A Fight To The Death!

[PoliticalChic]

Nothing you wrote even addresses my points that you quoted.

you don't actually engage in debate. You simply regurgitate illogical claims. All you are doing is repeating guilt by association reasoning that is probably even unfounded.

"Nothing you wrote even addresses my points that you quoted."

Yeah, it does.


I love when you losers post 'is not, is not....."





"It is uninteresting to debate you because...."


I was gonna say because I beat your brains out....

But that would suppose you have same.



I can provide more.....just let me know if you require another spanking.

I'm going to make one more honest attempt to get through to you and maybe the lightbulb will go off in your brain. I will again use a simple analogy that even you should be able to understand.

According to your logic, Karl Marx likes bread and butter, therefore bread and butter is Marxist.

So I when I ask you to explain why Karl Marx liking bread and butter makes bread and butter Marxist, you completely fail to explain.

Instead you call me a befuddled stupid bird brain because I don't agree with your absurd assertions.

Do you get it? Just stating your assertion without explanation will never convince anyone. You need to support your dubious connections with some kind of explanation.

" I will again use a simple analogy...."


Pleeeeezzzzzee.....we've established over and over that you are SIMPLE....so...what else could you use but something that represents your ability?


Since I've shown numerous sources which identify Gould as a Marxist....well....why the heck would you refuse to admit it?

Oh....because you're a dunce.



Another?
Sure.


"Gould along with other Marxist and socialist critics of sociobiology understood it for what it was: an attempt to justify the stratification of capitalist society along class, gender and racial lines as an inescapable consequence of biology.... It is interesting to recapitulate some aspects of his argument since they show his political commitments not only in the side he took in the debate, but also in the method he employed which is very clearly compatible with, if not derived from, Marxist methodology....

Let me emphasize that while Gould's was a lonely voice, his was not the only one. Gould was on the fringes of a movement of leftwing scientists which in the 1970s called itself "Science for Vietnam," later becoming "Science for the People." He was also part of the "Sociobiology Study Group."

Like the earlier movement of radical British scientists in the 1930s, Gould was associated with a movement which included many eminent scientists including such figures as Richard Levins, Richard Lewontin, Ruth Hubbard, Steven and Hilary Rose, and Jonathan Beckwith among others.


Gould's thought owed much to the fortuitous coming together of these socialist thinkers and scientists. Throughout his life Gould continued to participate in socialist forums, such as the annual Socialist Scholars Conference and events at the Brecht Forum (on whose board he served) including the meeting on the 150th anniversary of the Communist Manifesto." An Appreciation of Stephen Jay Gould | Solidarity



BTW....do you know anything about 'Solidarity-US'?
"In left-wing politics in the United States, Solidarity is a revolutionary socialist organization associated with the journal Against the Current. Solidarity is an organizational descendant of International Socialists, a Trotskyist organization..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(U.S.)





Let's review your argument:

" 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.


" You have failed to prove that there has been a single evolutionary biologist who was a marxist."
Wrong. It was proven.


" 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.

And when it was revealed that Stephen J. Gould was both brought up by Marxists, and based his support of evolutionary theory on Marx....

" How does Gould admit to his Marxism by lauding the way in which his science is informed by his beliefs?
Gould was not a Marxist."
You took quite the beating on this one, huh?

"I used to subscribe to Natural History Magazine when Gould wrote monthly columns. He never once espoused any kind of political philosophy in any of his monthly science columns."
Kind of retreating here, weren't you. Good move.




I used to think that you were a gibbering idiot. Now I have a much lower opinion of you.

 

[RKMBrown]

PC keeps associating Marxism with Darwin's works, not having the education to realize that one of the primary influences on Darwin was Adam Smith and Lyle. Marxist's supported Lysenko, not Darwin.

So very sorry that you can't read well, Rocks.

The whole thread is very clear and very specific: it is proof that the most famous of Darwin's modern supporters, Stephen J. Gould, is an inveterate, congenital Marxist.



Now that I've explained the issue to which you.....inadvertently.....subscribed, you'd agree, wouldn't you?

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

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC keeps associating Marxism with Darwin's works, not having the education to realize that one of the primary influences on Darwin was Adam Smith and Lyle. Marxist's supported Lysenko, not Darwin.

So very sorry that you can't read well, Rocks.

The whole thread is very clear and very specific: it is proof that the most famous of Darwin's modern supporters, Stephen J. Gould, is an inveterate, congenital Marxist.



Now that I've explained the issue to which you.....inadvertently.....subscribed, you'd agree, wouldn't you?

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

 

[Hollie]

So very sorry that you can't read well, Rocks.

The whole thread is very clear and very specific: it is proof that the most famous of Darwin's modern supporters, Stephen J. Gould, is an inveterate, congenital Marxist.



Now that I've explained the issue to which you.....inadvertently.....subscribed, you'd agree, wouldn't you?

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

If you review the source of the phony, edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" that PC steals from fundamentalist websites, "genesispark" is among the silliest of the silly.

They in turn, have stolen their silliness from among the most notorious of the Christian charlatan websites.


About Genesis Park | Genesis Park


Site

This site was first produced in 1999 through the effort of multiple individuals. Special thanks to the following people for their contributions to the material in this site:

Some of the exhibit pictures are from Dr. Duane Gish’s delightful book Dinosaurs by Design.

Special thanks to the Institute for Creation Research for making them available, especially the drawings by Earl & Bonnie Snellenberger.

Creation Evidences Museum gave permission to use several of their exhibits.

Answers in Genesis permitted us to utilize original art by Dan Lietha.

The Hovinds of Creation Today granted the unlimited use of their material, including multiple drawings by Bill Rebsamen.

Rick Lalonde provided the pictures of his beautiful iguana Kyle.

The fishing Tanystropheus picture on the Ancient Plesiosaurs page was created by Ciavatti Gerard.

Joe Tucciarone permitted the use of his exceptional Quetzalcoatlus drawing.

Credit for the Tuatara picture goes to Michael Schneider.

The Archaeopteryx picture is the work of Steve Cardno.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

If you review the source of the phony, edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" that PC steals from fundamentalist websites, "genesispark" is among the silliest of the silly.

They in turn, have stolen their silliness from among the most notorious of the Christian charlatan websites.


About Genesis Park | Genesis Park


Site

This site was first produced in 1999 through the effort of multiple individuals. Special thanks to the following people for their contributions to the material in this site:

Some of the exhibit pictures are from Dr. Duane Gish’s delightful book Dinosaurs by Design.

Special thanks to the Institute for Creation Research for making them available, especially the drawings by Earl & Bonnie Snellenberger.

Creation Evidences Museum gave permission to use several of their exhibits.

Answers in Genesis permitted us to utilize original art by Dan Lietha.

The Hovinds of Creation Today granted the unlimited use of their material, including multiple drawings by Bill Rebsamen.

Rick Lalonde provided the pictures of his beautiful iguana Kyle.

The fishing Tanystropheus picture on the Ancient Plesiosaurs page was created by Ciavatti Gerard.

Joe Tucciarone permitted the use of his exceptional Quetzalcoatlus drawing.

Credit for the Tuatara picture goes to Michael Schneider.

The Archaeopteryx picture is the work of Steve Cardno.

So you're saving the site was created and didn't evolve from a more primitive website

 

[Moonglow]

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.

 

[RKMBrown]

So very sorry that you can't read well, Rocks.

The whole thread is very clear and very specific: it is proof that the most famous of Darwin's modern supporters, Stephen J. Gould, is an inveterate, congenital Marxist.



Now that I've explained the issue to which you.....inadvertently.....subscribed, you'd agree, wouldn't you?

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.

 

[Hollie]

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's the princess. She promotes dumb.

The princess would also have you believe that Robert J. Sawyer, a Canadian science fiction writer, is a believable authority on biology and that humans frolicked with dinossurs on a 6,000 year old earth.

Science is the work of the devil. Didn't you know?

 

[manifold]

I have seen the occasional atheist who is anti-religion. But most are simply apathetic about it.

I notice you have a serious thing about attacking Darwin, the theory of evolution, and atheists.

Funny that you want to point fingers at people for doing what you have been doing.

And yet she still manages to fool almost 30% of the membership here.

But whatcha gonna do?

 

[manifold]

Genetic engineering has taught us that cells have an as of yet identified mechanism for correcting MAN-MADE mutations. iPSC labs have discovered that genetically altered cells have a tendency to revert to their original formation. There is no explanation for how or why it happens all they know is that there is some built in fail safe that corrects MAN-MADE mutations

Fixed it for you.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Won't happen. Creationist arguments have been reduced to nothing more than attacks on science. The entirety of the cut and pasting by the princess amounts to attacking science. The affirmative position always carries the burden of proof. This is why creationist arguments fail. The arguments are configured only to undermine science and cast doubt upon the established biological and historical record.

The arguments for magic and supernaturalism are not valid ones. What creationists expect and what they demand in connection with appeals to supernatural agents means little, if anything, in science. If people refuse to accept scientific consensus because it conflicts with their fundamentalist religious beliefs, that is not the fault of science. I find nothing about the natural processes of evolution which offends my common sense or expectations. It doesn’t fall to the scientific community to explain why intelligent design is not the most reasonable explanation for existence. ID’iots must supply some evidence, some testable examples, as to why their Christian gods must have been the “designers” of nature. To date, they have not done so. They have merely offered bad analogies and metaphors that appeal only to fear and ignorance. And princess is the worst example of ignorance.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

"Nothing you wrote even addresses my points that you quoted."

Yeah, it does.


I love when you losers post 'is not, is not....."





"It is uninteresting to debate you because...."


I was gonna say because I beat your brains out....

But that would suppose you have same.



I can provide more.....just let me know if you require another spanking.

I'm going to make one more honest attempt to get through to you and maybe the lightbulb will go off in your brain. I will again use a simple analogy that even you should be able to understand.

According to your logic, Karl Marx likes bread and butter, therefore bread and butter is Marxist.

So I when I ask you to explain why Karl Marx liking bread and butter makes bread and butter Marxist, you completely fail to explain.

Instead you call me a befuddled stupid bird brain because I don't agree with your absurd assertions.

Do you get it? Just stating your assertion without explanation will never convince anyone. You need to support your dubious connections with some kind of explanation.

" I will again use a simple analogy...."


Pleeeeezzzzzee.....we've established over and over that you are SIMPLE....so...what else could you use but something that represents your ability?


Since I've shown numerous sources which identify Gould as a Marxist....well....why the heck would you refuse to admit it?

Oh....because you're a dunce.



Another?
Sure.


"Gould along with other Marxist and socialist critics of sociobiology understood it for what it was: an attempt to justify the stratification of capitalist society along class, gender and racial lines as an inescapable consequence of biology.... It is interesting to recapitulate some aspects of his argument since they show his political commitments not only in the side he took in the debate, but also in the method he employed which is very clearly compatible with, if not derived from, Marxist methodology....

Let me emphasize that while Gould's was a lonely voice, his was not the only one. Gould was on the fringes of a movement of leftwing scientists which in the 1970s called itself "Science for Vietnam," later becoming "Science for the People." He was also part of the "Sociobiology Study Group."

Like the earlier movement of radical British scientists in the 1930s, Gould was associated with a movement which included many eminent scientists including such figures as Richard Levins, Richard Lewontin, Ruth Hubbard, Steven and Hilary Rose, and Jonathan Beckwith among others.


Gould's thought owed much to the fortuitous coming together of these socialist thinkers and scientists. Throughout his life Gould continued to participate in socialist forums, such as the annual Socialist Scholars Conference and events at the Brecht Forum (on whose board he served) including the meeting on the 150th anniversary of the Communist Manifesto." An Appreciation of Stephen Jay Gould | Solidarity



BTW....do you know anything about 'Solidarity-US'?
"In left-wing politics in the United States, Solidarity is a revolutionary socialist organization associated with the journal Against the Current. Solidarity is an organizational descendant of International Socialists, a Trotskyist organization..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(U.S.)





Let's review your argument:

" 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.


" You have failed to prove that there has been a single evolutionary biologist who was a marxist."
Wrong. It was proven.


" 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.

And when it was revealed that Stephen J. Gould was both brought up by Marxists, and based his support of evolutionary theory on Marx....

" How does Gould admit to his Marxism by lauding the way in which his science is informed by his beliefs?
Gould was not a Marxist."
You took quite the beating on this one, huh?

"I used to subscribe to Natural History Magazine when Gould wrote monthly columns. He never once espoused any kind of political philosophy in any of his monthly science columns."
Kind of retreating here, weren't you. Good move.




I used to think that you were a gibbering idiot. Now I have a much lower opinion of you.

You have not proven that Gould was a Marxist. As I wrote yesterday (a point you totally ignored), some evangelical and 3rd party sources either accuse him or claim that he was a Marxist. That's not proof. Below I will rebut your bullshit.

Let's review your argument:

" 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.

Anything Marx ever said has no bearing on scientific fact. The earth revolves around the sun. That is a scientific fact. A scientific fact can not be socialist, Marxist, republican, or democrat. A fact is a fact. I've explained this over and over, but you seem to be too dumb to understand.

" You have failed to prove that there has been a single evolutionary biologist who was a marxist."
Wrong. It was proven.

You have not provided a single convincing example of an evolutionary biologist who was a Marxist. However, I will concede that there likely are some. So what?

" 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.

The process of reproduction is one small part of evolution. Try reading a biology textbook. Reproduction occupies just a few chapters, but the framework of Evolutionary Theory is found throughout the entire book.

" How does Gould admit to his Marxism by lauding the way in which his science is informed by his beliefs?
Gould was not a Marxist."
You took quite the beating on this one, huh?

Certainly not. You have completely failed to show where Gould ever admitted to being a Marxist.

"I used to subscribe to Natural History Magazine when Gould wrote monthly columns. He never once espoused any kind of political philosophy in any of his monthly science columns."
Kind of retreating here, weren't you. Good move.

What? How is this retreating?

Ok. I took the time to respond to every one of your points. Will you ever respond to this one point of mine?

In your own words explain how the Evolutionary Model of Punctuated Equilibrium is Marxist?

 

[manifold]

Where have I attacked Darwin, or atheists?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Where have I attacked Darwin, or atheists?

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

Or on those who choose to be atheists?


Accepted.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm going to make one more honest attempt to get through to you and maybe the lightbulb will go off in your brain. I will again use a simple analogy that even you should be able to understand.

According to your logic, Karl Marx likes bread and butter, therefore bread and butter is Marxist.

So I when I ask you to explain why Karl Marx liking bread and butter makes bread and butter Marxist, you completely fail to explain.

Instead you call me a befuddled stupid bird brain because I don't agree with your absurd assertions.

Do you get it? Just stating your assertion without explanation will never convince anyone. You need to support your dubious connections with some kind of explanation.

" I will again use a simple analogy...."


Pleeeeezzzzzee.....we've established over and over that you are SIMPLE....so...what else could you use but something that represents your ability?


Since I've shown numerous sources which identify Gould as a Marxist....well....why the heck would you refuse to admit it?

Oh....because you're a dunce.



Another?
Sure.


"Gould along with other Marxist and socialist critics of sociobiology understood it for what it was: an attempt to justify the stratification of capitalist society along class, gender and racial lines as an inescapable consequence of biology.... It is interesting to recapitulate some aspects of his argument since they show his political commitments not only in the side he took in the debate, but also in the method he employed which is very clearly compatible with, if not derived from, Marxist methodology....

Let me emphasize that while Gould's was a lonely voice, his was not the only one. Gould was on the fringes of a movement of leftwing scientists which in the 1970s called itself "Science for Vietnam," later becoming "Science for the People." He was also part of the "Sociobiology Study Group."

Like the earlier movement of radical British scientists in the 1930s, Gould was associated with a movement which included many eminent scientists including such figures as Richard Levins, Richard Lewontin, Ruth Hubbard, Steven and Hilary Rose, and Jonathan Beckwith among others.


Gould's thought owed much to the fortuitous coming together of these socialist thinkers and scientists. Throughout his life Gould continued to participate in socialist forums, such as the annual Socialist Scholars Conference and events at the Brecht Forum (on whose board he served) including the meeting on the 150th anniversary of the Communist Manifesto." An Appreciation of Stephen Jay Gould | Solidarity



BTW....do you know anything about 'Solidarity-US'?
"In left-wing politics in the United States, Solidarity is a revolutionary socialist organization associated with the journal Against the Current. Solidarity is an organizational descendant of International Socialists, a Trotskyist organization..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(U.S.)





Let's review your argument:

" 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.


" You have failed to prove that there has been a single evolutionary biologist who was a marxist."
Wrong. It was proven.


" 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.

And when it was revealed that Stephen J. Gould was both brought up by Marxists, and based his support of evolutionary theory on Marx....

" How does Gould admit to his Marxism by lauding the way in which his science is informed by his beliefs?
Gould was not a Marxist."
You took quite the beating on this one, huh?

"I used to subscribe to Natural History Magazine when Gould wrote monthly columns. He never once espoused any kind of political philosophy in any of his monthly science columns."
Kind of retreating here, weren't you. Good move.




I used to think that you were a gibbering idiot. Now I have a much lower opinion of you.

You have not proven that Gould was a Marxist. As I wrote yesterday (a point you totally ignored), some evangelical and 3rd party sources either accuse him or claim that he was a Marxist. That's not proof. Below I will rebut your bullshit.

Let's review your argument:

" 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.

Anything Marx ever said has no bearing on scientific fact. The earth revolves around the sun. That is a scientific fact. A scientific fact can not be socialist, Marxist, republican, or democrat. A fact is a fact. I've explained this over and over, but you seem to be too dumb to understand.

" You have failed to prove that there has been a single evolutionary biologist who was a marxist."
Wrong. It was proven.

You have not provided a single convincing example of an evolutionary biologist who was a Marxist. However, I will concede that there likely are some. So what?

" 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.

The process of reproduction is one small part of evolution. Try reading a biology textbook. Reproduction occupies just a few chapters, but the framework of Evolutionary Theory is found throughout the entire book.

" How does Gould admit to his Marxism by lauding the way in which his science is informed by his beliefs?
Gould was not a Marxist."
You took quite the beating on this one, huh?

Certainly not. You have completely failed to show where Gould ever admitted to being a Marxist.

"I used to subscribe to Natural History Magazine when Gould wrote monthly columns. He never once espoused any kind of political philosophy in any of his monthly science columns."
Kind of retreating here, weren't you. Good move.

What? How is this retreating?

Ok. I took the time to respond to every one of your points. Will you ever respond to this one point of mine?

In your own words explain how the Evolutionary Model of Punctuated Equilibrium is Marxist?

"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.

 

[Hollie]

" I will again use a simple analogy...."


Pleeeeezzzzzee.....we've established over and over that you are SIMPLE....so...what else could you use but something that represents your ability?


Since I've shown numerous sources which identify Gould as a Marxist....well....why the heck would you refuse to admit it?

Oh....because you're a dunce.



Another?
Sure.


"Gould along with other Marxist and socialist critics of sociobiology understood it for what it was: an attempt to justify the stratification of capitalist society along class, gender and racial lines as an inescapable consequence of biology.... It is interesting to recapitulate some aspects of his argument since they show his political commitments not only in the side he took in the debate, but also in the method he employed which is very clearly compatible with, if not derived from, Marxist methodology....

Let me emphasize that while Gould's was a lonely voice, his was not the only one. Gould was on the fringes of a movement of leftwing scientists which in the 1970s called itself "Science for Vietnam," later becoming "Science for the People." He was also part of the "Sociobiology Study Group."

Like the earlier movement of radical British scientists in the 1930s, Gould was associated with a movement which included many eminent scientists including such figures as Richard Levins, Richard Lewontin, Ruth Hubbard, Steven and Hilary Rose, and Jonathan Beckwith among others.


Gould's thought owed much to the fortuitous coming together of these socialist thinkers and scientists. Throughout his life Gould continued to participate in socialist forums, such as the annual Socialist Scholars Conference and events at the Brecht Forum (on whose board he served) including the meeting on the 150th anniversary of the Communist Manifesto." An Appreciation of Stephen Jay Gould | Solidarity



BTW....do you know anything about 'Solidarity-US'?
"In left-wing politics in the United States, Solidarity is a revolutionary socialist organization associated with the journal Against the Current. Solidarity is an organizational descendant of International Socialists, a Trotskyist organization..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(U.S.)





Let's review your argument:

" 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.


" You have failed to prove that there has been a single evolutionary biologist who was a marxist."
Wrong. It was proven.


" 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.

And when it was revealed that Stephen J. Gould was both brought up by Marxists, and based his support of evolutionary theory on Marx....

" How does Gould admit to his Marxism by lauding the way in which his science is informed by his beliefs?
Gould was not a Marxist."
You took quite the beating on this one, huh?

"I used to subscribe to Natural History Magazine when Gould wrote monthly columns. He never once espoused any kind of political philosophy in any of his monthly science columns."
Kind of retreating here, weren't you. Good move.




I used to think that you were a gibbering idiot. Now I have a much lower opinion of you.

You have not proven that Gould was a Marxist. As I wrote yesterday (a point you totally ignored), some evangelical and 3rd party sources either accuse him or claim that he was a Marxist. That's not proof. Below I will rebut your bullshit.

Let's review your argument:

" 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.

Anything Marx ever said has no bearing on scientific fact. The earth revolves around the sun. That is a scientific fact. A scientific fact can not be socialist, Marxist, republican, or democrat. A fact is a fact. I've explained this over and over, but you seem to be too dumb to understand.

" You have failed to prove that there has been a single evolutionary biologist who was a marxist."
Wrong. It was proven.

You have not provided a single convincing example of an evolutionary biologist who was a Marxist. However, I will concede that there likely are some. So what?

" 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.

The process of reproduction is one small part of evolution. Try reading a biology textbook. Reproduction occupies just a few chapters, but the framework of Evolutionary Theory is found throughout the entire book.

" How does Gould admit to his Marxism by lauding the way in which his science is informed by his beliefs?
Gould was not a Marxist."
You took quite the beating on this one, huh?

Certainly not. You have completely failed to show where Gould ever admitted to being a Marxist.

"I used to subscribe to Natural History Magazine when Gould wrote monthly columns. He never once espoused any kind of political philosophy in any of his monthly science columns."
Kind of retreating here, weren't you. Good move.

What? How is this retreating?

Ok. I took the time to respond to every one of your points. Will you ever respond to this one point of mine?

In your own words explain how the Evolutionary Model of Punctuated Equilibrium is Marxist?

"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.

Sorry, princess. Wherever you cut and pasted the link from needs to update their url.

"Linky no work" It's a bust and a fraud. Typical.


Moron.

 

[Synthaholic]

The whole thread is very clear and very specific: it is proof that the most famous of Darwin's modern supporters, Stephen J. Gould, is an inveterate, congenital Marxist.

I could point to proof that the most famous of Ayn Rand's/Libertarianism's modern supporters have promoted unchecked racism for years.

What's your point?

Answered earlier, in post #31...

...but don't bother to look: it is meant for more astute individuals.

How does Gould admit to his Marxism by lauding the way in which his science is informed by his beliefs?

Where are you getting that his science is informed by his beliefs?

 

[manifold]

Where have I attacked Darwin, or atheists?

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

Or on those who choose to be atheists?


Accepted.

You accept a lot of shit that is demonstrably false. Why should this be any different?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Or on those who choose to be atheists?


Accepted.

You accept a lot of shit that is demonstrably false. Why should this be any different?

Still nothing, huh.

 

[manifold]

Still nothing, huh.

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