Sure it can, you have, as usual, chosen to refute what you'd prefer I'd have said to what I have actually said.
If I am correct about the source of moral precepts, than obviously, unlike you, I do not think they are infallible, than I accept that they could have been chosen in error, or they could have become erroneous due to changing circumstances. You would, in fact, expect this to be a rather common state of affairs that has to continuously guarded against, and could, in fact, produce utter failure of a culture. Such a failure, contrary to your oft and loudly asserted assumption, is not evidence that nature is not, in fact, the source of moral inclinations since nature, unlike your version of God, make no claims to infallibility.
You keep changing your story when I catch you in a contradiction. If you insist, I will go back and find your posts where you clearly explained that each community decides its own morals, and make a liar out of you. When you you can't win the argument - equivocate and evade - are these part of your moral value system?
YOu can only be correct within your community. From now on, every time you try to argue that moral absolutes are not correct, I am simply going to respond that I belong to the Christian community and our community is as correct as yours. All you can do at this point is tell me what morals you prefer - you cannot make any truth claims about morals without contradicting yourself.
Such a failure, contrary to your oft and loudly asserted assumption, is not evidence that nature is not, in fact, the source of moral inclinations since nature, unlike your version of God, make no claims to infallibility.
Nature is YOUR source - you cannot say MY source is wrong. My community decides what basis to use for our morals and you cannot say it is incorrect. Or, you can try to force my community to adopt YOUR system - good luck.