Posted on 01/27/2006 11:04:17 AM PST by Lindykim
Neither.
All animals evolved into their present form from something else.
I've answered your question. Please answer mine.
Do you believe that all animals (ALL --mastiff, chihuahua, turtle and chicken) were created by God in their present form with no changes whatsoever to their physiology between the time of their creation and now?
Why is my answer unknown to you?
Okay, let's cut to the chase: Feel free to describe *how* evolutionary biology actually gives any support to communism. We'll wait.
And no, the usual canard about how they're both "based on atheism" doesn't count, because they're not. Evolutionary biology makes no statement either way about the existence of God(s), and is entirely compatible with the existence or intervention of a deity. Communism, meanwhile, is "atheistic" only in the sense that it advocates suppressing religions in order to "avoid competition" with the communist state, but it is entirely compatible with the existence of God (i.e., all of Marx's "justifications" for communism are based on arguments of necessity and charity and so forth, not based on any "since there is no god, then..." arguments). One can believe in God and still think that communism is a workable or desirable economic system -- it's not *predicated* on the premise that no deity exists.
So go for it -- by what line of argument do you think evolution in any way supports communism? This should be amusing.
Because you're being coy.
Cheap excuse #483,225 for avoiding points raised...
I'll be more civil when the anti-evolutionists stop being belligerently obnoxious and militantly ignorant. Let me know when *that* happens, will you? Thanks.
...which you pointedly fail to present...
Stephen Gould, bless his soul, might even call my theory a fact.
Then again, he might tell you you're full of crap.
How much easier it is to claim the dead guy would have agreed with you (especially knowing that he won't be around to disagree) than it is to actually make a case for your claim, eh?
"Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is a book which contains the BASIS of natural history for our views." Karl Marx
You can opine all day about his motives but those are the words of Marx himself speaking of the connection between Marxism and Evolution.
You will go on to deny that there are no links even though people on this forum have pointed them out including the ideas behind the theories.
I find the quote fascinating. Marx considereed his theories an evolution in the world of capital which paralleled evolutionary theories in the natural world, thus the accolades for Darwin, a like-minded thinker.
And the implied self-compliment in the "Screwtape" reference just gets more and more presumptuous. C. S. Lewis was able to write well enough that people would actually pay money to read him.
Why do you need a quote from the article?
What nonsense. Again, the correct analogies are: evolution is similar to market ecomonics; creationism/intelligent design is similar to centrally planned communist economics.
All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one's need.
-- Acts 2:44-45
I have no problem with Lindykim posting from her blog, but such posts definitely belong in Bloggers/Personal, not in News/Activism.
That she attempted to disguise it with a reference to another blog that pretends to be a newspaper is just sad. She has every right to post her writings here for discussion. But news is news and blogs are blogs, even if they pretend to be newspapers.
Yup. The early church was pretty communistic, in fact. As it grew, however, such a social structure was no longer possible. Communal organization is possible among small groups of like-minded people, but breaks down as the group gets larger.
Still, that does sound a lot like a Marxian construct, doesn't it. I'm tempted to think that Marx swiped that right out of Acts.
No connection?
That's right. Which word was unclear?
Can you say materialism?
Sure, but saying it doesn't help you case any.
<>I> They are both materialistic worldviews that assuume that matter and energy is all there is.
Utter nonsense. Evolutionary biology "assuumes [sic]" no such thing. Try learning some science before you attempt to critique it. Evolutionary biology is no more a "materialistic" a "worldview" than say auto repair, meteorology, or glassblowing.
Nor is communism "a materialistic worldview" -- it's an economic system. It can be practiced by religious zealots as easily as by atheists. Nor, as I described in an earlier post, is it in any way predicated upon a presumption of the non-existence of God. Marx saw religions as dividing the loyalties of the people under communism, and thus disruptive of his "system", but the same can be said for many other non-religious things as well. Communism is not *founded* on a presumption of "materialism", nor dependent up on it.
Darwinists are now trying to grapple with the idea that creation also contains, in addition to matter and energy, information in the form of DNA sequences.
ROFL!!! Wow, this is the most empty-headed thing I've read all week, and that's really saying something.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but information exists just fine even if "matter and energy" is all there is, because information resides in *configurations* of matter and energy. Or were you under the impression that little tiny magical elves carried your computer data across the internet, instead of patterns of electrons (WHICH ARE MATTER)? Are magical fairies responsible for the information stored on your hard drive? Or is it actually oriented particles of magnetic films (MADE OF MATTER)? Etc. etc.
"Darwinists" have no problem with this knowledge, don't "grapple" with it, and have understood it just fine for decades, unlike, say, yourself -- you seem pretty confused about it, and are "grappling" with simple concepts like how information exists in "matter and energy". You seem to be "grappling" with the notion that it somehow is carried on "crystal auras" or "fairy dust" or some other non-material substrate... Excuse me while I roll my eyes.
As for the information in DNA, a vast amount is known about it, because it's been studied for many decades by tens of thousands of researchers (at least, probably more), and there has been a huge flood of knowledge gained from it -- all supporting evolution, by the way. But you wouldn't know any of that, since you obviously haven't bothered to crack open a science journal before spouting off on topics you don't understand.
But the existence of a spirit world is strictly and dogmatically ruled out.
No it isn't -- this is yet one more thing you grossly misunderstand.
And what "connection" would that be, specifically? Come on, out with it. Tell us how Marx's statement actually holds water, and isn't just cheap rhetorical rationalization. We'll wait.
If NOW's founder had claimed that the Bible "contains the BASIS of natural history for our views" on abortion, would you beat Christians over the head with it until the end of time, or would you examine the claim to see whether it was cheap posturing which was full of crap first?
I'm one up on you here -- I *know* how Marx "explained" that statement. You don't. And I understand that his claiming evolution as the "basis" for his "natural history" is such a far reach as to be non-existent.
But hey, *you* know better than the rest of us, and you "know" that evolution and communism go hand-in-hand, right?
Spare me from the ignorant...
even though people on this forum have pointed them out including the ideas behind the theories.
Horse manure. Whining incorrectly about how they have "materialism" in common is hardly the same as actually making the case you describe.
I find the quote fascinating.
People are always fascinated by things they don't understand.
Marx considereed his theories an evolution in the world of capital which paralleled evolutionary theories in the natural world, thus the accolades for Darwin, a like-minded thinker.
No, he didn't, but thanks for sharing your false presumptions with us.
Don't be obnoxious. You have been pinging me. And don't be disingenuous...I don't need to tell you about anything which happened before Darwin was published. Just because two people write at different times does not mean they do not have similar ideas. And that these 2 men did is pointed out by Marx himself. If you choose to guess Marx's motives as only wanting prestige from the relationship that's up to you.
I have not evaded anything and pointed out a similarity of ideas from the 2 theories in my previous post. I would appreciate you not pinging me again as you say the same things over and over again. Thanks.
Easy to answer. Marx called Darwin's theory the basis for his idea. There's a connection right there. As to the interpretation as to what he meant exactly, I cannot guess. I only know that Marx himself claimed a connection.
Fascinating quote which I had not seen before today. I look forward to looking more into it in the future.
Easy to answer. Marx called Darwin's theory the basis for his idea. There's a connection right there.
What a *pathetically* lame dodge... I asked you to *explain* this alleged "connection", and you just repeated "Marx says so!" again without explaining or examining it in the least.
Look, if you're unable to support the implication you've been making all day, just be honorable enough to retract it. Don't keep dodging when people call you on it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.