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

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

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

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

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. JohnR7

    JohnR7 Well-Known Member

    +191
    Pentecostal
    Married
    For me Creation science is any science that verifys the Bible or creation to be true. We then question what is valid science and what is not valid science. Creation science is impirical evidence for the Bible.

    So far there is not one person that even wants to talk about evolution on this thread. So does that help your "side" when you keep people in ignorance by refusing to talk about evolutionary theory? At least in regards to neoevolution, which is the topic of this thread.
     
  2. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +678
    Atheist
    Come on now - John does have a point here. He did make some good points in post #11. It might be worth discussing.

    I think, John, that the best answer is, it doesn't matter what people think of evolution. If it could be proved that Hitler, for example, directly took his inspiration from Darwin's theory and nothing else, it would not prove that there is anything wrong with the theory of evolution. If it could be proved that Darwin himself came up with the theory with the direct intention of discrediting Christianity with it, this would have no impact on the modern theory of evolution. Scientists are not concerned with what the theory of evolution makes people think; they are concerned with whether or not it is actually true.

    However, there doesn't seem to be any harm in asking the question of whether or not Marx was influenced by the theory of evolution. He may have been.
     
  3. CACTUSJACKmankin

    CACTUSJACKmankin Scientist

    +124
    Judaism
    Private
    US-Democrat
    The purpose of this thread is to somehow equate evolution with communism, which doesn't work.
    Evolution is a value-free scientific fact, just like cloning. It is only the application of those facts that can have moral implications.
    Weak, diseased, and young animals are the most likely to get eaten because they are the easiest to kill. C'est La Vie, that is a fact of nature. Being a fact of nature it also has no value to be ascribed to it. Thus it has no moral implications for our society. It doesn't mean that it would be okay for our society to kill the weak, diseased, and young. The connection between evolution and social darwinism or any other socio-political ideology is unfounded for this same reason.
     
  4. Upisoft

    Upisoft CEO of a waterfal

    +111
    Atheist
    Married
    Will you give me a link where I can read about neoevolution? I've searched the net, found following site: http://www.neoevolution.net/, but have a feeling that you didn't have this in mind.
     
  5. Split Rock

    Split Rock Conflation of Blathers

    +649
    Agnostic
    Single
    You can make up your own vocabulary, John, but no one else will use it.


    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the purpose of this thread seems to be to blame Communism on the Theory of Evolution. That type of argument is what helps my side, because most people can see how poor an argument it is.

    By the way, since when did the topic of this thread become "neoevolution?" What is "neoevolution," by the way?
     
  6. XTE

    XTE Well-Known Member

    +106
    Atheist
    US-Others
    Honest question:

    Why do you people waste your breath answering his questions?

    He already knows he has the answers and knows that he is privy to more knowledge about everything than you are. I mean, he knows better than you do that Evolution and Social DARWINISM(and idea invented well after Darwin's day and not called Social Evolution) have everything to do with one another. It's striking! Let the guy think that on his own.

    Imagine that you thought everything you thought was a God-send. Someone so impressed with themselvese that they no longer need to impress others. That's what you are talking to.

    Leave him alone.
     
  7. JohnR7

    JohnR7 Well-Known Member

    +191
    Pentecostal
    Married
    Actually, I was looking at the issue in the other direction. That evolutionary theory has been influenced by Marx. Actually what Marx was concerned with was social evolution. Something Darwin did not seem to be as interested in.

    We know that Marx was very excited about Darwin's book. So Marx sent Darwin a copy of his book and Darwin did not even open it. So we there is a good chance that he never read Marx's book. Although Marxists to this day still accept Darwin's theorys.
     
  8. JohnR7

    JohnR7 Well-Known Member

    +191
    Pentecostal
    Married
    Oh, sorry about that. I guess I got confused because social evolutoin and the theory of evolution both use the same word: evolution. So does that mean that social evolution should be excluded as a topic on this forum, even though the word Evolution is used in it's description? Or that we should only talk about what Darwin said about evolution and we should not talk about what Marx said about evolution?

    For those who like to draw comparison. Marx and Darwin may have both had beards. But there are people who would try to claim that they were both godless atheists. Although communism today claims that communism is or at least can be a spiritual experance.
     
  9. JohnR7

    JohnR7 Well-Known Member

    +191
    Pentecostal
    Married
    You have answers? For what?

    It does not matter if you can answer questions or not. The question is what empirical evidence do you have to show that the Bible is not true? Because I have lots and lots and lots of empirical scientific evidence that shows the Bible to be true. Yet you do not seem to have one speck of empirical scientific evidence that shows the Bible is not true.

    Even if you do not have any answers. Even if you do not have any evidence to support your claims. Then we can still see who can produce the best rhetoric.
     
  10. TheNewAge

    TheNewAge Non-prophet musician...

    +58
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    US-Others
    Please list in detail for discussion.
     
  11. Upisoft

    Upisoft CEO of a waterfal

    +111
    Atheist
    Married
    So they use the same word and you somehow concluded they're the same? If you haven't noticed, Marx's theories are philosophical.
     
  12. Sleeker

    Sleeker DON'T PANIC

    +45
    Agnostic
    Single
    US-Republican
  13. XTE

    XTE Well-Known Member

    +106
    Atheist
    US-Others
    Granted, he has a wit.

    However, he still thinks you can prove a negative. How anyone can think this is even logical is beyond me, it is one of the leading factors in me claiming he is truly disingenuous. We've told him many, many, many times that you CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE and yet here he is again with his back against the wall and only one thing he thinks can get him out.

    Secondly, he thinks "rhetoric" is potentially the same as evidence, or explainations? It's kind of vague, but it's funny that his rhetoric is always right and our rhetoric is wrong when put up against his.

    Somehow, someone, told many times, still cannot help himself but to resort to asking someone else to prove a negative.
     
  14. XTE

    XTE Well-Known Member

    +106
    Atheist
    US-Others
    He only had one point in post 11, but it was a good one.
     
  15. FishFace

    FishFace Senior Veteran

    +163
    Atheist
    Judging by your other posts, the problem is that you're conflating Evolution with what you cal "Social Evolution." I suppose Historical Materialism could be seen as social evolution, but it is not related, except extremely tenuously, to the Theory of Evolution. That's why people are less concerned with answering any questions, and more concerned with making off the wall quips.
     
  16. EnemyPartyII

    EnemyPartyII Well-Known Member

    +809
    Catholic
    In Relationship
    Huh? I said I DO want to hear about it?! I'd like to have you explain how you see Social Darwinism and Evolution as Synonymous! Please, do go on!
     
  17. JohnR7

    JohnR7 Well-Known Member

    +191
    Pentecostal
    Married
    So Darwin had a influence on communism, but communism did not have a influence on Darwin?
     
  18. Sleeker

    Sleeker DON'T PANIC

    +45
    Agnostic
    Single
    US-Republican
    Yes. You can say that. Jesus had an effect on Islam, but Islam did not have an effect on Jesus. Same sort of thing.

    Edit: Also understand the difference between Darwin and the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution may have been created by Darwin, but anything that Darwin said or did doesn't necessarily have any scientific effect on the theory of evolution.
     
  19. DrkSdBls

    DrkSdBls Well-Known Member

    +51
    Seeker
    Quite. Think of it this way. Darwin had a brainstorm one day and decided to write down his thoughts and observations during his Travels and then put them in a book to share with anyone else who was interested. Just something for the curious to think about.

    Scienctists decided to pursue Darwin's ideas to either support them or refute them. Some they supported and some they refuted but either way, they still learned a lot about Nature and the world as a result of their findings.

    So, even though Darwin's Ideas were generally Semi-Scientific Musings of a curious Biologist, they Did serve the purpose of getting people to think about the world in a new way and Sceince, as well as the world, has been thus enriched by (But not based on) Darwin's Work.
     
  20. Wiccan_Child

    Wiccan_Child Contributor

    +602
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    Bingo. Now, link Darwinism (i.e., the biological theory derived from Darwin's original musings) with Marxism and/or Communism (i.e., a social philosophy).
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...