Objective morality is an incoherent concept.

Con has chosen to open his second round argument with an unambiguous and baseless ad hominem attack. Con's first round argument is far afield of the scope of this debate which is namely the concept of "objective morality". I was initially inclined to dismiss his attempt to derail the focus on "objective morality" with his completely off-topic descriptions of "science" and "reality". It is commonly acknowledged that "science" and "morality" are mutually exclusive because of the simple fact that "morality" is not a quantifiable substance or force. However, upon further reflection, I decided it might be interesting to explore this side track with Con even though it remains completely beside the point. My comment, which Con decided to take offense to, is merely an acknowledgement that I am willing to explore his line of reasoning instead of holding him to the conventional standard of remaining on topic. I'm not sure how Con mistook my steel man for a weak argument. I found the best examples of justifications in favor of using science to define moral standards and presented them, which seems more than fair since Con was the one who tried to drag "science" into this discussion about "morality". Con claims to disavow these views, which is fine, but he then fails to offer any argument whatsoever that "morality" can ever be considered "objective" or even what "science" has to do with any of it. I would now like to quote Con, "Yes, there are skeptics to scientific objectivity..." end of story. If something is subject to opinion (skeptics) and/or changes over time (like the Newton Einstein example) then it is not "objective" and does not imply anything eternal and unchanging is being approached. Con has repeatedly made the appeal that even though we don't currently have any "objective" standards of "morality" the idea that we may be reaching a broader consensus on the matter is somehow evidence that "objective morality" does indeed exist. Broad consensus does not equal (or imply) "objectivity" no matter how much someone strives for it. Lastly, Con proves my point that even the simplest example of the supposedly "objective" value of a dollar is a veritable quagmire of complex variables. And once again completely misses the point that no matter how accurately we are able to predict the value of a dollar, the fact that it ever changes at all means that its value is not "objective". And as for Con's ad hoc objection that I am co-mingling "science" and "economics", the example holds true whether you use "a dollar" or anything else you can imagine, like "an ounce of cesium sulfide" or a "bushel of grain" or "a loyal friend". All measurements of value (moral or otherwise) are subject to contextual fluctuation and therefore can not possibly be "objective". Con's basic premise continues to be that "People can make subjective claims that have the potential to be objectively true." This is provably false because subjective claims and objective truth are mutually exclusive. Con is conflating "a broad consensus of moral standards" with "objective morality". The one in no way implies the existence of the other. Even Plato's perfect Forms and Kant's noumena are not considered proof of objectivity. Simply because we can observe something does not in any way indicate that it is eternal and unchanging. In closing, I will simply restate the core of my position. Since "objectivity" precludes any opinion formation, although you may be able to render a "moral" verdict, that verdict cannot possibly be considered "objective". Therefore, objective morality is an incoherent (self contradictory) concept.