2 votes

Links between Darwinism and Communism

Until recently after watching a documentary about Communism posted by another forum member, I had no idea that the Darwin's theory of evolution played such a prominent role in Communist thinking. I have for a long time accepted evolution of species over time as fact while rationalizing that it could have been designed by God to work in that way. Now, I'm beginning to wonder if this theory of evolution has not been exaggerated to help favor the political ideology of collectivism. Anyone know of any good SCIENTIFIC sites disputing the theory of evolution?




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Darwinism and Communism

Darwinism and Communism

Jewish interests behind both pack of lies.

Luke 3:38
Isaiah 43:3-5

The Dangers of Evolution

Reveals the effects that evolutionary beliefs have had throughout history and exposes evolutionary propaganda in its effort toward the "New World Order": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUKqWmtc6zY
Lies in the Textbooks Shows how public school textbooks are permeated with fraudulent information in order to convince students that evolution is true: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8GgrUposII
The hovind theory: Blends scientific observations with Scripture in a fascinating explanation of what caused Noah's Flood, the Ice Age, the formation of coal, mountain ranges, and the Grand Canyon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY0rj-TEx4o

jhon

Darwin was a Fabian Socialist

Also, I think you are asking the wrong question about good scientific websites disputing evolution.

It's the other way around. There is no good science proving it.

Specie to specie evolution has, in fact, never been proven nor can it ever be. The scientific method of proof REQUIRES repeatable tests with the same result each test to prove something scientifically.

Since specie to specie evolution cannot be tested using the scientific method, it cannot be scientifically proven. Simple as that. End of story.

WARNING: That does NOT DISprove evolution. It merely points out that anyone who accepts evolution as "proven science" or as "scientific" is incorrect and engaging in a religionist belief, no different than any other non-provable religionist belief. It is NOT scientific. It is not scientifically proven. It is not "more" scientific than any other genesis story. For the very reason stated above, Darwin himself said his theory is not scientific.

This is a hard pill to swallow for many people who think they are logical, many atheists, etc. It doesn't matter. Opinion and belief does not change the scientific method nor what it requires.

Kent Hovind - Age of the Earth

The Age of the Earth Refutes evolution's proposition that the earth has evolved over billions of years, and gives scientific evidence of a literal six-day creation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szBTl3S24MY

jhon

lmao

Evidence of a literal six day creation.... before there was light we had days..... Good grief. This is why the DP needs a religion forum. Too many science denying kooks using mythological translated texts as evidence for what they were raised to believe in a faith based organization. Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine were deists for a reason. It wasn't because they didn't read the bible or listen to priests, it was precisely because they did, and they called it what it was. Fraudulent mythologies to enslave humanity. As long as the chains are comfortable though, right?

No train to Stockholm.

Garbage

People need to be educated from the pack of ignorant rubbish people such as yourself spread.

Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine were Christians and that can be attained from reading THEIR writings. To lazy to read THEIR books.

Those calling them 'deists' do so to promote their atheistic/communist/Talmudic agenda ignoring that America was founded on Christian principles.

http://www.john-friend.net/2013/04/the-20th-century-talmudic...

'Evidence of a literal six day creation'

So much for your scientists.

The Hebrew word for “day” (yowm, yom), can have different meanings just as it can have
different meanings in English. Listed below is the Hebrew lexicon for “day”:
day: Hebrew: yowm {yom}, yamin, pl.; Strong‟s # 03117 (Blue Letter Bible)
1) day, time, year
1a) day (as opposed to night)
1b) day (24 hour period)
1b1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
1b2) as a division of time
1b2a) a working day, a day's journey
1c) days, lifetime (pl.)
1d) time, period (general)
1e) year
1f) temporal reference
1f1) today
1f2) yesterday
The number of times “day” is used as: an ordinary day, 2008; time, 64; chronicles, 37; daily, 44;
ever, 18; year, 14; continually, 10; when, 10; as, 10; while, 8; full, 8; always, 4; whole, 4; misc. 44.
As shown in the Hebrew lexicon above, “day” can be used to convey many different
meanings and references to periods of time. The question is which meaning and
interpretation of “day” is correct for the creation “days” of Genesis chapter 1?

Luke 3:38
Isaiah 43:3-5

Do you know any science?

The speed of light changed over time, and therefore the measure of time itself did as well, particularly relatively quickly around the time of the big bang. The first "day" by that standard may have been a billion or more years as we know them today.

It's ironic how hard science gets voted down...

...by those claiming to represent reason. LOL

The Theory of Evolution by Mrs Garrison


http://youtu.be/1LzSX37C5J4

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

Shouldn't this topic be in

the new religious forum section of the DP with the rest of the religion based subject matter?

Oh wait, I'm sorry but they haven't added it yet.

Communists hate religion, they are Godless

The Bloody History of Communism


http://youtu.be/3pzMHD0F4yQ

This is not a religious film. The narrator gives a few religious quotes - but the scenery and information in the film is not associated with any particular religion. It's quite straightforward, and brutal.

I have green eyes...should I be allowed to post in the green eyes section only?

Come on, man!

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

I'm a libertarian who hates religion

For the same reason I hate government. People in funny suits pretending to know what is best for me by holding up a book they barely ever read, but claim to represent.

No train to Stockholm.

I'm a libertarian who hates religion

For the same reason I hate government. People in funny suits pretending to know what is best for me by holding up a book they barely ever read, but claim to represent it.

No train to Stockholm.

This video is over 2 hours

This video is over 2 hours long and I got down voted in less than 2 minutes.

You should work in Congress!

Might want to read/watch the "bill," first.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

D.C. Stove Darwinian Fairy

D.C. Stove
Darwinian Fairy Tales
http://www.amazon.com/Darwinian-Fairytales-Selfish-Heredity-...

Southern Agrarian

You hit the nail...

It absolutely was used to further the Communist cause. It separates people from their faith and that is Job #1 to demoralize a society. Everything that is happening now happened before. "Women's rights," "gay rights," etc. Anything to divide a society.

Search Yuri Bezmenov on You tube. He breaks down the whole thing. At the end of his lecture, where he is standing in front of the blackboard, he offers two solutions: begin teaching the children about liberty which will take about 20 years to bear fruit and renew your faith.

Thanks

Of course there is.

Chinese view people as nothing more than sophisticated animals to be herded in their understanding of communism.

I have a quote but will have to find it. It is a hard copy.

donvino

Actually, Darwinism did not

Actually, Darwinism did not play a large role in the creation of Communism. Marx was impressed by The Origin of the Species, as any thinking person should have been, regardless of his political philosophy. So what? There's no advocacy of state control of people's lives in that book, nor is there any racism (contrary to another inaccurate post on this site). I'm sure Marx was also impressed by Newton's theory of gravity, which explained the motions of the planets and moons without any need for guiding angels. Likewise scientists like Faraday were discovering the mathematical laws behind electricity and magnetism. So those physicists were also promoting materialism. Blame them for Communism too.

If your faith requires that some aspect of our everyday reality be declared magic and off limits to scientific inquiry then your faith rests upon a very slender reed.

Darwinism rests

on an infinitely smaller reed than creationism.

The list proven facts that dispute Darwin's ridiculous theory is ever expanding and has long since reached the point that on the most fervent "believers" who have actually made an effort of look into it in depth to defend.

Real Science is not on the side of Darwinism.

The Odds
During the last several decades a number of prestigious scientists have attempted to calculate the mathematical probability of the random-chance origin of life. The results of their calculations reveal the enormity of the dilemma faced by evolutionists.

Dr. Blum estimated the probability of just a single protein arising spontaneously from a primordial soup. Equilibrium and the reversibility of biochemical reactions eventually led Blum to state: "The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability. This calculation alone presents serious objection to the idea that all living matter and systems are descended from a single protein molecule which was formed as a ‘chance’ act."

In the 1970’s British astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle set out to calculate the mathematical probability of the spontaneous origin of life from a primordial soup environment. Applying the laws of chemistry, mathematical probability and thermodynamics, he calculated the odds of the spontaneous generation of the simplest known free-living life form on earth – a bacterium.

Hoyle and his associates knew that the smallest conceivable free-living life form needed at least 2,000 independent functional proteins in order to accomplish cellular metabolism and reproduction. Starting with the hypothetical primordial soup he calculated the probability of the spontaneous generation of just the proteins of a single amoebae. He determined that the probability of such an event is one chance in ten to the 40 thousandth power, i.e., 1 in 1040,000. Prior to this project, Hoyle was a believer in the spontaneous generation of life. This project, however, changed his opinion 180 degrees. Hoyle stated: "The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40 thousand naughts [zeros] after it. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." Hoyle also concluded that the probability of the spontaneous generation of a single bacteria, "is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein."

Hoyle’s calculations may seem impressive, but they don’t even begin to approximate the difficulty of the task. He only calculated the probability of the spontaneous generation of the proteins in the cell. He did not calculate the chance formation of the DNA, RNA, nor the cell wall that holds the contents of the cell together.

Example 1
Consider this. The odds of winning a state lottery are about 1 chance in ten million. The odds of someone winning the state lottery every single week from age 18 to age 99 is 1 chance in 4.6 x 1029,120. Therefore, the odds of winning the state lottery every week consecutively for eighty years is more likely than the spontaneous generation of just the proteins of an amoebae!

A more detailed estimate for spontaneous generation has been made by Harold Morowitz, a Yale University physicist. Morowitz imagined a broth of living bacteria that was super-heated so that all the complex chemicals were broken down into their basic building blocks. After cooling the mixture, he concluded that the odds of a single bacterium re-assembling by chance is one in 10100,000,000,000. This number is so large that it would require several thousand books just to write it out. To put this number into perspective, it is more likely that an entire extended family would win the state lottery every week for a million years than for a bacterium to form by chance!

Example 2
In his book, Origins–A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, Robert Shapiro gives a very realistic illustration of how one might estimate the odds of the spontaneous generation of life. Shapiro begins by allowing one billion years (5 x 1014 minutes) for spontaneous bio-genesis. Next he notes that a simple bacterium can make a copy of itself in twenty minutes, but he assumes that the first life was much simpler. So he allows each trial assembly to last one minute, thus providing 5 x 1014 trial assemblies in 1 billion years to make a living bacterium. Next he allows the entire ocean to be used as the reaction chamber. If the entire ocean volume on planet earth were divided into reaction flasks the size of a bacterium we would have 1036 separate reaction flasks. He allows each reaction flask to be filled with all the necessary building blocks of life. Finally, each reaction chamber is allowed to proceed through one-minute trial assemblies for one billion years. The result is that there would be 1051 tries available in 1 billion years. According to Morowitz we need 10100,000,000,000 trial assemblies!

Example 3
Here's another great example of how chance disproves evolution theory. Suppose we have 10 small blank discs. We number them from 1 – 10 and as we do we throw each into a bucket. So in this example, the question is: How many attempts would it take to randomly draw out the discs in order from 1 to 10? Only one disc is randomly selected from the bucket at a time, noted, and tossed back in the bucket. What is the probability of selecting all ten discs in order?

Since each disc has only one number on it, there is one chance in ten (1/10) of selecting it. The probability of selecting the first one followed by the second one is 1/10 x 1/10 or 1 in 100. To select all 10 in the right order the probability is 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 or 1x1010. This means that the discs would be selected in the right order only once in 10 billion attempts. Put another way, ‘chance’ requires 10 billion attempts, on the average, to count from 1 to 10.

Let's take that example one step further and say there is a bucket with 27 wooden squares inside. Each square has one letter of the alphabet on it and one square is blank. How many attempts would it take to randomly pull letters out one at a time in order to spell the phrase ‘the theory of evolution?’

Each letter of the alphabet plus one space has 1 chance in 27 of being selected. There are 20 letters plus 3 spaces in the phrase ‘the theory of evolution’. Therefore chance will, on the average, spell the given phrase correctly only once in 2723 outcomes.

This computes to only one success in a mind-boggling 8.3 hundred quadrillion, quadrillion attempts (8.3 x 1032). Suppose ‘chance’ uses a machine which removes, records and replaces all the letters randomly at the fantastic speed of one billion per microsecond (one quadrillion per second)! On average the phrase would happen once in 25 billion years. If, as evolutionists would have us believe, the earth has been in existence for approximately 5 billion years, then nature could not even have created even this simple sentence, much less any protein, even at this phenomenal rate of experimentation.

The information on the discs and squares in the examples above represent the genetic information in DNA. DNA is the storehouse of genetics that establishes each organism's physical characteristics. It wasn't until 2001 that the Human Genome Project and Celera Genomics jointly presented the true nature and complexity of the digital code inherent in DNA. We now know that the DNA molecule is comprised of chemical bases arranged in approximately 3 billion precise sequences. Even the DNA molecule for the single-celled bacterium, E. coli, contains enough information to fill an entire set of Encyclopedia Britannica.

It would take nature 25 billion years to create the correct sequence of 27 letters. Clearly, it could not have correctly sequenced 3 billion chemicals to make even the simplest life form. So if nature couldn't create life, Who did?

Regarding the probabilities calculated by Morowitz, Robert Shapiro wrote: "The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle."

Regarding the origin of life, Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize in biology, stated: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."

Regarding the probability of spontaneous generation, Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate, George Wald stated: "One has to only contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet we are here–as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." In this incredibly twisted statement, we see that Wald’s dogmatic adherence to the evolutionist’s paradigm is independent of the evidence. Wald’s belief in the "impossible" can only be explained by faith: "…the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Despite these incredible odds and insurmountable problems, spontaneous generation is taught as a fact from grammar school to the university level. In fact, NASA reported to the press in 1991 their opinion that life arose spontaneously not once, but multiple times, because previous attempts were wiped out by cosmic catastrophes!

Conclusion
The overwhelming evidence is clear…spontaneous generation is an impossibility. It is a scientifically corrupt theory that, among other things, violates the Law of Bio-genesis, which says that that life never arises except from life. Life simply cannot come from non-life. Since spontaneous generation is impossible, so then the foundation that evolution rests on has been shattered. Without spontaneous generation there can be no evolution.

Despite scientific evidence to the contrary, however, there are those who continue to believe in evolution, and are therefore forced to accept and defend some form of spontaneous generation. The reason for this dogmatic adherence to spontaneous generation is eloquently pointed out by George Wald: "When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: Creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: That life arose spontaneously by chance!" According to Wald, it’s not about discovering the truth through the finding of fact, it’s not a matter of evidence, not a matter of science…it’s a matter of philosophy! Like George Wald, many people do not like the alternative: that all life on earth was created by God. So, as Wald said, they are willing to "believe the impossible."

Since the impossibility of spontaneous generation is a conclusion that leads to a supernatural creative act by God, it is a conclusion that many choose not to accept. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present politically correct climate, undesirable philosophic and religious implications. It is for that unfortunate and illogical reason most scientists continue to cling to the unscientific, disproved theory that life arose from non-life through spontaneous generation.

The Abuse of Greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power. - Shakespeare

Not exactly..

who buys nonsense

like that?

"It is not random it is random!" That is the defense you just tried to use to dispute factual mathematics.

The Abuse of Greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power. - Shakespeare

Ok, I'll simplify it for you.

Ok, I'll simplify it for you. The theory of abiogenesis works with molecules MUCH smaller than the one for which your calculation is done.

Absolutely no biologist or scientifically literate person will tell you a bacterium jumped out fully formed from the seas.

Your inability to understand the role of randomness and non-randomness in the evolutionary process suggests you don't have a good grasp of it.

Are you really

as dense as you seem to be?

Your making the claim that an even smaller component of which there would be more, yes MORE, which means even more possible combinations which MUST be in the proper sequence somehow becomes more likely because there are more rather than less?

You are the one who does not have a grasp.

See if you can answer this correctly.

"my scenario"
you have 30 marbles in a jar 5 of them have the numbers between 1-5 on them. You need to pull those 5 marbles in order 1-5 one right after the other.

"your scenario"
Same jar 300 marbles 50 labeled 1-50. You need to pull those 50 marbles in order 1-50 one right after the other.

and you claim that your scenario is MORE likely... lol

The Abuse of Greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power. - Shakespeare

Sigh, ok. I'm saying instead

Sigh, ok.

I'm saying instead on 15 balls in the same sequence, you need to pull 3, following your analogy.

Smaller building blocks means smaller chains of organic molecules which are more statistically likely to form.

I'll just request that you read the section on 'Abiogenesis' in some biology textbook, or even Wikipedia. That should explain a lot of your doubts regarding statistical probability of abiogenesis. It will also address the experiments you mention and why they are not good approximations.