A Fight To The Death!

[PoliticalChic]

Still nothing, huh.

The most pithy characterization of your commentary I've ever seen you write.

Nothing to counter or rebut what I've posted.

Just 'I don't like you' posts.

I can live with that.


For me, intellectual pursuit, for you, emotional outlet.

 

[Hollie]

Still nothing, huh.

The most pithy characterization of your commentary I've ever seen you write.

Nothing to counter or rebut what I've posted.

Just 'I don't like you' posts.

I can live with that.


For me, intellectual pursuit, for you, emotional outlet.

Cutting and pasting nonsense from fundamentalist websites that has long ago been discarded as lies and deceit you find "intellectual"?


I can believe that. It defines the entirety of the bandwidth you waste.

 

[manifold]

For me, intellectual pursuit...

Please, by all means tell us again how the study of evolution is less about science than it is about politics, because that was some seriously deep intellectual shit man.

 

[manifold]

In your own words if you can...

 

[PoliticalChic]

In your own words if you can...

Speaking of 'your own words,' how about you jump through this hoop: you made a charge...I've asked you to support it....

....and you've done nothing but change the subject.


Again:

"An admission that you have no examples of attacks on Darwin?

Or on those who choose to be atheists?"




Whenever you're ready.......

.....or able.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Who cares if this guy was a Marxist? What's your point?

Your answer, here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/326273-comrade-darwin.html

You've got to be kidding. If I believe god created this world to evolve I'm a communist?

That's got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

It says no such thing.

 

[manifold]

In your own words if you can...

Speaking of 'your own words,' how about you jump through this hoop: you made a charge...I've asked you to support it....

....and you've done nothing but change the subject.


Again:

"An admission that you have no examples of attacks on Darwin?

Or on those who choose to be atheists?"




Whenever you're ready.......

.....or able.

The entire premise of your failed argument is an attack on Darwin.

But I digress...

Please, let's keep this merely a pursuit of intellect, and explain in your own words how the study of evolution is less about science than it is about politics. That was wicked deep... and stuff.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In your own words if you can...

Speaking of 'your own words,' how about you jump through this hoop: you made a charge...I've asked you to support it....

....and you've done nothing but change the subject.


Again:

"An admission that you have no examples of attacks on Darwin?

Or on those who choose to be atheists?"




Whenever you're ready.......

.....or able.

The entire premise of your failed argument is an attack on Darwin.

But I digress...

Please, let's keep this merely a pursuit of intellect, and explain in your own words how the study of evolution is less about science than it is about politics. That was wicked deep... and stuff.

"But I digress...."
No....you retreat.



Plead though you will, I have no intention of allowing you to change the subject.


You have yet to provide any indicia that I have attacked Darwin....

...nor that I attacked any who choose to be atheists.



Those were your claims.




You may, of course, retract same.

 

[PoliticalChic]

For me to believe in your God, I want you to prove to me that your God actually exists, and is not just a theory.

Not certain to whom that is addressed....but if it is myself, you misunderstand.

I don't proselytize.




But, on that subject, this may be pertinent:

1.Arthur Koestler resigned from the German Communist Party on April 22, 1938. At that point he was a non-Communist, not an anti-Communist.



2. In “Darkness at Noon,” published in 1940, Koestler writes about the 1938 Moscow Show Trials. This, from the novel:

“There are only two conceptions of human ethics, and they are at opposite poles. One of them is Christian and humane, declares the individual to be sacrosanct, and asserts that the rules of arithmetic are not to be applied to human units.

The other starts from the basic principle that a collective aim justifies all means, and not only allows, but demands, that the individual should in every way be subordinated and sacrificed to the community which may dispose of it as an experimentation rabbit or a sacrificial lamb.

The first conception could be called anti-vivisection morality, the second, vivisection morality. Humbugs and dilettantes have always tried to mix the two conceptions; in practice, it is impossible. Whoever is burdened with power and responsibility finds out on the first occasion that he has to choose; and he is fatally driven to the second alternative.” (p. 157)



My view may tend toward the Manichean, but I see the world the way that Arthur Koestler does, described above.


One can be either for the individual or for the collective.
A belief in God tend to argue for the former.

 

[manifold]

Speaking of 'your own words,' how about you jump through this hoop: you made a charge...I've asked you to support it....

....and you've done nothing but change the subject.


Again:

"An admission that you have no examples of attacks on Darwin?

Or on those who choose to be atheists?"




Whenever you're ready.......

.....or able.

The entire premise of your failed argument is an attack on Darwin.

But I digress...

Please, let's keep this merely a pursuit of intellect, and explain in your own words how the study of evolution is less about science than it is about politics. That was wicked deep... and stuff.

"But I digress...."
No....you retreat.



Plead though you will, I have no intention of allowing you to change the subject.


You have yet to provide any indicia that I have attacked Darwin....

...nor that I attacked any who choose to be atheists.



Those were your claims.




You may, of course, retract same.

You've given me the impression that you have contempt for Darwin, Darwinism, the scientific study of evolution and yes, even atheists.

If that is not the impression you intended to give, feel free to set the record straight.

And then go start another thread demonstrating said contempt once again.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The entire premise of your failed argument is an attack on Darwin.

But I digress...

Please, let's keep this merely a pursuit of intellect, and explain in your own words how the study of evolution is less about science than it is about politics. That was wicked deep... and stuff.

"But I digress...."
No....you retreat.



Plead though you will, I have no intention of allowing you to change the subject.


You have yet to provide any indicia that I have attacked Darwin....

...nor that I attacked any who choose to be atheists.



Those were your claims.




You may, of course, retract same.

You've given me the impression that you have contempt for Darwin, Darwinism, the scientific study of evolution and yes, even atheists.

If that is not the impression you intended to give, feel free to set the record straight.

And then go start another thread demonstrating said contempt once again.

1. I don't 'give impressions'....except to those slow in comprehension.
I'm articulate enough to say what I mean.

When I construct an OP, it is complete with links and quotations....so it is difficult to see your statement about an 'impression' as being correct.


2. Is this your retraction of the charge that I have attacked Charles Darwin?
And, the same charge with reference to those who chosen atheism?

3. Had you asked a question rather than stated an untruth, we could have avoided your embarrassment.

 

[Hollie]

"But I digress...."
No....you retreat.



Plead though you will, I have no intention of allowing you to change the subject.


You have yet to provide any indicia that I have attacked Darwin....

...nor that I attacked any who choose to be atheists.



Those were your claims.




You may, of course, retract same.

You've given me the impression that you have contempt for Darwin, Darwinism, the scientific study of evolution and yes, even atheists.

If that is not the impression you intended to give, feel free to set the record straight.

And then go start another thread demonstrating said contempt once again.

1. I don't 'give impressions'....except to those slow in comprehension.
I'm articulate enough to say what I mean.

When I construct an OP, it is complete with links and quotations....so it is difficult to see your statement about an 'impression' as being correct.


2. Is this your retraction of the charge that I have attacked Charles Darwin?
And, the same charge with reference to those who chosen atheism?

3. Had you asked a question rather than stated an untruth, we could have avoided your embarrassment.

Um, dear. As with the five other threads you have dumped into this forum, they have all reeked of your anti-science, anti-knowledge agenda. Similarly, they have all been drenched with the same phony, edited and parsed "quotes" you mine from discredited fundamentalist websites.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Politicalchic said:






"Gould along with other Marxist....including the meeting on the 150th anniversary of the Communist Manifesto." ."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(U.S.)


Moron.[/QUOTE]

So after you die I could write your obituary and say "Politicalchic was a cocksucking Martian."

According to your logic, my claiming that you were a cocksucking Martian is proof that you are...a cocksucking Martian..

Anybody else notice this from our back and forth?

There are no connections whatsoever between a scientific fact and communism."
Darwin's theory is not a fact....but is the support for communism. That's what Marx and Engels said.

Here we go again. Karl Marx liked bread and butter, therefore bread and butter is Marxist. My analogy debunked this, yet Politicalchic continued to vomit forth the same cockeyed reasoning, proving he completely ignores my counterpoints.

" The Theory of Evolution is the fundamental basis of all biological science."
Nonsense.
The fundamental basis of biological science is that living things come from other living things, by reproduction.

Here's another point I countered that Politicalchick failed to acknowledge. Reproduction is just a few chapters in a biology textbook. The theory of evolution is the framework found throughout a biology textbook. A good biology textbook explains how cells evolved, how tissued evolved, how skeletel systems evolved, how respiratory systems evolved, how circulatory systems evolved, how reproductive systems evolved, and the evolutionary relationships between different branches classified in invertebrate and vertebrate zoology.

Politicalchic is avoiding the below question like the plague. Might involve actually thought.

In your own words explain how the Evolutionary Model of Punctuated Equilibrium is Marxist?[/QUOTE]

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Hey Politicalchic,

I thought you were supposedly bashing my brains in.

In boxing the boxer who fails to react to counterpunches is the one who is getting their brains bashed in.

 

[RKMBrown]

Your answer, here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/326273-comrade-darwin.html

You've got to be kidding. If I believe god created this world to evolve I'm a communist?

That's got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

It says no such thing.

Make up your mind, believing in evolution is communist or not?

 

[manifold]

3. Had you asked a question rather than stated an untruth, we could have avoided your embarrassment.

Care to point out the untruth I stated?


I'll wait.

 

[Synthaholic]

Still nothing, huh.

The most pithy characterization of your commentary I've ever seen you write.

Nothing to counter or rebut what I've posted.

Just 'I don't like you' posts.

I can live with that.


For me, intellectual pursuit, for you, emotional outlet.

I like you, PoliticalChic. Even though you're full of shit.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You've got to be kidding. If I believe god created this world to evolve I'm a communist?

That's got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

It says no such thing.

Make up your mind, believing in evolution is communist or not?

My my is made up....your reading skills, in doubt.

Marx and Engels saw, in Darwin's theory, a boost for their theory of history.

The basis of communism is control of human endeavor, and such thinkers have successfully used the schools and media to attain same.



It is very different to state that communists rely on Darwin, than Darwin's theory is communist.


Do a better job in the future.

 

[RKMBrown]

It says no such thing.

Make up your mind, believing in evolution is communist or not?

My my is made up....your reading skills, in doubt.

Marx and Engels saw, in Darwin's theory, a boost for their theory of history.

The basis of communism is control of human endeavor, and such thinkers have successfully used the schools and media to attain same.



It is very different to state that communists rely on Darwin, than Darwin's theory is communist.


Do a better job in the future.

Then why create the straw-man post about the "connections" between evolution and and communism; and also between atheists and marxists? What was your point?

as a reminder you stated:

A Fight To The Death!
The battle? Stephen J. Gould's neo-Darwinism's attack on religion.

Communism has an abiding antipathy for religion. One would be hard pressed to find an argument with that premise.
To put it another way, atheism is a tenet of Marxism.

Then you cited Gould...

Then you also stated:

Of course I will provide more indicia...but the questions that pop up are
why proponents of a flawed theory....Darwin's....take criticism so very personally....and why another's religion need be attacked.

They have the need and desire to hide the connections between Darwin's thesis and communism, atheism, nihilism.....
Why?

 

[RKMBrown]

PC, if you look hard enough you can find connections between everything.