1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. We are holding our 2022 Angel Ministry Drive now. Please consider signing up, or if you have any questions about being an Angel, use our staff application form. The world needs more prayer now, and it is a great way to help other members of the forums. :) To Apply...click here

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and Darwin

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by JohnR7, Feb 23, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. fromdownunder

    fromdownunder Senior Member

    944
    +74
    Atheist
    Very nice response. Thanks.

    Norm
     
  2. Elduran

    Elduran Disruptive influence

    +63
    Atheist
    Single
    That's because it would be inconvenient at this stage for him to admit that there are no links at all between his chosen subject matters.
     
  3. lemmings

    lemmings Veteran

    +125
    Atheist
    Private
    At this stage, I would just be happy if John would just tell me why Communism is evil.
     
  4. Mystman

    Mystman Atheist with a Reason

    +280
    Atheist
    He grew up in Cold War USA. He just knows that communism is evil.

    Anyway, it isn't so much evil, just impossible (given human nature and all that), and depending the the type, also quite ineffecient.
     
  5. CACTUSJACKmankin

    CACTUSJACKmankin Scientist

    +124
    Judaism
    Private
    US-Democrat
  6. JohnR7

    JohnR7 Well-Known Member

    +191
    Pentecostal
    Married
    They told us that it was like a domino, if one falls down then they all fall down.

    Actually one of the few things Clinton did when he was in office was to open up a diaologe with China to try and resolve some of the political issues.

    I am not interested in a political discussion though. I am interested in a discussion on what they call social evolution or socialcultural evolution. For some reason evolutionists seem to want to avoid a discussion on that aspect or that part of the theory. Perhaps because people like Hitler and Marx start to become a part of the discussion when you start to investigate the theory on a social level.

    But when it comes to a political discussion, I do not really know anything about it. I have never studied anything that has to do with political things. But if someone wants to have a discussion on evolution and political science I suppose we could give it a try.
     
  7. CACTUSJACKmankin

    CACTUSJACKmankin Scientist

    +124
    Judaism
    Private
    US-Democrat
    No, you don't want to get into a discussion of evil people who believe in evolution because then we get to bring up all of the evil people who were christian or creationists.
    Hitler was a devout catholic.
    Jim jones was a christian too.
    What do you wanna bet the 9/11 terrorists didn't believe in evolution?
    How many evolutionists bomb abortion clinics?
     
  8. WilliamduBois

    WilliamduBois BenderBendingRodriguez

    252
    +9
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    Dear John, you've been told countless times that social darwinism is not a part of the theory of evolution.

    So I wonder, are you that forgetful, or are you being dishonest?
     
  9. Elduran

    Elduran Disruptive influence

    +63
    Atheist
    Single
    NO, you are wrong again.

    The reason scientists don't want to talk about social evolution in the context of the theory of evolution is because it isn't part of the theory of evolution. It's just not. No matter how much you want it to be so that you can discredit the scientific theory with the other thing that just happens to have the same name, it isn't.

    This is like trying to disprove the mathematical method of proof by induction by talking about what happens when a wire is exposed to a moving magnetic field...
     
  10. FishFace

    FishFace Senior Veteran

    +165
    Atheist
    Perhaps because social evolution is not part of "the theory?"

    So some baaad men used Darwin's theory in a way that isn't applicable, committing the is/ought fallacy while they were at it. That neither smears nor falsifies evolution!
    That's a very important point to realise - not only does it not even make evolution a naughty theory, but even if it did, evolution would still be true.
     
  11. EnemyPartyII

    EnemyPartyII Well-Known Member

    +812
    Catholic
    In Relationship
    I've decided to try the path of least resistance for the remainder of February and into March for a while. So, this logic has me convinced that darwin is directly responsible for the Spanish Conquistador's slaughter of Native Americans.

    dads logic and clear, concise debating still and internally coherent scientific theorising have already convinced me that the universe is only 6000 years old and Stonehenge was originally a garden gazebo built as a weekend DIY project.

    So, in my new, enlightened state, I'm interested hear precisely what it is John has to say, how he sees a link between Darwinism and Marxism.

    John, the floor's your's sweety, give it your best shot...
     
  12. EnemyPartyII

    EnemyPartyII Well-Known Member

    +812
    Catholic
    In Relationship
    what an odd pairing...
     
  13. NPH

    NPH Well-Known Member

    +555
    Atheist
    Single
    Since you have Godwin'd your own thread (well, others did also) I don't feel too bad about adding these nuggets for your consideration:

    "In 1936 ... Hitler assured his lordship [Bishop Berning of Osnabruch] there was no fundamental difference between National Socialism and the Catholic Church. Had not the church, he argued, looked on Jews as parasites and shut them in ghettos? 'I am only doing,' he boasted, 'What the church has done for fifteen hundred years, only more effectively.'" - Peter de Rosa, former Jesuit priest and theologian

    "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator; by defending myself against the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord.... I would like to thank Providence and the Almighty for choosing me of all people" - Adolf Hitler (sidenote, exchange 'Jews' for 'Islamic terrorists' and the quote sounds eerily like the musings of a current world leader)
     
  14. EnemyPartyII

    EnemyPartyII Well-Known Member

    +812
    Catholic
    In Relationship
    Can you please explain how it fits into the theory? I don't know.
     
  15. Split Rock

    Split Rock Conflation of Blathers

    +650
    Agnostic
    Single
    Apparently not. Do you have a point to make?

    Fine. Let's start with a definition of the biblical "Kind."


    Why? There were American Capitolists that also tried to use evolution to support their objectives. What is the point?


    Define "evolutionist" in this context. Also, you provided little evidence that Marx had "quite a bit" to say about evolutionary theory. All you provided was a single incomplete and out of context quote.


    The theory of biological evolution has nothing to do with Social Darwinism. It is not "part of the theory."

    Can it really be true that you do not see that these kind of threads only serve to drive people who are undecided away from Creationism? In any case, keep up the good work! :thumbsup:
     
  16. JohnR7

    JohnR7 Well-Known Member

    +191
    Pentecostal
    Married
    Social evolution fits the forum. They both have the word evolution in their title. So I think you are going to have a difficult case if you want to try to convince the mods that social evolution or even social darwinism is not a topic for discussion here on this forum. No matter how much people think it does not qualify as "real" evolution.

    But, if you do not want to talk about it, that is fine, I got better things to do. Or perhaps you would like to have a stimulating converstion about Darwin's beard?
     
  17. JohnR7

    JohnR7 Well-Known Member

    +191
    Pentecostal
    Married
    No I do not have a point. No one knows anything about neoevolution, so that is fine. We do not have to talk about it if you do not want to.

    What does that have to do with social darwinism?
    A Bible "kind" is what science calls a species.
    I would have no problem to replace the word "kind" in the Bible with the word "species".

    What do you mean by creationism?
    Some of the creationist theorys are so mixed up and confused that it would be good to drive people away from them.
     
  18. Sleeker

    Sleeker DON'T PANIC

    +45
    Agnostic
    Single
    US-Republican
    Who's up for a talk on the evolution of dance? I have a great video for it right here.

    Or how about a talk on Creation and Star Trek? Don't worry, I have the source of information.

    I don't.

    That would be preferable, yes.

    What's neoevolution? More to the point, what's with all of these insane prefixes to evolution I've been seeing? What about Neo-Hovind-YEC-fascist-dictatorial-creationism?

    As much as social Darwinism does to evolution.

    So, was their hyper speciation, multiple arks, sanctuaries on land protected by the flood containing many more species, or is the Flood just wrong?
     
  19. FishFace

    FishFace Senior Veteran

    +165
    Atheist
    The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has Church in the title - WOOHOO!

    All is being said is that it's not part of the Theory of Evolution. It's a load of fallacious rubbish, partly inspired by the same Theory. That's completely different, and you should know it.

    I'm sure it would be about as stimulating as any conversation about social darwinism.
     
  20. Split Rock

    Split Rock Conflation of Blathers

    +650
    Agnostic
    Single
    OK. At least you admit it. :p



    You said you were willing to talk about Creation Science instead, so I asked a question about it.

    So, speciation would disprove Creation Science? Then it has been disproved, since speciation has been observed in nature and the lab. I hope you don't need to see Lucaspa's list again..



    I agree completely. But we were discussing Creation Science.

    My point was that this type of Thread does more for our side in the debate than yours.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...