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: 17
50
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Copernicus
 


Put a "normal" person in an isolation cell and he'll go crazy, but a meditator in an isolation cell and he'll become enlightened




posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Copernicus
 


Actually the IQ test was originally created by Alfred Binet of France to learn how to help special needs students cope with the school curriculum. This was originally created in the 19th century. It was later revised by Lewis Terman of Stanford in 1916. This is the Stanford-Binet Test which is still the gold standard IQ tests today. So, IQ has absolutely nothing to do with the Nazis, and was actually used to identify children who need extra help in school.


Very interesting. Thank you for the correction.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I think you might be surprised by what makes a person go crazy. We have to move beyond the notion of 'normality'. It doesn't exist.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by LarryLove
We have to move beyond the notion of 'normality'. It doesn't exist.


Say, if normality doesnt exist, what keeps me from going out and blowing up a few cars? And maybe some people while Im at it?



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phlynx

The height and location was a study, I just don't remember where I found it.
People with more muscle or fat tend to conserve heat, pretty obvious logic. Also height allows for faster circulation of body heat. It's common sense.

The reason dog breeds due that is because they where domesticated and bread for the traits by humans! I really hate having to use critical thinking skills for other people.



Yeah I hate when you use all your critical thinking skills for other people too, because now you haven't any left for me. EXAMPLE Check PBS television special dogs that saved the world and you'll understand what I am talking about. They didn't come from the wolf with any human help and you missed the point entirely which is dogs evolve into dogs

cats evolve into cats

gators evolve into gators

e-coli evolves into e-coli etc,.


Ever notice how African's are tall and skinny? That is so they have a longer body, so that they don't heat up as fast from body temperatures,


Now as to your claim that black people are taller because of the continent they came from, their is no proof that is true what so ever. Blacks here are short, fat, some are tall and many have traits from artificial selection.

I don't see people evolving into anything more than more people. Races can mix all they want and you can put blacks in Alaska for ten thousand years mixing with their own race you are going to have blacks.

To suggest that, "Oh my, black people sure are tall." That must mean evolution is true because they were from a hot place in Africa. The chinese have more slanted eyes more yellow skin because ? I mean one can only speculate and I am not interested in what someone thinks the reason is.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by LarryLove
We have to move beyond the notion of 'normality'. It doesn't exist.


Say, if normality doesnt exist, what keeps me from going out and blowing up a few cars? And maybe some people while Im at it?



And there in lies the conundrum. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter and their perceived injustices may result in such action. This would be normal.

I think Darwin's genius was to question what people thought was normal.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

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.


I wouldn't know, I have never been a Mod who has been the target of such ridicule by whats seems to be a swarm of anti theists. I was thinking just the opposite was true but I doubt sky floating seeks your approval much less anyone elses so giving him the "higher level" reputation to live up to is what?

your idea of a suggestion he should be demoted?



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by Phlynx
 


The astrologer evolved into the astronomer,



Which makes perfect sense. Astrology isn't based on facts, astronomy is. I'm glad modern man has chosen to focus on facts instead of myths and guesswork.


astronomy is based on facts??? Really? ha ha ha that's funny



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
So if someone develops a cure for cancer and they are bipolar you wouldn't consider that genius?


If anyone actually developed a cure for cancer, that would be genius, yes.

Tell me one proposition or discovery of Darwin you consider genius.



Hang on you are moving the goalposts. Let me requote what you said here.


Originally posted by Skyfloating
Nevermind Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Shintoism, Christianity, Islam, Native American Spirituality and countless other sources who ALL teach of an invisible life force or an intelligent and creative energy as the source of all.

Lets instead take a mentally ill persons word for it that humans came about as a matter of coincidence and that a humans Consciousness does not .


You state here that we shouldn't take a mentally ill persons word for it, well if someone developed the cure for cancer but they were mentally ill should we simply shun them and ignore what they have to say? This seems to be the driving force behind your argument, that we shouldn't take the word of a mentally ill person and yet if someone cures cancer we should take their word for it even if they are mentally ill. Sorry but once again you demonstrate doublethink.

Darwins theory has been reviewed and tested and found to be true. Darwins theory gave us a context to place other scientific theories in. The biological sciences of course benefited a great deal and evolution helped us understand genetic inheritance and genetic diseases. It ties together other sciences like paleontology and microbiology while helping us to understand the adaptations species undergo to survive. It even helps us to understand past climates depending upon which spcies we find within an area as they will show certain adaptations suited to the environment.

There is an entire field of medicine devoted to using the theory of evolution to both predict and cure disease, it's known as Evolutionary Medicine (yeah i know a rubbish name).

so basically evolution has given us quite a lot.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 



Or you can just take his rejection of happiness (described in the OP) as the obvious reason for his Depression.


Or you could say that his depression caused his to make the unusual decision to reject happiness. Either scenario fits. Irrespective of that his depression has no material relevance to his theory of evolution and does not mean that it is invalidated.

In a later post you said

To shortcut our entire Discussion, that would mean that if I send my kids (if I had any) to a mental asylym for years or to school would make little difference.

You are probably right there
but seriously however what exactly has this to do with Darwin, who was not a teacher.

In a further post you said

But what I am implying is that not being able to feel or perceive the spiritual realm is due to emotional issues.
That is rather a crass generalisation is it not? To suggest that a person has emotional issues because they do not feel spiritual is illogical and indefensible.


Originally posted by Skyfloating

The true story is this: I log on here every day and see religious and spiritual folk being labeled mentally ill, psychotic, etc. all the time.

I was in the mood for giving these people a taste of their own medicine - backed up by hard facts.


Mm, that sort of backfired then


[edit on 26/6/2010 by PuterMan]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Deuteronomy 23:13
I don't believe in evolution for the following reason. Evolution implies that a chicken can lay an egg and a duck will be born from it.


THIS is exactly why it's soooooooo tiring to argue with creationists. They are criticizing evolution but they don't even understand it


I mean, a chicken laying an egg and a duck pops out...ARE YOU FRIGGIN' SERIOUS??? If that's what you consider evolution, you obviously never made it past highschool...and even there you probably had really really horrible grades


It seems you don't understand my analogy. Making fun of me does nothing to advance your arguement or make you believable. Evolution has serious logical flaws and is by no means a done deal. I am not a creationist. I have a degree in math from an acredited university. I have all kinds of undergraduate credits in science including biology and chemistry. I have worked as a manufacturing engineer, college level math teacher, and quality control engineer for a nuclear power plant build. My grades were pretty good and I earned several scholarships.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Copernicus
 


Put a "normal" person in an isolation cell and he'll go crazy, but a meditator in an isolation cell and he'll become enlightened


Hmm how isn't this post off topic? Oh well i'll deal with it anyway.

I think you'll find that many people practicing meditation will report at some point an increased level of certain psychological symptoms, including disassociation. This is not to say meditation is not a positive thing because it really can be, i myself meditate daily. However stating categorically that someone will become enlightened if put in the above situation just because they meditate is foolish.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by LarryLove

I think Darwin's genius was to question what people thought was normal.


in 1909 Evolution theory was a political football but it sure doesn't deserve any title of genius. because cell-based experimental biology had recently discovered an explanation of inheritance inconsistent with Darwin's speculative inheritance theory. Darwins Father had a lot of clout and was able to promote this idea nevertheless.



The latent evolution idea distilled into the revolutionary idea on reading Thomas Malthus' celebrated statement affirming the natural necessity of the struggle for existence in which the weak and vulnerable perish. The great principle sprang to life, and Darwin commenced his long, secret meditation whose fruit was The Origin of Species.

A story more faithful to fact goes like this. Darwin was exposed to transmutationism at age eighteen, when he encountered the transmutationist Robert Grant at Edinburgh University. They got on well, probably in part due to Grant's delight in having the grandson of the nation's best-known transmutationist, Erasmus Darwin, under his tutelage. His exposure was increased by the library that he took aboard the Beagle. Charles Lyell's freshly-published Principles of Geology contained an extensive summary of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's theory. His library also included the seventeen-volume transmutationist Dictionnaire Classique d'Historie Naturelle, which, as it happens, used data from island biogeography to argue for adaptive radiation. Whether Darwin's attention to the biogeography of the Galapagos was informed by the Dictionnaire we don't know, but the priority attributed to Darwin is incorrect.

And natural selection? As Darwin tells the story, he didn't derive it as an induction from the Galapagos or other evidence; it came to him as an intuition, or better, a vision of living nature. He needed another two decades to assemble evidence. As he was writing his classic, he learned, to his dismay, that the young naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace had hit upon what he judged to be exactly his own prized concept. Uncertain what to do, he passed the challenge to friends, who resolved credit for priority of discovery in his favour.

But another challenge emerged only months after the Origin's publication. A Scottish arboriculturist, Patrick Matthew, wrote an article pointing out that he had himself published a statement of the "natural law of selection" in 1831, the year of the Beagle's departure. Darwin graciously acknowledged Matthew's priority and included recognition of it in the third edition of the Origin. The Exhibition makes no mention of this key historical fact. Darwin made natural selection his "child" (as he called it), not by discovering it, but by assembling the evidence for and against with a thoroughness that no one else remotely approached.

Another detail tarnishes the legend. The claim that Darwin was named the Beagle's naturalist suggests early confidence in his scientific destiny. The reality is that the Beagle's naturalist was a physician, Robert McCormick. Darwin was selected by Captain Robert Fitzroy as his gentleman companion. The Admiralty listed him as a "supernumerary"; he had no duties and he paid all his costs, including specimen collection.

The Darwin Letters





Did scientists believe that Darwin had proved his grand thesis of evolution by natural selection? Many eminent living evolutionists who should know better say so unreservedly. Actually the book's real achievement was to re-establish evolution as a serious scientific question and to stimulate a wide-ranging debate about evidence and hard questions. The debate developed into a "crisis" of Darwin's theory about 1900 when cellular biology matured to include the inheritance mechanisms, chromosomes and genes. In the intervening years, even the most ardent Darwinians made significant departures from his theory. Thomas Huxley and Francis Galton rejected natural selection. George Romanes claimed that Darwin didn't explain speciation; he devised a new mechanism, "physiological selection", to explain it. Alfred Wallace was an ardent proponent of natural selection, except as applied to ourselves. He maintained that our primate origin could not explain the human mind. He had recourse to spiritualism, then in fashion.

Gregor Mendel believed that his discovery disproved natural selection by proving the static character of inheritance. No one read Mendel, but the most widely read evolutionists, Ernst Haeckel and Herbert Spencer, agreed with him without knowing it. According to them, natural selection accounted only for the elimination of the unfit; Lamarckism, by contrast, was the engine of novelty.

What about "modern biology"? Was it launched by Darwin's discoveries? On the contrary, it flourished decades before the appearance of the Origin. Evolution didn't figure in those investigations because nerves, cells and infectious pathogens operate in the here and now and on the micro scale. Conversely, Darwin was unacquainted with this literature, whose terminology and experimental method were well ahead of the naturalist's home-grown experiments and speculation. This is abundantly clear by comparing Darwin's Pangenesis theory of reproduction with the experimental evidence for cell division that culminated in the elucidation of meiosis and mitosis. One of the principal contributors to this development, Oscar Hertwig, published a detailed analysis and refutation of Darwin's theory



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Prosecutor
 


The genius lies within the legacy Darwin has left. Yes, his theories were controversial, but political footballs of his time have no relevance today.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Hmm how isn't this post off topic? Oh well i'll deal with it anyway.


No need to deal with it, its a metaphor.



stating categorically that someone will become enlightened if put in the above situation just because they meditate is foolish.


No need to take everything literally. Its a frigging metaphor for Meditators vs. Non-Meditators because the previous poster was referring to people having difficulty to cope with silence.

Why do they have difficulty coping with silence? Because school doesnt teach its importance.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Yes, not perceciving, seeing and understanding spiritual realms is due to psycho-emo-chemical issues. Facing those issues and overcoming them leads to spiritual perception.

And no, most will not agree with this because school as taught them differently.


This is just arrant nonsense. How can 'facing' issues someone is not aware they have, and probably would not accept that they have, going to overcome and lead to 'spiritual perception'? Please explain what a psycho-emo-chemical issue is? That sounds like psycho-babble to me.

Once again you are making the assumption that someone who does not believe in your perception of spirituality has an emotional problem. On what basis can you justify that assumption?

This is as bad as your original assumption that because of Darwin's mental condition his theory was invalidated, and yet later say that you do not disagree with evolution as it is obvious.

[edit on 26/6/2010 by PuterMan]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by LarryLove
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter


...and "mental illness is just a label".

And "nothing is good or bad".

I`ll ask again: Is there any reason at all not to just go out and blow up regular folks cars or kill them? ANY reason at all?



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daniem

YOU BOJO! Most people who believe in evolution ARE RELIGIOUS.. most christians for example believe in evolution.


That's because evolution is a religion to many but what poll or study did you get this idea that most religious people believe in evolution? Which kind?


And for a moderator of ATS to make threads purely to spread a message that "those who believe in the facts and theorys presented by mentally challenged people should have their own sanity checked" is just awful.


Dude, it's his opinion, how awful could it be?




If i could vote for a removal of your mod staus id vote twice.


Because he said THAT??



... Well this nonence pluss all the ridiculing you do is enough for me to add you to the foe list.. just tasteless. I think many here would expect better manners from a moderator.


ha ha ha THE OUTRAGE! OH THE HUMANITY!

show me the comment he made where you suffered a tort whereby you have suffered some kind of injury?

Your sensationalism of skyfloating including the comments of your contemporaries, seems to have an agenda to send a message to those with the authority to strip him of his Moderator responsibilities.

I mean what you think of him as a moderator is none of our business is it?


[edit on 26-6-2010 by Prosecutor]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
This is as bad as you original assumption that because of Darwin's mental condition his theory was invalidated, and yet later say that you do not disagree with evolution as it is obvious.


Thats black/white thinking. Evolution I agree with. Its the conclusion of humans being animals and life being a pointless coincidence without a creative spiritual source I disagree with.

The process of Evolution is obvious even to the naked eye, prior to Darwin even.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Prosecutor
 


We're WAY past that dude. We're no longer discussing that as it's off topic.




top topics



 
50
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join