Is it perhaps because evolution does not have a scientific or logical leg to stand on, and that the more knowledgeable evolution adherents KNOW THAT and only adhere to it because they prefer its MORAL implications?
27 comments
Here we have an example of a post that could simultaneously get the Pot & Kettle award as well as the Fundamentalism in a Nutshell award, yet would be hard-pressed to get the latter individually.
"Is it perhaps because religion does not have a scientific or logical leg to stand on, and that the more knowledgeable Christian adherents KNOW THAT and only adhere to it because they prefer its MORAL implications?"
Sadly, what he's trying to say is all scientists know evolution is crap, but go along with or even promote the lie because they want to burn eternally in hell in return for a little bit of sinning right now. (because those scientists sure know how to party)
What moral implications, dolt? That morality isn't based around the whims of a sky faerie? That morality has no loopholes (if you happen to be Kantian)? That morality doesn't have anything to do with fear of eternal punishment, but rather what is right? Those implications?
So, what are the moral implications of Einstein's theory of relativity -- that reaching the speed of light is a sin for anything but light? For that matter, what are the scientific implications of the Biblical account of the Flood -- apart from the obvious inanity of the story, that is?
Falsehood, falsehood, falsehood with implication everyone in the world secretly agrees with you but is just 'naughty' and 'rebellious' because no one could ever see the world differently.
I thought those demonic, "worldly" scientists had no morals.
Make up your minds, people!
There are no moral implications to evolution. Things and creatures adapt to their changing environment. That's it. And it has both a scientific and a logical leg to stand on.
Please learn sentence structure. You are missing the conclution. Because this and that and that, what happens?
Without evolution, most biology is reduced to a string of random unconnected facts. Do note, also, that it -has- no moral implications to prefer. Never has, never will, doesn't need them.
Oh the irony of a fundie telling me that I adhere to something I know to be untrue only for moral reasons. That may be how it works in fundieland, dickweed, but not out here in the sane world.
(Not that I claim to be a very knowledgeable evolution "adherent", but then I don't need to be a knowledgeable gravity "adherent" either).
Erm, no, because it has no MORAL implications.
Sure, it doesn't have one scientific or logical leg to stand on; it has multiple legs of both categories to stand on.
well since Gods laws are so respected by Christians that none are ever broken , we must live in a utopian society of love, brotherhood and niceness. No rape,no theft, no adultery, no mixed fibres, no shellfish and no work on the sabbath.
hmmmm
nope, Christian morality must be flawed for Christians to not follow it. Jesus must be embarrased that so many of his followers are in prison.
“Is it perhaps because evolution does not have a scientific or logical leg to stand on,”
"and that the more knowledgeable evolution adherents KNOW THAT”
“and only adhere to it because they prefer its MORAL implications?”
So, as stated above: No.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
