundation of sand. Neither of you show evidence. back to you.

You would have to identify a faulty premise. I think murder of the innocent is a great foundation to make a case of OMV. You are just in constant denial. In fact with your reasoning we can reason away subjective values as well and say they don't really exist either. You can be so agnostic that you believe nothing. Now whether you do or whether you do not matters not if you agree with objectivity. You are the one with the case to prove that they do not exist. It will always be the elephant in your room no matter how many times you try to convince yourself that it isn't there. You remind me of a little kid closing his eyes wishing away something while plugging his ears. I cant help if you ignore the evidence like the Holocaust your no better than Hitler as far as I can see.

Your science is flawed. You are not going to get any soft tissue in any dinosaur 68 MILLION YEARS OLD! Now why is it so important for you guys to keep lying about this? We have dug up thousands of dinosaurs and none of them have any soft tissue! I think God is laughing at you Greedy. Put a jelly fish in the side of a hill and wait 68 MILLION years and you think you are going to get soft tissue? MAN! You are something!

Knowledge, understanding, science. Close enough. No prayers or gods needed. I do not have a "god sized" hole which needs to be filled with "science" or anything else. You admit your ignorance of my position by even thinking about me treating anything as a "god". Science is what we have and it is working much better than religion, which has had thousands of years to think of new spins to put on its' incredible stories. back to Objective Morality.

My whole entire career counts on people having problems, in fact every one does. Do you think this is a revelation? Challenges are everywhere, the problem is stupidity when it comes to science especially when an individual thinks that science is the only source for truth!

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS? "Philosophy" IT WORKS BETTER BITCHES!

Yeah nothing is problem for evolutionist, they make it up as they go along and if the evidence proves other wise they ignore it and lie. Beautiful!

Ok I do have a question for you. Don't lie to me either. What I want to know is in my weight training what is the best way to burn fat fast for competition. I mean I don't want hardly any fat at all between the skin and the muscle. If you can give me a workable solution I will build you a website and I will show you how to make a little bit of cash with it. Deal? You can even promote evolution. Now I train hard every day at least 2 hours of every day is devoted to training, not just weights but cardio too. I had shoulder surgery last year in February but now I am all healed up and I am training hard. What should I eat and what supplements should I take? I am looking for something fresh and that works. If you can help come up with a product that is out of this world you can be a millionaire.

Sounds to me like your talking out your ass again. I talk to you guys because I know you have different points of view. You show your ignorance by calling everyone else who does not agree with you idiots, uneducated, dumb, stupid etc. I really think that you do this to try and make yourself feel better. Now that I am realizing this its even easier to listen to you because I see how much of life you are actually missing. Its kind of sad in my book because really if you think about it. Your just a dead man walking and I am a dead man living. Tell me is such knowledge such a burden? I think that is why I treasure accurate knowledge. I can only imagine the way you see me, the words that you put it my mouth are less than kind, lol. I do have to admit though that they are entertaining, I don't think I have laughed this much in a long time.

What are you talking about?

GEES GEES GEES. What other forums do you visit that are creationist and do they really talk to you?

HOLY BALLS MAN YOU ARE SOMETHING! I'm too tired for this nonsense tonight I think.

Max - "You would have to identify a faulty premise. I think murder of the innocent is a great foundation to make a case of OMV. " cs - The Craig faulty premise which comes to mind is "If objective morality exists, god exists." We have never seen an instance of objective morality, god may or may not exist. The two are not related.

This is ok on the Objective morality forum? If you can show me objective morality I will build you a web page, etc.

Max - "What other forums do you visit that are creationist and do they really talk to you?" cs - Most recently I have been replying to people who post videos claiming knowledge of morality, Christianity, etc. I am usually blocked after a few exchanges. Here is a recent exchange: http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=5auJ3Dg-zNs&email=comment_reply_received search for csno

Max - "March 8 2012 MaximusMcc- What are you talking about?" cs - Who knows? It is hard to keep up in this forum. There is not always a reply button for the comment you want to reply to. That is why I quote a little of what I am responding to. To what were you responding? What are you talking about? And why does your date show one day ahead? It is 3/7 here.

Funny you should mention that, because science, western politics, abrahamic religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.) and what is known as "the common man" all emerged at the same time as different schools at the collapse. The school of Stoics became abrehamic religion, this school emphasized power and censorship over actual experimentation but worked on the motto "shit happens, it'll get better, don't worry yourself" apparently this is where the idea of a "heaven" came from (previously afterlives were not "perfect" like those of abrehamic religion). The school of Pleasure became the "common man" this school emphasized living in the moment and became the philosophy of choice for the Romans, but dies out when the dark ages hit europe. The school of Truth emphasized truth and lies as of the upper most importance (there is an interesting story about a man in an egg who confronted Alexander the Great using this...their Greek don't ask). The school of Sceptics became (eventually) what we call modern scientific method, this school emphasized experimentation and questioning and questioning and questioning and questioning. Basically three rules (before the dark ages) have a beard, don't wear a shirt and don't piss off the Pope. Why am I telling you this? only one school had any practical applications, only one school pulled Europe out of the dark ages (only one school started the european dark ages), only one school was willing to change in order to survive, only one school broke all their rules on a regular basis in order to advance human understanding and only school lead to modern western civilisation...take a guess. Was it the power mad, censor happy Stoics? The now extinct party animals of the Pleasure school? or the constantly questioning Sceptics? If you can't tell what I'm trying to do here it's actually quite simple. Philosophy is great for the human mind, if it helps you to think that there is some kind of flying spaghetti monster watching you helping you chose right from wrong then go ahead. Science students do it all the time, just look at the commonly used model of an atom, it's helps us visualise solutions to problems...only problem is that this model isn't correct, it's just a helpful aid. Same with your philosophy, it's not harmful and it helps a lot of people...it just has no bearing on reality.

...your asking a Biologist to help you lose almost all your fat? fat is good don't get rid of it, unless you are at risk of a hart attack fat is good for you. It's useful isolation, cholesterol keeps our cells from becoming stiff when cold, it's an emergency food supply and increases the life span of cells. However I would advise not working out, just stop eating as much. Training is good in the way that it uses more energy and builds mussel but doesn't effect fat content as much as you would think, all it does is make it look smaller by comparison in normal (sized) people. Not eating forces your cells to draw on this fat as a supply of glucose and fatty-acids. It won't help mussel tone as your mussels will create more lactic acid where your mussels are dissolving themselves for food (this is "the burn!"), they grow back larger and stronger but lactic-acid doesn't work well as disolving fat.

if you want to build mussel then I advise repeated stress is probably not always the bast option. Strain a tissue enough in one way and it will adapt to become more resistant (in your case cells produce more mitochondria to add to the energy supply)...you need to stop this from happening, one metabolic cycle before applying stress consume large amounts of glucose (a common sugar) and a basic (alkaline) substance, the glucose should provide energy as long as it's not too hard to digest (cellulose cannot be digested by humans, so don't eat large amounts of plants to get your glucose) and the base should help with the lactic-acid produced by cells, this should (as long as it is digested) naturalise the acidic environment thus allowing one to work longer. or...one could do the opposite and completely starve yourself of glucose and basic supplements before a workout, this will cause cells to adapt faster and tissue mass to increase faster as they struggle to adapt to this new acidic environment.

Remember these aren't working cells we are looking at, just the cellular membrane and nuclear membrane. This is all lipid chemistry, this is no longer a matter of Biology but of Biochemistry (translation: it's actually rather simple). Normally when fossilisation occurs the lipid membranes are broken down like most soft tissue, occasionally they are fossilised and occasionally neither. When a chemical has nothing to react with Max it cannot react (I'm sure you even understand that), lipids are quite stable and can survive almost indefinitely given the right conditions. diagram: http://www.lipidprofiles.com/typo3temp/pics/b45e10b374.jpg Sample "E" is what we are dealing with here normally these are broken down by enzymes to form "D", then "C", then "B" then "A" from which can be metabolised. During fossilisation they tend to go straight from (using iron in the rock as a catalyst) "E" to "B" then from "B" to "A". Now, take away the enzymes. All you have is the catalyst, this does not take part in the reaction so you now have nothing to break down "E"...actually that's not quite true, given the right conditions "E" could be broken down into "D" without enzymes, but this still forms a membrane and for that you need a flowing polar liquid over large amounts of time (i.e. put in a stream of water, oil or other polar liquids).

You know I have read article after article on this and even according to the scientist those parts of the dinosaur should be fossilized. Are you now telling me that there is a new way where fossilization occurs? Ironic isn't it that you were singing a different tune just days ago. So much for your faith in science huh? lol.

Your accent is coming out in your typing, lol. So in your estimation what would be the average diet of a person trying to accomplish such a goal? Calvin is right I probably should not be talking about this here. I have a blog for one of my clients but I don't talk about any evolution or philosophy. http://legal-steroid-reviews.com/ I posted what you said there and send you author privileges as well.

Max to GCB - Your accent is coming out in your typing, lol. So in your estimation what would be the average diet of a person trying to accomplish such a goal? Calvin is right I probably should not be talking about this here. I have a blog for one of my clients but I don't talk about any evolution or philosophy. http://legal-steroid-reviews.com/ I posted what you said there and send you author privileges as well. cs - why do you send me one message and post a different one here? Talk about whatever you want where ever you like. All I ask is that the same rules apply to everyone.

Here is a video you might like Max. It is about rape. Louis CK - Rape http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4hNaFkbZYU

Yes I understand Calvin that's why I made the request to go to anther forum to talk about the subject. I don't think its appropriate to talk about it here.Are you going to argue with me even when I agree with you? Please tell me it isn't so.

Yes I did think that was funny, we all laughed about that here in the office.

I didn't think I was arguing. I am trying to figure out who is talking about what, where. I have 20 messages in my mailbox from EvolutionScam which all look alike. If I click on reply, I am taken to the proper group, to the bottom of the page, (not to the comment I want to reply to, or the one it was replying to) so I have to remember to copy a piece of text from the email to bring to the group to do a search to see what the email is in response to. Please, tell me where Objective morality comes from and I will go away. thanks

copied from evo forum to objective morality forum - GreedyCapybara7 - "someone needs to learn the difference between taking sections of a conversation and actual quoting…I’ll make it easy for you." cs - moved to OM so as not to be of topic. cs - Agreed. From my perspective, Max' arguments are that he does not understand the opposition. He is burning up calories in his brain when he wants to burn off the fat in other places. Max, are you concerned with your body weight, your outer image? Are you full of pride? How can you possibly call yourself a Christian. Get out and walk in sandals, give up your wealth, suffer in the name of Christ.

No, I agree they should be fossilised (as I have stated many times before) but if they can avoid fossilisation then they can last that long. What I have been saying is that you are approaching this from the wrong way, it's not: "how did they last so long?" but: "how did they avoid being fossilised?". What I'm saying (apparently you haven't been paying attention so I'll go slowly) lipids can last for millions and millions of years if left alone, however they should have been fossilised with the rest of the animal and not preserved, this is not a question of time but rather a question of chemistry. What normally happens is soft tissue is decomposed by enzymes (often with an iron based catalyst) and not fossilised, on rare occasions they are fossilised with the skeleton (this is how we get fossil fur, feathers, skin, pro-feathers and mussel tissue), in neither of these situation are the actual cell membranes preserved, if lipids can avoid being fossilised and decomposed they can last for ages. BUT with a fossilised specimen this shouldn't happen, the soft tissue should be fossilised as well. This is a chemical matter not one of time. Science; it works bitches!

Max-"I think you are a blind, naked, fool" (Biology Professor who endorses evolution) Greedy-you dragged me here, remember? I corrected some points on a video, you couldn't admit you were wrong, I proved you wrong, you changed the subject, I corrected you again, eventually explanations exceeded 500 characters and here we are! Max-"Your just a dead man walking and I am a dead man living. Tell me is such knowledge such a burden?" Greedy-far from it, we in science see further than any before us, not because we are smarter than they were but because we stand on the shoulders of giants and thus see further into the darkness than them. We treasure knowledge, but only accurate knowledge because only accurate knowledge has particle applications, for example (not sure if I have told you this/ should tell you this) but my department is dealing with the Biochemical reactions responsible for complex emotions (namely: love, lust, attachment, jealousy and other mating related emotions), of which I am one of the main Biologists on the project. We cannot simply guess at which sections of the brain are responsible for this as it will not work, only accurate results will yield ANY applications. Max-" I can only imagine the way you see me, the words that you put it my mouth are less than kind, lol. I do have to admit though that they are entertaining, I don’t think I have laughed this much in a long time." Greedy-I do admit that when one spends so much time surrounded by intellects dealing with the unusually stupid or even the common man (my dating life as a pre-graduate student comes to mind) is less than stimulating. But I try to see people outside the academic community (that includes students, people on the street, my partner, pretty much everyone) the same way I see my students. They can be dumb, ignorant, emotional, easily distracted and unlikely to listen to anything I say (one of the reasons why few lectures in the science department tape lectures) but sometimes, just sometimes they listen and they might just become slightly more intelligent then before I came along. I am glad you find Biology amusing, most people don't. I'm glad you find chemistry amusing, most people don't, and I'm glad you find what little I know about Physics amusing (I don't). What I'm not glad about is your refusal to listen or even try to take in what you are being told.

GCB - "...pro-feathers and mussel..." cs - Off topic, but, Do you mean, "proto-feathers" and "muscle?" (I just want to be clear.) thanks.

GCB - "... I’m glad you find what little I know about Physics amusing (I don’t). What I’m not glad about is your refusal to listen or even try to take in what you are being told." cs - Wonderful reply gcb. Thanks to Max for the forum to share that! Archived.

Proto-feathers (proto=prototype, feathers=feathers) is what a Palaeontologist would call them, in Biology we call them Pro-feathers (pro=before, feathers=feathers). In Biology something is either a feather or it isn't, in Palaeontology...it's not that simple.

cs – So, why did you post the video about it?

Max – “You would have to identify a faulty premise. I think murder of the innocent is a great foundation to make a case of OMV. ” cs – The Craig faulty premise which comes to mind is “If objective morality exists, god exists.” We have never seen an instance of objective morality, god may or may not exist. The two are not related. cs - new - On second reading, I wonder how god can murder innocents, and order us not to? If morality is "objective" it would also apply to god. imo.

That soft tissue does not fossilize is an interesting find. You posted the video. Do you believe it or not? Is this the correct forum to post about biology/soft tissue? What is the source of objective morality? peace

Max - "...the problem is stupidity when it comes to science especially when an individual thinks that science is the only source for truth!" cs - Who is it who thinks that? Is this relevant to the OM forum?

I don't know shit about Religion or Philosophy, but I feel I need to add my two cents to this; "I wonder how god can murder innocents, and order us not to? If morality is “objective” it would also apply to god" If you are referring to Yahweh then I think it's something about keeping the bloodline of Jesus Christ "pure". If you are referring to Allah then I remember hearing something about cleansing area of non-believers, if you are referring to the Flying Spaghetti Monster...she didn't, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a peaceful beast flying through the universe touching things with her noodle like appendage, she has no time for such concerns.

oh yes, and I'm Australian...we spell things differently to you Yanks across the pond.

Thank you...I think, I should clarify in that I enjoy Physics, I just don't enjoy not knowing very much about it...if you wish to stump me however your probably going to need at least a first year physics education as the sciences "cross-breed" so to speak so I am far from a normal person when it comes to that sort of thing. I should also point out not to read too much into the specifics of what I said, I may have given away some details that I shouldn't have in previous posts and this one (I am very uptight when it comes to my personal information...I'm a scientist I have to be) but keep in mind I'm a Biologist, so don't bother trying to read between the lines you'll just end up making assumptions that are not justified (I think I remember watching one of you two conclude that I was a woman...I could be either male or female, I've seen the information that the person in question was pointing to, while that could be used as a testimony to point to that conclusion it's far from evidence).

oh yes, and Capybrara is one word...if you were wondering (GCB, just me being pedantic).

just to point out something...the philosophy schools that modern science and abrahamic religion stem from emerge from the collapse of the Greeks at about the same time (school of Stoics and school of Sceptics), the only difference is that the school of Stoics quickly latched onto Gods and spread while the school of Skeptics were suppressed to one region at a time (the Romans adopted it until they collapsed then the Spanish used it during the Christian Dark Ages before all of Europe adopted it at the end of the Dark Ages).

Well, I just typed another long reply and lost it because my name and email were not filled out. I'm not loving this forum. It was Max who said he thought it was a female characteristic to use the word "ever" with an exclamation point. Doesn't matter to me.

A quick word search confirms this...and I'm going to ignore his sexist assumption. An argument rests on itself not my research, not my nationality and certainly not my sex. But yes, this forum is not very well designed and with Max being the only one posting over and over again the same debunked arguments it's hardly a good source of information either.

Do you guys realize this is not a "forum"? This is a blog and it is designed to leave a few comments for a post we have well over 750 comments on one post! Now I don't mind making new posts to address new issues but you guys totally ignore the new posts and comment on a post that is already loaded. you think I am sexist because women talk differently than most men? Are you kidding me?

I know that sucks Calvin no matter how you slice the cheese but that is not the software fault is it?

Well all you talk to me is philosophy, I don't understand why you cannot see it. You are making conclusions based on the way you see the world. I think you have a morbid view of the world and mine is much better, I think that in the end you would have to admit that even if you do think my worldview to be a fantasy. If you did care so much about truth there should nothing be forbidden for you to seriously entertain. The dark negative views that you posses have really help me to be thankful for my Christian faith. Instead of convincing me of the reliability of evolution you have done just the opposite and I do truly thank you. I knew the whole thing was a sham from the beginning and you have help confirm that in so many different ways. Thank you Greedy who ever your are!

You already told me that you were an old man anyway Greedy I was just helping you with the cover up because you told me that you were in danger because some wacko creationist were trying to harm you because of the stem cell research that you do. Don't worry I would never reveal your identity, you may think I am a heartless creationist but I actually feel for you lost souls!

God don't murder, he takes souls because he owns them. Why are you entertaining this anyway? Why don't you say things like this about the spaghetti monster? you know who I think the spaghetti monster is? Yeah you could probably guess its the god of the evolutionist! Every time they talk about the true God they have to bring up their spaghetti monster!

I think the stupidity of people such as yourself is to pretend that Objective Moral Values do not exist. There is a greater law that dictates what we believe and how we act socially. Like murder and rape of the innocent its wrong no matter what. But you want to pretend that it is only wrong if we say its wrong. That means Hitler was right and you agree with him ironically!

Of course I believe it I just don't believe that soft tissue lasts 68 million years! Blood Vessels in Dinosaur Fossils Here is the post for soft tissue. God gave the objective moral value law when he created man.

The laws of physics do not apply to God why would OMV apply to him? God is above the law, hes not human. He don't kill he takes away.

What they hell are you talking about?

Yes, I think your sexist because you think you can tell what sex someone is based only on the way they talk. I could very well be female, but you have no evidence for that and I think it is quite arrogation of you to jump to that conclusion knowing that I will not put up a case for or against it. But I comment on a single post only because it's supposed to be a single point, I am good at multitasking but try not to get involved in more than one thing at a time (although I am currently involved in three of your posts).

I don't believe I said anything of the sort; -I don't think I ever mentioned my age other than to confirm that I am older than stated on my Youtube account and that almost none/none of the information present there is correct (a lesson learned well). -If you are referring to the collection of religious fundamentalist groups that collect outside the labs every time we start a new research project, they don't scare me. However they are smart enough to find out who works at the labs and drop things like personal e-mail addresses, home addresses, phone numbers, relatives in the area (plus details), etc. -ONE person I have talked to over corrections on a video in the past year tracked me down (all one has to do is know the name of the scientist or a particular paper and all information is easy to find from there)...however all this got me was a threatening letter from an Islamic group and nothing else. You don't scare me Max, but I still am reluctant to drop any personal details including my name.

2/12/2012 MaximusMcc I already responded to this on the other forum. MaximusMcc Well like I said this is an Objective Moral Value discussion and although there may be some avenues where we will talk about such things like abiogenesis being a debunked theory I don’t think what you are bringing up this forum is related to the discussion. MaximusMcc Just as a side point and I really don’t want to discuss on this forum. Evolutionist claim .... peace

What "sucks?" You seem to be slicing a lot of cheese.

Max - God don’t murder cs - = doesn't cs - except the god of the old testament -does- murder quite a bit. BRB

Max - "Why don’t you say things like this about the spaghetti monster?" cs - Because no one representing the fsm is on the local school board trying to suppres science.

cs - The "laws", (rules, commandments, -morals- ) do not apply to the one in control of them? This is where we part ways in our understanding (defintion) of objective morality. To me, OM would apply to god, gods, goddess, etc. If it does not apply to everyone, always, it is not "objective, imso." ymmv Max - God is above the law, hes [he's] not human. He don’t [doesn't] kill he takes away. cs - I look forward to the next comment.

Just to clear something up, I don't know shit about America; your government claims to be a Democracy to foreigners...but only two parties have ever been elected to office and their policies seem to be so that your government classifies as an Theocracy. Religious wars in the Middle East, state mandated chants, Muslims being persecuted by the "patriot act" without trial and without charge, in some states it's impossible for a non-theist by law to be elected to high ranking government, all your Presidents have been Christian (and Protestant no less), your media seems to be very religiously controlled and Science is suppressed by government censorship (stem cell research, cloning, etc.) So can you please tell me (I will take your word), is America actually a Democracy? I mean I know it's a Christian nation (so is most of Europe) but it seems to a foreigner very much like a Theocracy.

MM - "You already told me that you were an old man anyway Greedy I was just ...." cs - That was me you dreamed about. I turned 59 in January. peace

Max-"...murder and rape of the innocent its wrong no matter what." Greedy-Ancient Europe and Asia beg to differ mate. Max-" But you want to pretend that it is only wrong if we say its wrong. That means Hitler was right and you agree with him ironically!" Greedy-Hitler was right, during that culture and context he did the right thing, however the rest of the western world begged to differ and sought to enforce their rules upon Germany when it became a matter of international interest. Does that mean that the rest of the west was wrong? no, they were right as well for their culture and context, it is only because 9and by we I mean you) adopt similar values do we classify Hitler as the bad guy in this conflict...beyond that agree with Hitler on what ground? That there is a God and "he" wished for Hitler to act as a deceitful and kill minorities? That it is right to kill minorities when they don't agree with you or that a dictatorship is a better system of Government than Communism? However I will point out that Hitler's reign was successful and propelled American science decades into the future after WWII was won.

cs - "GreedyCapybara7" it is.

fuck! "...because we (and by we I mean you) adopt..."

okay smart guy...my name is comprised of two words and a number namely Greedy (adjective describing excessive desire) Capybara (worlds largest rodent) and 7 (seven).

Max- "Whether you agree or disagree makes no difference in whether they are right or wrong, what this means is that they are right or wrong no matter what" cs - Except god. When the god of the old testament kills, rapes, enslaves, or orders same, it is, as I understand Max' "objective morality", good, or, somehow does not count. In my puny human subjective morality, all of those things are bad whether I do them or Max, or god. Please explain how something can be objective and not apply to god. thanks

Max, I just explained soft tissue to you...if you don't believe me taker a high school chemistry class, or better yet ask a Biochemist (if you have access to one). This is another misconception that Creationist preachers like to spread (like our your various misconceptions about Evolution Theory). Living cells cannot last that long, lipids can (the chemicals that comprise cellular membranes and nuclear membranes, which is what is being observed if you bothered to read the actual paper).

I don't understand. You pointed out I was incorrect for calling you GCB and I agreed to start calling you “GreedyCapybara7″ Have I said something worng?

Ok, thanks. Yes, on Feb 10 I thanked you for piquing my curiosity. I looked up the term and learned something. "To Greedy Capybara7 – Thanks to you I have learned the difference between Javelina (which I have seen) and Capybara, of which I had not heard. Thanks." I will probably call you GC. Coincidentally, there is a television show called GCB. I had not heard of it until I saw a headline to the effect: "GCB upsets Churches." peace

"GCB upsets churches" Ironic because on more than one occasion the myriad of religious complexes around our University have demanded for the heads of the Biology department (dropping docs, protesting, etc.). But because Australia is a Secular Government they nobody is hurt and we are allowed to return to our research unharmed most of the time.