It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Charles Darwin was mentally ill

page: 14
50
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by zzombie
 


Perhaps you should go look up the paradox then.


The "paradox" is that most small proteins fold spontaneously on a millisecond or even microsecond time scale
Wikipedia

Aside from that DNA mutations can take place inside generations.

This does not mean I support evolution, but in the absence of another theory I really cannot believe that some bad ass God did it all in 7 days!




posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Pondering this it suddenly struck me how spiritually inept someone has to be to think he can electrocute himself out of depression! What the hell must have he been thinking?


Im surprised you did not know that its a method that has been well used over the decades for treating mental illness.

From Wikipedia:



Electroconvulsive therapy or ECT is a psychiatric therapy for mental illness.

It was first introduced in the 1930s[2] and gained widespread use as a form of treatment in the 1940s and 1950s; today, an estimated 1 million people worldwide receive ECT every year,[3] usually in a course of 6–12 treatments administered 2 or 3 times a week.


Darwin apparently knew this at least 50 years before it became mainstream.

But I do agree with you that without some sort of meaning in life, it becomes pointless. Some people find meaning in spirituality, others find meaning in everyday things like their wife, friends or family.



[edit on 26-6-2010 by Copernicus]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper
I like how my post in this thread was completely ignored.

Charles Darwin having mental illness does not discredit his work. Why? Because Alfred Russel Wallace developed the exact same ideas, during the exact same time period. The reason Alfred Russel Wallace didn't gain the recognition that Darwin did is because his boat caught on fire and sank, killing and destroying all of the specimens he had collected. He also didn't have an entire book to publish, only a comparatively short paper. And on top of that, he didn't have the connections or the financial funding that Darwin had to publish his work.

Don't forget that Science is peer reviewed. If Darwin's ideas didn't hold water, no one would have cared to support them.


I did not miss your post. Its a good post - but basically a statement. I agree - but didn't feel the need to comment.

In history its been discovered (or known) several people were working on the same invention/idea/concept/theory simultaneously.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Reality is a bit different: I dont think Creation and Evolution are exclusive of each other. I think the people fighting over which one of the sides is "right" are wasting their time because both are. Evolution is a vehicle of Creation.


Hang on, if this is your position then this thread should be wrapped up because it means that you believe evolution is the correct theory and was just instigated by a creator. Of course you state that without any evidence at all whatsoever but it's still agreeing that evolution is correct. You are only disagreeing with abiogenesis which, as often as people try and point it out to creationists (and fail to suceed) has nothing to do with evolution.

If you want to believe evolution is a vehicle for creation, or more appropriately a creator (lets not get the terms confused) then fine, you go ahead but remember in schools it is evolution that will be taught because there is no evidence for a creator and even if said creator exists we would still study the theory that allows the creation to unfold rather than simply pray to the creator.

Whether Darwin was insane or not is neither here nor there. I will agree to him being mentall ill (probably bipolar) but this doesn't discount his theory ro add weight to it. This fact is outside all areas and aprts of the theory as the theory has been tested by other "normal" individuals and found to be correct.

I would say i'm utterly bewilered that an ATS mod can post a thread and even admit it was designed to provoke and in your own words "give them a taste of their own medicine" and be allowed to keep their mod status. This is disgusting that someone can post such a deliberately provocative thread that was designed more to get back at a group of people rather than actually raise a point or invoke a decent discussion.

Mods should be above this.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
A brilliant poem by Robet Frost...
The Road Not Taken

In a time of religious value, Darwin looked elsewhere.

I am sure the same could be said now about his own theory, but more to the extent of specifics and not generalizations.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   
As far as I know from my reading of Darwin - - - he expected his theory to be picked apart and discredited - - - because it was incomplete.

Although - - there is proof of natural selection and adapting to habitat - - - there are too many missing pieces/links to his theory of man's evolution.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by LarryLove
 


I tend to agree.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I don't view mental "illness" as a disability at all. As a matter of fact, I tend to think that the mentally "ill" are more in-tune with the way things actually are than so-called "normal" people are.

Mental "illness" tends to be a product of KNOWING things that the AVERAGE person does not. People want to lump mental "illness" into the "stupid" group. Insanity and stupidity are two all together different things. Entirely different.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


True. Darwin had doubts about his own theory. To me, it doesn't matter if it's true or not. It has absolutely no impact on my beliefs whatsoever. I believe we were made in God's spiritual image, not his physical image. I think only a fool thinks we look anything like the actual image of GOD.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Whilst I generally respect and enjoy your postings, your OP the Atheist/Theist debate should not be about point scoring and you've just hammered it again.

I'll give you a star though, enjoy the points it gives your side of the debate.

I'd actually like to think at some stage we could get past this at some stage and just agree to get along, but the tone of your post was one of gleeful condecension, I think as a Moderator, you should actually be a little ashamed of yourself for such a tone.

I know we all have our moments of spite and pettiness, I know I have mine on here.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
reply to post by Annee
 


I don't view mental "illness" as a disability at all. As a matter of fact, I tend to think that the mentally "ill" are more in-tune with the way things actually are than so-called "normal" people are.

Mental "illness" tends to be a product of KNOWING things that the AVERAGE person does not. People want to lump mental "illness" into the "stupid" group. Insanity and stupidity are two all together different things. Entirely different.


And mental illness is still a taboo subject used by many people to discredit the thoughts and actions of others. It is a little disconcerting to see a moderator of ATS post this thread with perhaps a hidden agenda.

I will say one thing. Until you succumb to a said mental illness, then you don't have a right to judge.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by LarryLove
And mental illness is still a taboo subject used by many people to discredit the thoughts and actions of others. It is a little disconcerting to see a moderator of ATS post this thread with perhaps a hidden agenda.


Mods are people too and they have opinions.

Now if you want to discuss this further, take it to u2u.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by LarryLove
 


Right!! That is why I can speak on this. I have Bi-polar "disorder." I can tell you, it's not fun, but it's not what some think it is.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by LarryLove

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
reply to post by Annee
 


I don't view mental "illness" as a disability at all. As a matter of fact, I tend to think that the mentally "ill" are more in-tune with the way things actually are than so-called "normal" people are.

Mental "illness" tends to be a product of KNOWING things that the AVERAGE person does not. People want to lump mental "illness" into the "stupid" group. Insanity and stupidity are two all together different things. Entirely different.


And mental illness is still a taboo subject used by many people to discredit the thoughts and actions of others. It is a little disconcerting to see a moderator of ATS post this thread with perhaps a hidden agenda.

I will say one thing. Until you succumb to a said mental illness, then you don't have a right to judge.


True.

Mary Lincoln comes to mind. She may have been mentally ill. But I've often read - - - she did not follow social decorum.

At one time - behaving different then the established social norm - classified you as mentally ill.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


It still does. Think about the way that the mentally "ill" typically act. They tend to be either an extreme loner or they tend to be overly social and animated. Either way, it is contrary to the social norms.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Really no mystery why he was depressed; it sucks to have a 165 IQ in a 80 IQ world.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
reply to post by LarryLove
 


Right!! That is why I can speak on this. I have Bi-polar "disorder." I can tell you, it's not fun, but it's not what some think it is.


I have Bi-Polar episodes - caused from a sugar imbalance. You sure learn quick - - to make your Good Days count.

That's why I say it actually gives Darwin more credibility. Because it would have been that much more valuable to him.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by sadwolf
 


Very true. He probably couldn't talk to most people. Hell, my IQ is only about 120-125 and I have a very hard time talking to most people.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
reply to post by LarryLove
 


Right!! That is why I can speak on this. I have Bi-polar "disorder." I can tell you, it's not fun, but it's not what some think it is.


And I loved someone with the same and my dad's ex-partner was considered bi-polar too. I have suffered serious depression and know first-hand how conditions of the mind can effect peoples' lives.




top topics



 
50
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join