Posted on 05/11/2013 12:12:17 PM PDT by JerseyanExile
As John Lennox of Oxford University points out: the theory of evolution presumes the existence of a mutating replicator, but it tells us nothing about how the mutating replicator got there in the first place.
The specific problem involves this: a certain number of highly complex genes must have been present in the very first theoretical living cell in order for it to produce more organisms.
The odd thing is, she actually did seem to have noticed it, or at least to have had some intuition about it, but didn't know what to do about it. It's been years since I've read her work, but I remember in Atlas Shrugged, she had two characters who supported her philosophy but weren't "great men": Dagny's childhood friend and her sister-in-law. Rand killed off both characters; I believe they both despaired. It was like Rand couldn't imagine what such characters would do in the world she dreamed of creating.
Isolating this specific sentence from your post for a reason: What do the "takers" contribute to our society that makes wealth possible?
When the takers get their "free" Obamaphones, how does that benefit you and I? Fact is, it does NOT. I'll be very specific in my response in saying that Non-American nationals like Carlos Slim of Mexico, a billionaire benefits because he's plugged into the Obama White House. The same Obama White House that's paying 3x, 5x the cost of the phone, the service, and cannot control the program and the corruption within it.
How does that benefit you and I? It doesn't. The "takers" DO NOT PROVIDE ANY BENEFIT to a Capitalistic society whatsoever, thus their name, "takers."
You and I have become tax slaves to "feed the takers." They eat by using the force of the Federal Government via their votes to redistribute our hard earned wealth to them. They drive cars, because our wealth is taken from us by force of Government, and re-distributed to them. They watch cable tv and have all the benefits of our society without contributing one iota of effort to it. The problem: They outnumber us at this point and they vote. They vote each and ever election for bigger, more government to steal my/our wealth, and redistribute it to their no good lazy government cheese eating fat lazy asses. That to me means NOTHING this government does at any level is via my "consent."
My voice is not heard, my voice does not matter to this Government. The only thing that DOES matter to this government is that I keep working so they can keep stealing the results of my labors, and re-distribute it to the TAKERS.
Are those the takes you mean, or did you have a different definition of the word?
She pegged the left in her novels, but her idea of good guys was awful.
Dear Ms. Rand (wherever you are): If the shoe fits, wear it.
Thanks so much for writing, grey_whiskers!
These kinds of logical problems present a very serious challenge to Rand’s ideology, given that her atheism seems to be fundamental to her ideology and these problems describe reality in terms which refute atheistic naturalism.
According to the Bible, Genesis in fact, our days are not God’s days. Ours are but the blink of an eye.
You're suffering from a Prometheus complex. I'll send liver.
The answer is that you seem to be neglecting the concept of legitimate authority and deserved loyalty.
Cheers!
I’m not talking about the real takers/parasites who don’t do a lick of work and expect everybody else to house and feed them...I’m talking about the millions who work hard for not-rich wages. Rand seems to think little of those people. But they contribute as well. That’s all. It’s not just a tiny groups of technical and financial geniuses who make the country work (many of whom vote for Obama). It’s everybody who works hard and loves their country.
>> “I’m not talking about the real takers/parasites who don’t do a lick of work and expect everybody else to house and feed them...I’m talking about the millions who work hard for not-rich wages. Rand seems to think little of those people” <<
.
Little? - She detested them; she was an admirer of the ultra-wealthy. (especially those that did absolutely nothing to deserve their wealth.
You sound like them “occupy wall street” idiots I have to push my way past every day to get to work ... sure you’re on the right forum?
“she was an admirer of the ultra-wealthy. (especially those that did absolutely nothing to deserve their wealth.”
You obviously haven’t read Atlas Shrugged, or if you did you did not comprehend it.
You nailed it.
I comprehended it quite well.
I’m on the right forum, but apparently you are not?
You apparently support the unproductive marxist socialist idle class?
For the naturalist (such as Ayn Rand), joy is peripheral while sorrow is central. This is because the superficial questions of life are answered but the fundamental questions are unanswered.
For the Christian (C.S. Lewis), sorrow is peripheral and joy is central. Superficial questions are unanswered, but the fundamental questions of life are answered.
(from G.K. Chesterton)
You have created the false god you worship under the name Ayn Rand. I commented on the real one.
That is the essence.
Atlas Shrugged is has really nothing to do with religion and god, but with of a free market as opposed to crony capitalism.
As far as her religion, she was an atheist and I do not agree with her on that. Most likely the real god you speak of is not the one I believe in, but that has nothing to do with what is being discussed here. There is really no point in discussing our religious differences, because I fully understand your commitment to what you believe and that makes it impossible for you to understand mine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.