Any scientific theory that leads inescapably to a consequence that is untrue, is itself untrue. If evolution were true, there could be no objective morality. But there is objective morality. Thus, evolution is false
49 comments
Uh, Mr. Lisile; Y'know that a huge chunk of religious, moral folks accept evolution, right?
You way you word this is also confusing & making my brain melt...no, wait...that's your idiocy & existence doing that.
Ah, but we know you from your work Jason.
Define your idea of objective morality in detail and finish it with an explanation of how it's inherent and universal. It's the only way you can prove the point, you lot can't just keep throwing this out like you've proven it exists without once giving the slightest evidence for it.
A lot of you are tossing this "objective morality" phrase out regularly now, it's another con that worked well with the sheep but it's just as weak as "spiritual reality" in the end.
If Biblical objective morality was true (because we know that's where you think this morality begins ) then Moses was conned by a mad God. A God that had him climb a mountain, get some rules and then violate several of them by attacking, killing and stealing from others. And that's just one example of many from your muddled contradictory and outdated mess of scriptures.
Go on Jason, live by Biblical morality, they might even give you computer privilages in the Asylum.
Relative morality has been the status quo for all of history and in todays world. The Nazis were dead certain they were fighting a war of moral superiority, Kim Jon Ill is certain he's a prohecy fulfilled, the Crusades were the action of people convinced they were operating under the highest God given morals.
All relative to the people in charge and still not the only philophosy existing in the masses.
Quantum Theory and classical physics don't get along very well. Indeed, it appears that the laws of physics are different for particles than they are for large objects. But that can't be true as we have one universe governed by the same laws of physics, therefore Quantum Theory must be wrong. Or, you know, we simply don't understand it well enough yet, just like you don't understand evolution. At least Quantum Physics is a pretty new science (compared to classical physics) and subatomic particles are pretty hard to observe. I don't know what your excuse is for getting your understanding of the Theory of Evolution so wrong.
Evolution has nothing to do with morality.
Even if it did, for your little proof to be true, you'd need to prove the existence of objective morality.
Let's examine this idiotic logic MadLibs style.
Wrong: Any scientific theory that leads inescapably to a consequence that is untrue, is itself untrue. If (scientific theory) gravity were true, there could be no (abstract concept) romantic comedy . But there is romantic comedy . Thus, gravity is false.
Right: Any religious statement that leads inescapably to a consequence that is untrue, is itself untrue. If (religious statement) God is omniscient were true, there could be no (contradictory event) instance of God changing His mind . But there is an instance of God changing His mind . Thus, "God" is false.
Except, TA-DA, there is no objective morality. You lose.
Besides, since evolution is morally neutral it doesn't lead to the conclusion that there is no objective morality so, you lose again.
Any scientific theory that leads inescapably to a consequence that is untrue, is itself untrue.
Valid, by the law of the contrapositive.
If evolution were true, there could be no objective morality. But there is objective morality.
Both these premises are invalid if you can't back them up. Prove each assertion, and then come back to me.
Thus, evolution is false.
Not even wronf.
But there is objective morality.
Can that morality ever be changed? Does that morality depend on what one entity says is moral?
If yes, then there is NO Objective Morality in the first place and you're either woefully ignorant or lying your arse off.
If no, then your god is NOT the source since it a: keeps on fucking changing what is moral ie. pork. and b: you keep on fucking claiming that your god is the source and that morality is what your god says it is, so stop lying you foetid colostomy bag!
how jason lisle packs so much fuckheadedness in such a small number of words is amazing.
"Any scientific theory that leads inescapably to a consequence that is untrue, is itself untrue."
supposing you know the consequence is untrue.
"If evolution were true, there could be no objective morality."
why? because it makes the conclusion work.
"But there is objective morality."
then construct a proof for that. actually, don't bother, i'll do it for you: suppose, in order to obtain a contradiction, that there was no objective morality. then there must be no creator as described in the christian tradition. but if there were no creator in the christian tradition, logic would not work. but if logic doesn't work, then by constructing this proof i'm actually just moving hot air around, so there must be a creator as described in the christian tradition. a creator as described in the christian tradition must establish objective morality, contradiction out assumption. thus, jesus is lord.
But there is objective morality. Thus, evolution is false
BULLSHIT!
Moral is simple!
Nothing more, nothing less.
But there is objective morality. Thus, evolution is false.
A) There is no such thing as objective morality. Or you think that Mao did what he did despite knowing it was evil?
B) Even discarding point A, in what way does the existence of objective morality proves that evolution is false?
C) You're a moron.
Flying possums cannot brush their teeth, therefore the consumption of oranges is an abomination.
Makes just as much sense.
What IS objective morality? It's always bad to kill? It's always bad to wear clothes of mixed fibers? It's always bad to grow the wrong crop in the wrong field? It's always bad to pick sticks on the Sabbath?
I'd say that driving a car is more onerous than picking sticks. Should all ambulances, fire engines and police cars be "grounded" on the Sabbath? (Which is the Sabbath, btw? Muslims say Friday, Jews say Saturday and Christians say Sunday, but all worship the Abrahamic God.)
Is it always wrong to kill a murderer? A serial child molester? Someone like Kim Jong-un? I don't know, but I'm not the one saying that there is such a thing as objective morality.
Besides, evolution is "adaptation of life to a changing environment, through random mutations and natural selection". Whether evolution is a mere natural process or some god started it, it has no impact whatsoever on morality, as far as I can see.
@ Swede
Even for Orthodox Jews, ambulances, fire engines and police cars should operate as in Judaism the principle of potentially saving a life far outweighs the principle of observing the Sabbath. In Islamic countries, people still work on Fridays, just not during prayers. Not sure that any of this applies to Christian fundies, though...
“Any scientific theory that leads inescapably to a consequence that is untrue, is itself untrue.”
"If evolution were true, there could be no objective morality.”
"But there is objective morality.”
"Thus, evolution is false”
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.
