[judywillow]

The point is, an evolutionist has no rational or logical basis for morality. Then of course, people with certain kinds of, "proclivities", shall we say, don't have any real USE for morality either...

[Smartaleck]

"The point is, an evolutionist has no rational or logical basis for morality."

The biology of a broken toe has no basis for morality either. What's your point?

[shubi]

There are far more non-scientists that are homosexual than scientists. Those in art, english literature, sociology,
building fake museums etc. are more prone to being light in the loafers than any scientist.

Those who repeatedly post ad hominen attacks that have no relationship to the debate are also prone to be homosexual.

[Alacarte]

The point is, an evolutionist has no rational or logical basis for morality.

No, the point is that morality and the cold facts of how the natural universe works are completely unrelated.

Just out of curiosity, is it ok for me to believe in germ theory? Or does that make me a baby killer?

[Dimensio]

The point is, an evolutionist has no rational or logical basis for morality.

From what cesspit of intellectual dishonesty did you derive this twaddle?

[Junior]

The point is, an evolutionist has no rational or logical basis for morality.

Enlightened self-interest.

[Modernman]

The point is, an evolutionist has no rational or logical basis for morality.

Well at least you got something right. The theory of evolution is, like any other scientific theory, completely amoral.

Tell me, what kind of moral teachings do you take away from the theory of gravity?