|EvolutionPage 35 of 64 (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64)|
it is my experience that most of the athiests and evolutionists that I have come in contact with and discussed this subject with, do try to avoid that question as much as possible.
OK... now I think I see what you are referring to. If by "this subject" you mean evolution, then the problem is that you are trying to shoehorn discussions on the origins of matter into a different discussion on evolution. Evolution is solely about the speciation of life-- not the origins of life (abiogenesis), not the origins of matter, the universe, or the big bang.
People who do not accept evolution constantly try to redirect the topic to one of those subjects. That is when an evolution savvy person will steer it back to speciation. At that point, the creationist or ID'er or whatever will basically cry no fair and raise accusations of evasiveness (as you do).
One might as well get annoyed with a veterinarian for refusing to see their sick child or with a cosmologist for refusing to give a horoscope. If one wants to talk about origins, one should start the subject on origins, not evolution. I haven't seen any threads on origins, if that's any indication.
Posted: 12/29/2010 2:05:09 AM
|"Here's the part I don't quite get............ you wrote:|
"those of us in the middle"."
Understood. When the bar is eve- shifting further and faster to the far right, everything looks left from there. Christ is a lefty these days, as the religious right embraces more old testament values. Those pesky Beatitudes were a commie manifesto, and Herod would hands-down win conservative support today. Teddy Roosevelt and even Goldwater and Nixon would be considered lefties by today's shifting standards of the Reichward march. Many extremists of the far right considered Bill Clinton as a liberal and even Obama as a socialist. I can understand your confusion when everything left of extreme right would be considered extreme left. Much of the good legislation tricky D*ck left behind is in the gunsights of the far right now.
The far right dopeler effect continues...the party devolves, and they will not even notice it until suddenly they are not right enough for those who moved even further to the extreme right.
"Sorry bud...wrong sect...Off you go to the re-education camps." Or as Palin's hero Rick Joyner wrote, "The kingdom of God will not be socialism, but a freedom even greater than anyone on earth knows at this time. At first it may seem like totalitarianism ... Instead of taking away liberties and becoming more domineering, the kingdom will move from a point of necessary control while people are learning truth, integrity, honor, and how to make decisions, to increasing liberty so that they can." Should Joyner's "last day army" gain control, you can be assured that anyone believing in evolution will be amongst the first rounded up for re-education or worse. Joyner's Third Wavers descended on Haiti to help stir up the massacre of voodoo priests. Militant anti-evolutionism is a very real possibility.
"it is my experience that most of the athiests and evolutionists that I have come in contact with and discussed this subject with, do try to avoid that question as much as possible."
Could be because it is futile and tedious to argue with people set in their smug ways. The more that threads like this rehash the divides between religion and reason, the more obvious it is that some people were created and some evolved. Others were dumped off here from intergallactic prisons elsewhere. Still others crawled out of the effluent of bilges emptied on earth by passers-by. The intergallactic rogues' offspring have their own news channel now.
Posted: 12/29/2010 2:57:53 PM
|Want to see something scary?:|
President Obama’s new science guidelines couldn’t come soon enough: A new Gallup poll shows 78 percent of Americans doubt the traditional scientific view of evolution: 40 percent of Americans believe that God created mankind 10,000 years ago; another 38 percent believe in intelligent design. Just 16 percent, meanwhile, believe in the scientific view of “secular evolution”—though that’s up from a mere 9 percent in 1982.
Read it at Gallup
40% of Americans think God created mankind 10,000 years ago.
How can you possibly have realistic national discussions about anything if only 16% of the population can be swayed by things like logic, evidence or rational argument?
That's just so weird, I felt I had to share it.
Posted: 12/29/2010 4:13:16 PM
So if the church wants to keep their nose out of my world I will cease mocking, until then, they are fair game.
Or, as my favourite bumpersticker says, "Jesus, protect me from Your followers".
... I didn't have the guts to actually put it on my car tho, I figured some "Christain" would probably take offence & key my car.
... I do have a Darwin fish on my car tho
Posted: 12/29/2010 4:58:59 PM
|Churches, particularly the mega-churches are personality driven cult organizations tip-toeing the lines between tax-exempt and pushing the boundries of seperation of church and state. To go back to the time where religions controlled countries that killed people who did not believe as the religion wanted you to, one need only go to any number of church driven countries in this day. Haiti is the closest and most current egregious massacre in our neck of the woods.|
For me, the Knoxville UU massacre was pretty close.
BTW...Leeches and Phlebodomies are still a viable treatment option.
Posted: 12/29/2010 6:06:01 PM
As far as the scary past, remember this, it was SCIENCE that told doctors of the day, not that long ago, that in order to heal people, you had to "bleed them".
This is a highly misleading claim, but in fairness, I doubt it is intentionally so. You are confusing the history of medicine with the history of science. Medicine and religion actually comingled for quite some time-- even until the early 20th century in Europe.
Fallible though it is, as with anything developed by man, at least science acknowledges its own fallibility, and it is the best method we have for understanding the natural world. Being overeager to cast aspersions upon it only makes one look ignorant.
Well, there a very few religions where some of their practioners still think it is OK to kill others because of their religion,
I'm not as concerned with the number of religions as the number of devotees. Ever wonder how certain religions got to be so large? And how these large religions preach peace but are also very well armed, currently and historically? I'm reminded of the truism "He who has the gun gets to make the rules."
Are they doing anything illegal?
It is possible. It seems that it can get complicated:
I read awhile back that there is an investigation as to whether the LDS Church (Mormon) has overstepped its bounds on proposition 8 (I believe) in California.
Posted: 12/30/2010 4:45:11 PM
" As far as the scary past, remember this, it was SCIENCE that told doctors of the day, not that long ago, that in order to heal people, you had to "bleed them"."
I have no idea why I'm bothering (this is the same guy who responded to my last post by claiming Obama is a Marxist), but here goes:
Bleeding and bloodletting predate science as we understand it. Medicine then was more like sympathetic magic. The scientific method (as was already pointed out by another) was only fully embraced by the medical field in the 20th century.
Posted: 12/30/2010 6:46:51 PM
|Go start a troll thread in politics if you want to try to claim Obama is a Marxist. He's too far right wing to run for the Conservative party in this country. Of course, you might want to actually read some Marx first - and not just the bits that pop up on right wing websites.|
But again.....blood letting was not based on science, but on magic. It was started at a time when they also looked for plants that looked like afflicted organs. That's not science, it's sympathetic magic. People have looked for healing for longer than the scientific method has existed - medicine has lasted that long.
Posted: 1/13/2011 5:14:47 AM
|Conservatives could use a little evolution...|
Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian has developed some good guidelines.."Because facts are Satan's sneakiest weapons".
Posted: 1/13/2011 6:58:30 AM
|Paul K wrote: |
I've never spent a lot of time wondering why some religions are as big as they are, as the answer to that is obvious. Lets take islam as an example.......Was this expansion peaceful? Ask the Spanish, the lower Germanic (Austrians), the Slavs in what was Yugoslavia. It is still going on today,but I digress.
Whoa! We agree on something. I don't wonder why Christianity spread, either: it converted by sword, bullying, and by subterfuge, i.e. adapting the practices of pagan religions and calling them "Christian." The Crusades attempted to reclaim Jerusalem by force, not peaceful at all. In addition, Christians, carrying the cross, wiped out indigenous, "heathen" societies, i.e. the Native Americans or subdued them by force. The ancestors of those cultures, South, Meso, and North American are now largely Christian because of this; however, those sects also retain a bit of their pagan flavor in some ways.
Bloodletting was the best that the science of the day could come up with. One didn't predate the other, as medical science progressed, things like bloodletting went by the wayside.
Well, no, bloodletting and other "medicine" tactics were not based on science. For example, Anglo-Saxons used charms and spells along with herbs to heal. I was not aware that spells were scientific. In addition, some medical practices were found by trial and error, but not through scientific methods. To use an example of the Anglo-Saxons again, they had an onion soup test for stomach wounds. If someone has a severe abdominal wound, say from battle, the wounded person was given onion soup. After a proscribed amount of time, the wound was "sniffed" for the odor of onions--no smell, the patient might survive. But if the wound smelled of onions, it showed that the wound had penetrated the stomach and they did not have the means to "fix" that. This diagnosis was not found by scientific method.
Paul K. You're rapidly gaining the reputation of a troll, for good reason. Casting Science as being equal to bloodletting, given all of the more recent examples of Science leading to individuals enjoying a longer life span is preposterous. Equating Obama with Marxism is equally preposterous. Not even Fox news is agreeing with you, given their latest analysis of Obama's performance in Tucson, Arizona
Posted: 1/13/2011 8:05:40 AM
|RE Msg: 1905 by Paul K:|
The single most important tennet of marxism is equality of outcome. That is achieved by RE-DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. Re-distribution of wealth is something that howdy doody defended on LIVE TV during his campaign. THAT is indisputable. That combined with many other things he has done, shows that, YES, he is a marxist at heart, just like his buddies that he ran around with when younger, who are to this day, unabashed marxists.Marxism does require equality of income. One way to achieve that is re-distribution of income.
But it's not just Marxism that promotes the concept of redistribution of wealth. Capitalism requires it as well, just to a much lesser degree.
Capitalism requires the continued practice of business, which requires purchases and sales. Money increases promotion of purchases and sales in capitalism. As the famous capitalist John Law pointed out, money is a medium of exchange for good and services.
As a result, money HAS to be kept flowing through the whole economy, in order to ensure people have enough money to buy things, to keep the economy going.
However, capitalism invariably results in some collecting more money than others, and this tendency increases as time goes on. Eventually, enough money is collected by the few, that the many simply don't have enough money to purchase things, and then the whole system comes to a grinding halt.
This problem was most clearly shown by the recent Credit Crunch, when the situation was that the banks had all the money, but stopped lending it out, and as a result, businesses didn't have the money to purchase stock to sell, and customers didn't have the money to buy, and everyone stopped buying and selling, which caused many businesses to go into administration, and many people didn't have the money to pay their mortgages or buy things. That ended up sending Western economies to a screeching halt.
As a result, in order to ensure a capitalist economy keeps going, every so often, some of the money held by the rich minority has to be re-distributed amongst everyone else, to get the economy going again.
Of course, this can happen via Adam Smith's "invisible hand", as in Laissez Faire economics. In such a system, eventually, money collates so much in so few hands, that the people don't have the money to buy. Businesses no longer can sell. So they go out of business. So their employees are out of work, who now have no money with which to buy, causing a domino effect, which sinks the economy. Eventually, money is so rare, that it ceases to be used as a medium of exchange, and the economy reverts to a barter status, one without the use of money. As money itself has very little value other than as a medium of exchange, when this happens, the currency deflates, and the only value of the money notes is as paper to burn, and the money coins as raw metal. When this happens, the financial wealth of any rich person disappears overnight. Only the value in solid assets like food, clothing, and physical objects retains its value. However, as everyone else didn't have any money, they don't lose anything. So their relative wealth rises massively. when a new currency is introduced, then its value can only be matched by the physical assets that exist, which represent far less wealth in the hands of the rich than previously under the old currency, and so their relative wealth drops to the same degrees. So under Laissez Faire economics, wealth is re-distributed every so often as well, which gets the economy going again.
However, the disadvantage of the Laissez Faire re-distribution system, is that it requires an economic collapse, almost to the point of destruction of the old currency, which has similar if not worse effects than the mass starvations and mass homelessness of the 1930s, which often hits many of the rich as much as the poor. It's very hard on the poor. It's equally hard on a minority of the rich, as some of them lose everything too. It takes a lot of time for a country to recover. Also, in the meantime, other countries are able to take over their exports to other countries. So even when the country recovers, it can go from being #1 to #10.
So a lot of capitalist governments prefer periodic interventions that re-distribute SOME of the wealth, to avoid things getting this bad.
Bloodletting was the best that the science of the day could come up with. One didn't predate the other, as medical science progressed, things like bloodletting went by the wayside.If I can just add to that:
Blood-letting is mentioned in medical texts as far back as Hippocrates.
It was also a practise used much by English medical physicians in the Medieval Age, who were all members of the Royal College of Physicians.
At the time, the Royal College of Physicians had secured the King's assent that only doctors could practise medical treatments. They even established their own private police force, who would arrest and fine anyone caught practising any treatment that doctors prescribed, including even traditional simple things like a bread poultice. As blood-letting was already a treatment that physicians used in England, anyone else caught practising the use of leeches in blood-letting would have been arrested and fined. So it is quite clear from the structure of English society, that in England, the use of blood-letting was clearly considered a scientifically valid medical treatment, to be used by scientific experts in the field of medicine.
Back in 1628, William Harvey proved the basis of the treatment was ineffective, and in the 1830s, Pierre Charles Alexandre Louis showed that it was ineffective in the treatment of pneumonia and various fevers in the 1830s. Nevertheless, even afterwards, many top physicians still advocated its use, and it was still recommended by some lecturers at the Royal College of Physicians.
It was still used into the 19th Century. Even Sir William Osler, one of the founders of Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, and its first Professor of Medicine in the 20th Century, was still advocating its use in 1923.
Then anti-biotics were re-discovered by Fleming and his team. They were incredibly effective at treating infections. These became the new "panacea" for treating almost all infections. There was a huge drive to use anti-biotics for everything, and the public were led to believe that antibiotics would kill all bacterial infections, probably because that was what the scientific and medical community saw as well.
From the 90s onwards, there started a rise in many cases of bacterial infections that were resistant to anti-biotics. So doctors have started looking for alternatives to antibiotics, and that led to new studies into blood-letting. In the last few years, doctors have used blood-letting with leeches as treatments for blood infections where antibiotics have proved ineffective. One such treatment was broadcast on national TV, as part of a series on new medical breakthroughs, led by the eminent Lord Dr Robert Winston.
In the 70s and the 80s, when I at school, we were taught in science classes that blood-letting was just quackery, and that seemed to be the view of everyone in the UK. So as you can imagine, I was astonished to find that such "quackery" was being used, and had gone through clinical studies.
However, it's been quite common in the UK to change what is taught in science classes to support campaigns to encourage the acceptance of new scientific advances, especially to encourage acceptance of new medical treatments, for the greater health of everyone, particularly when they are far more likely to be effective when everyone follows those treatments. Antibiotics were seen as a new and revolutionary medical treatment in the latter half of the 20th Century. Their effectiveness at treating infections increases rapidly when everyone infected takes those antibiotics, because that can wipe out the infection, and thus stop an epidemic before it's begun.
So it's entirely possible that blood-letting was rubbished as primitive barbarism, to promote the idea that modern medicine had the answers, in order to get people to trust in the new and modern medical treatment of antibiotics, as that sort of propaganda has been standard practice in the UK for many decades.
Posted: 1/14/2011 7:35:35 AM
|A possible explanation for some of the posters on forums like these.|
Posted: 1/14/2011 9:28:56 AM
|RE Msg: 1911 by Earthpuppy:|
A possible explanation for some of the posters on forums like these.I read the article, and found it very interesting, Earthpuppy. I have seen myself on these forums, that sometimes, there are people who are posting in a specific way, that would support the profits of some companies. I can certainly thus agree that many right-wing views may be motivated by commercial profits.
I've also seen this on televised political debates. On BBC's Question Time, there are a few members of the audience who have made comments that supported right-wing views, which are clearly only considering one side of the debate.
However, there are just as many members of the audience who have made comments that supported left-wing views, and are clearly only considering one side of the debate. So both left-wingers and right-wingers might be funded to support their views.
What I found to be even more interesting, was that during the debates on cuts to public services, members of the audience would point out the importance of a particular public service, such as funding for mental health services, and would also state that they were actually the owners of companies that were providing services in those specific areas that they were supporting, and were thus arguing for their own profits. So one does need to consider what job a person has, to realise someone's potential bias in an topic.
I have also considered that in the case of climate change, there are some companies who are investing heavily in renewable energy sources, far more than other companies. If climate change were to be accepted unanimously, then those companies would have a serious advantage over their competitors, and would stand to quickly gain a much larger share of the market, than if all the companies were allowed to catch up. So even in a subject like climate change, where left-wing views seem to be only altruistic, it is just as feasible that some left-wingers are equally being funded to support those viewpoints.
It thus might seem like you cannot trust anyone, left-wing liberals or right-wing libertarians, on any issue.
However, Earthpuppy, all is not lost. Some people will consider both sides, and will look for the win-win situation, where both sides stand to gain from their views. Those views don't have to unfairly advantage anyone. So IMHO, those are the views I look for, for those views are the ones which seem to me, to be least likely to be unfairly biased, and even if they are, they stand for a view in which everyone will gain equally from, and so seem to me, to be still worth taking on, for everyone.
Posted: 1/29/2011 5:18:52 PM
|"Missing link?" You DO know there's no such thing, yes? Or more specifically, there are millions of "missing links." You'd have to find and identify every single body of every simian and human and in between, to have all of the "links," just as you'd have to have a complete record of every thought and experience of a single individual, if you wanted to know every reason they turned out to think as they do.|
Posted: 2/15/2011 6:43:40 AM
The single most important tennet of marxism is equality of outcome. .
Ummmmmm ....... no. Try "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". It's called working for the common good.
You're also glossing over the fact that according to Marxist theory, the period before communism would consist of unbridled capitalism, whos efficiency would ensure a surplus of all goods, and eliminate scarcities - that is, there would be more than enough "stuff" for everybody to have as much "stuff" as they wanted.
Now - given that a Marxist is, by definition, somebody who believes in the theories of Carl Marx - (which Obama does NOT, by word OR deed) - and even Obama is to the right of most conservative parties in the rest of the world - any claim that Obama is a Marxist is laughable on it's face, and anybody who says otherwise does nothing but show a severe, profound ignorance of political theory.
The most that you - or anybody else - can claim, is that he's a bit too socialist for your taste.
Posted: 2/15/2011 6:48:18 AM
A possible explanation for some of the posters on forums like these.
I doubt that's any more likely than all left wing posters are strident, over the top conspiracy theorists who see everything as a sign that the sky if falling.
Good god, people - why do so many of you insist on believing that anybody who disagrees with them is evil, an idiot, or somebody else's pawn?
Posted: 2/20/2011 10:26:05 PM
Then the theory of evolution is that things change...
The theory of evolution is that mutations occur and those that are most successful at reproducing survive.
Posted: 2/20/2011 10:42:22 PM
|Evolution is so boring. Other than computers and the Internet why are most of the populations of the so-called First World facing the future with no medical care, threatened medical care (the U.S. and Canada) less job security? more time when one is young living with their parents? (50% of 20-25 years olds still live with their parents in British Columbia, Canada) Etc. etc. and who really cares about mutations occuring in the plant world? Frankly, it would be easier to be a fern. lol. Reproduction is a dumb act followed by dumb results. Nothing has changed. Only the surface stuff. Underneath its all going backwards. Time for a major correction divorced from evolution. get with it. lol.|
Posted: 2/21/2011 8:39:51 PM
those that are most successful at reproducing survive.
well ... you could also say .... those things most successful at surviving keep reproducing.
[and a big part of the success of surviving is modifying to changes in environment]
As a species, yes. As an individual, not necessarily. I could personally be very successful at surviving but if I don't reproduce, my genes will stop with me.
The common phrase "survival of the fittest" is not quite accurate. In terms of a species, it is the survival of those most successful at reproducing. A mutation may occur which is more "fit" - say I am bigger, stronger, and more successful at hunting than my peers, so I am more "fit." But if I don't reproduce, it doesn't matter in the end, at least not to the gene pool.
Posted: 2/22/2011 7:33:47 PM
|Here's an amazing and well-written story. A 9 year old girl wins an "Evolution and Art" contest for her drawing of an imaginary animal on an imaginary island, showing how the animal is adapted to its environment. Although only 9 years old, the girl understands evolution in a way that many adults do not. Her school, justly proud, interviews her on the school TV. But her teacher tells her not to mention the word "evolution" because she wants to "avoid conflict." This incredibly well told story of how the parents handled the situation is a model to me of how to keep your focus on the goal and not let your upset interfere with achieving it. I can't believe that decades after the Scopes trial we are still going through things like this.|
The story is told in three blog entries. Since I had trouble finding the links myself, I'm listing them in order:
From the meeting with the principal:
"The meeting began with the obligatory chit chat, then Becca [the mother of the student] took the floor — not as a parent, but as an appalled educator. For five minutes, in a voice laced with emotion but entirely under control, she explained why Warner’s action violated the central responsibility of educators to their students. She ended by quoting the framing concept in the elementary curriculum. They are the Habits of Mind — four characteristics all Georgia educators are expected to engender in their students. “A CONTENT STANDARD IS NOT MET,” says the science standards document in bold caps, “UNLESS APPLICABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF SCIENCE ARE ALSO ADDRESSED AT THE SAME TIME.”
The four principal characteristics:
Students will be aware of the importance of curiosity, honesty, openness, and skepticism in science and will exhibit these traits in their own efforts to understand how the world works.
In a single ill-considered sentence, Ms. Warner had managed to violate all four. Then there’s this further down — hard to beat for spot-on relevance:
Scientists use a common language with precise definitions of terms to make it easier to communicate their observations to each other.
Posted: 2/24/2011 9:20:15 PM
|Well now, I'm just going to throw a whole big spanner into the works by contending that a "communist" state is "communist" in title only. I would state that no truly communist society has ever existed beyond the smallest population if communist is read to mean completely equal dissemination of resources and goods to the population. While the Soviet Union may have been started on that premise, it fell apart fairly quickly once the ruling elite was created.|
Of course, I stand to be corrected.
Every revolution carries within it the seeds of its own destruction - Frank Herbert.
Posted: 2/25/2011 2:29:19 PM
I will point out a few incontroverible facts, and that is while it has never mutated to its final iteration, every time communism has been tried, it has failed miserably with very predictdable and deadly, overbearing results.
Every form of humanities self government has failings thus far.
Guess you believe in evolution or you don't.
Guess you have faith in humanities capacity of inventiveness or you don't.
Know those guesses will dictate outcomes
Posted: 2/25/2011 8:01:29 PM
Lets just gloss over the fact that there is no way that a surplus could ever be achieved during the so-called period of unbridled capitalism
That's one of the reasons Communism is considered to be a utopian theory. Don't forget, it was developed at the turn of the century, when the industrial revolution was increasing individual productivity and a mind-boggling, historically unheard of rate.
Further the problem with that particular statement is that in communism, it is the central govt. that decides what YOU actually NEED, what you want is irrelevant.
Not true. According to Marx, a communist society HAS no government - the "withering away of the state" occurs during the socialist transition period from capitalism/industrial economy to a communist one. Marx believed that with the surplus of everything, man would be freed from selfish concerns - because he would have everything he wanted - and would therefore be free for the first time in history to act according to the common good, to help his fellow man, unrestricted by selfish concerns.
So - given that there is no government, it would be difficult for it to decide anything for you, don't you think?
Yes, in order to believe that everybody will get as much "stuff" as they want when true communism is achieved, does show a profound ignorance of political theory.
Ummmm ........ I have an honors degree in Soviet & East European Studies, which is a combined major in Political Science and History. I freely admit that I am ignorant about many subjects - but I assure you, political theory isn't one of them.
Have you *read* Das Kapital, or The Communist Manifesto?
Maybe the communism you are referring to is some sort of hybrid version of what carl marx believed in.
I'm explaining to you what Marx himself wrote. There's nothing hybrid about it whatsoever.
And if it quacks like a marxist, spouts proclamtions such as declaring redistribution a good thing, then yes howdy doody is a marxist at heart.
Sorry, but there's not necessarily a causal relationship there. You can believe that redistribution of wealth is a good thing, and still not be a Marxist *or* a communist.
Even in the US, you've got more socialist government programmes than you might realise, but it doesn't mean every american that supports them is a communist or marxist.
other welfare programmes
programmes to subsidize and make affordable rural telephone service
Emergency health treatment at hospitals.
Public education systems.
Public health programmes.
*All* of those government programmes involve taking money from people who have it (taxpayers) and giving it to those that don't.
By your logic, I should be sending Ronald Regan George The Younger, and the entire RNC a Che Guevara t-shirt, since they're all just Marxists in elephant's clothing
Posted: 2/25/2011 8:24:14 PM
|*sigh* ....... this is gonna be a long one, I think - and I can already see where some of the problems are coming from.|
Carl Marx was, in fact, an economist. But his theories about communism were primarily economic. Almost *any* economic system will have political ramifications - communism is no different.
Communism is unworkable at the national level, just as pure capitalism is - both are utopian theories, and given that man isn't perfect, they won't work. Simple as that - and history backs me up.
Paul - I get the impression that your ideas are based on practical experience from having lived in communist countries (which ones, btw?)
Krebby - you seem to be coming at it from a strictly economic viewpoint.
There are problems with both approaches.
First, there has never been a national communist government in history. Period. Full Stop. Even Marx himself laughed at the idea of a communist revolution in Russia. Remember, his theories required that a nation state go through the stages of capitalism/industrialisation, socialism, and then communism. But at the time of the October revolution, Russia was still essentially a feudal society.
*NONE* of the Warsaw pact countries could be in any way, shape or form be called communist. At best, heavily socialist. In practical terms, they were little more than oligarchies, dictatorships, and police states. You didn't see communism the theory, Paul - you saw heavy-handed police states.
Krebby - by definition, a communist is somebody who believes in the political & economic theories espoused by Carl Marx, especially in Das Kapital & The Communist Manifesto. ego, Marx was a communist. The existence of a communist governnment at the time, or at *any* time, is immaterial.
Since he wrote those books, and they were writings of his beliefs, of course he was a communist.
Subsequent "ists" - Lenninist, Stalinist, Maoist, etc - are different flavours of the basic philosophy, and exist only to identify the variations on the basic theme. (Think of the differences in democracy - you have direct, representative, etc). Same thing here.
Posted: 2/25/2011 8:46:29 PM
|I thought this thread was about the theory of evolution.|
For a nice brief discussion of the fossil record, DNA analysis, and how it supports evolution rather than "creationism," see the following:
64 (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64)