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: 22
50
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Yeah ok, firstly it's Stephen Hawking, not Hawkins.


A mere typo my friend but if you want to be anal about so be it.


Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984Secondly the idea he abuses his condition is ridiculous, how exactly does he do that, he's unable to move and just spends his time doing talks.

Not to mention how utterly heartless this comment was.


You've just proved my point. He (or his agent) likes the idea of exploring his condition to spread his words and touch peoples soft spots while doing so. He makes money out it and uses that to market himself and his ideas.

There is a whole bunch of healthy scientists, physicists, etc just like him that publish books without their pictures in the cover and refrain from showing up at every chance they have.

Sorry but if he was just a normal physicist most of what he says wouldn't be taken so seriously or be so "media friendly".

I still think he is a pretentious version of Michio Kaku on wheels, sorry but that is what it is for me.

And please don't twist things around to say that mocking his condition because I'm not by any means. I just can't say that I feel sorry for him while there are far way more people in this world that share his exact same condition or worst and yet don't manage to live like him nor can afford and enjoy his gizmos and health care.




posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander


Moreover, the ancient religions are often an attempt to describe evolution, (man being made from dust sparked to life by god, primordial soup being sparked to life by lightning) and people on both sides of the fence are too dogmatic to realize there is no conflict here, people.

Most religious traditions are chock full of "how to play the game of natural selection as an individual or group" style rules. Its unfortunate the unthinking on both sides cannot see that.


You hit the nail on the head there is plenty to go around for everyone.

many works suggest an understanding of the ordered evolution of the species originated thousands of years before Darwin set sail.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
You obviously haven't read Darwins book because modern science has discounted numerous parts of it. Darwins basic premise was correct, that species accumulate small changes and eventually become so different from their ancestors they can be considered a seperate species.

Modern science has found other parts of Darwins book to be incorrect, they didn't simply build on his theory, they tested it thoroughly. The fact we share very similar genetic material with our closest relatives is further proof of Darwins theory, proof he coudln't even conceive of at the time.


Please... current science over the human evolution still is largely based on Darwin's work and still share the very same mindset.

Besides I was under the impression that this thread was about Darwin and not about modern science.

With that said I must reinforce that I don't agree with Darwin's human evolution and I don't agree with a good share of the current theories regarding human evolution because for me there are still far to many holes in them for me to blindly accept them just because scientists or some scientist said so.

And please I don't need to present proofs to disprove a THEORY, theories are no facts. Theories are constructions made over a pre-existent knowledge base that might be correct or not. If you want to know what I consider holes in the human evolution theory a quick google search should be sufficient and it's not up to me to do that for you.

You're free to question and accept whatever you want, and I don't want to change the way you think.

But am I entitle to disagree with what science says or not?

Or I'm simply obligated to accept theories as facts just because someone said so and replace my own judgement, knowledge, logic and way of thinking for theirs?

It certainly would make things easier but I don't like to be economical when it comes to thinking.

I know that if was up to you most people would leave the thinking part to others and simply live by other's ideas and ideals. I'm sorry but that doesn't and never worked for me.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by thomas_

And please don't twist things around to say that mocking his condition because I'm not by any means. I just can't say that I feel sorry for him while there are far way more people in this world that share his exact same condition or worst and yet don't manage to live like him nor can afford and enjoy his gizmos and health care.



My father suffers from the same condition as Stephen Hawking so i am more than aware that others have it.

The idea he is using his condition to garner publicity is simply insulting and stupid. He has gained attention because of his theories and of course the book "A Brief History of Time". It was one of the few books in modern times that captured the publics imagination and so he continues to receive praise because of it.

Back to the thread, you say you are of the opinion Darwin was wrong, please provide evidence to prove your opinion otherwise it can simply be cast aside and discounted.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by EYEofSAURON
Wow, that is pretty hateful thing to say about someone! A moron? Gee you must be a christian!


Why?

Being a Christian should be a problem?


But FYI I'm not, and hateful is targeting all the members of a religion while you're trying to target a single person.

I at least was direct enough and put a name on my moron instead of saying that everyone in a condition like his is a moron. Something that you just kinda did.

I really don't get people. So he can't be called or even be a moron just because he is in a wheel chair?

And just because he is in a wheel chair I should feel pity for him and accept the things he says?

Laughable...



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by thomas_
And please I don't need to present proofs to disprove a THEORY, theories are no facts. Theories are constructions made over a pre-existent knowledge base that might be correct or not. If you want to know what I consider holes in the human evolution theory a quick google search should be sufficient and it's not up to me to do that for you.


Err yes actually it is up to you, if you make a claim that something is wrong then it is up to you, making the positive claim to provide evidence for that opinion if you wish others to accept it. To me this seems like you are trying to squirm your way out of it.

Furthermore theories are collections of facts, a framework in which facts fit and support one another. The fact you don't even understand that suggests you have no knowledge of what theory means within a scientific context and therefore your opinion means very little.


Originally posted by thomas_
You're free to question and accept whatever you want, and I don't want to change the way you think.

But am I entitle to disagree with what science says or not?


Entitled? Absolutely you are. I am also entitled to say that you are absolutely wrong and nearly every scientist out there also says you're wrong. Basically you are bashing your head off of a wall of reality and refusing to admit the wall is there. If you want to live like that then fine but it's people like you who thought the Earth was the centre of the universe and refused to accept the evidence to the contrary and this will hold civilization back.


Originally posted by thomas_
Or I'm simply obligated to accept theories as facts just because someone said so and replace my own judgement, knowledge, logic and way of thinking for theirs?


Again you are not obliged but the logical thing when presented with evidence is to accept it, going against this is not logical.


Originally posted by thomas_
It certainly would make things easier but I don't like to be economical when it comes to thinking.


Actually it is far more difficult to accept new evidence than it is to carry on believing what you do in the face of evidence to the contrary.


Originally posted by thomas_
I know that if was up to you most people would leave the thinking part to others and simply live by other's ideas and ideals. I'm sorry but that doesn't and never worked for me.


Nope that's not what i believe. Everyone should consider the facts and they are entitled to carry on believing whatever they wish. However when it comes to scientific advance and what kids are taught in schools then i say leave it to the people who have spent a long time studying the evidence and formulating theories to explain it.

Still the point of this thread, as you yourself made clear was to discuss Darwin so lets get back to it shall we.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Yes, ALS is a terrible thing to have. I'm sorry.

Additionally, anyone who thinks they can pass judgment on Hawking's intellect, by calling him a moron, or whatever it was, really has an elevated ego, huh?

Anyone who is more intelligent than Hawking who could make such a judgment/assessment, would be writing their own books, and doing their own research, seated in a good positive at a University or research team, and not reduced to passing little cheap shots about the man on a board forum, where they can't be seen, and can easily log off if the laughter should become too loud.

Inflated false egos.

Stephen Hawking is brilliant, and kind. He's also very funny. He has a great sense of humor. I admire him so very much.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prosecutor

Originally posted by lifecitizen
Mentally ill or not, I will still believe in Darwins theory of evolution as opposed to a invisible magic sky fairy that is coming back to save us.

Intelligent people can't suffer from neurosis? is it limited to dumb people?


I never heard of a religion with an invisible sky fairyCan you elaborate on that more, or would that press the issue getting you to be more specific about what your real intention to insult a group of people for their beliefs?

Don't sugar coat it, take a real stand, have some guts man. Don't hide behind cutsey sarcasm and terminology you had to borrow from so called "free thinkers" and just call everyone who isn't an atheist "stupid". does that about sum YOU up. Soon atheists will kill free speech and that "free thought" they can't seem to find unless they read it from another religion hating website, will evolve into the belief police ignoring their own imbecilic beliefs evolution being one of them


Besides stuff that happened thousands of years ago, I dont recall the last time god showed himself.
Therefore he is invisible to me.
I use the word magic as it was demonstrated in the myth.
Sky because he is not of this world and lives up in the sky somewhere apparently but maybe I've got that wrong.
God may or may not be a fairy, I don't know- he seems to have some characteristics in common with them.

I wouldn't use the word stupid as much as I would use 'need to be comforted' and even 'delusional'
There is no evidence of a god, different realms and of spiritual beings that lives forever.
Our brains are nowhere near understood.

If we have to look around and blame like you have- ie Atheists will kill free speech- my observations have been the opposite to yours- religious extremism is accountable for a lot of the planets problems.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Moreover, the ancient religions are often an attempt to describe evolution, (man being made from dust sparked to life by god, primordial soup being sparked to life by lightning) and people on both sides of the fence are too dogmatic to realize there is no conflict here, people.


In a remarkable 'coincidence', I was talking to a friend this morning about how the Greater Mysteries, particularly the Eleusian, demonstrate just how much the ancients understood about biology, chemistry and physics, or 'nature' as Cicero succinctly put it. Unfortunately Christianity chose to borrow from the later Roman augmented Mysteries, most particularly the Mithriac. A different kettle of fish altogether
and we have been suffering the resulting ignorance ever since. The rediscovery of texts referring to those Mysteries in the 1700s, and the Age of Enlightenment that they ignited, meant that by the time of Darwin (amongst many other great and pioneering minds) we could start again where the ancients had left off and bring scientific exploration out into the open for all to explore, instead of locking it away in the basement laboratories of the aristocracy. I for one am deeply thankful of that. And without Darwin, there would have been no David Attenborough, and who could ever wish for a world without David Attenborough. It boggles the mind.

However, on a cautionary note, I do fear that in this age of specialism, we are in danger of losing touch with the connectivity of all things. The dissension between the 'spiritual' and the 'scientific' is just one example of this, I believe. As Robert Osserman pointed out in his book The Poetry of the Universe, physicists such as Hawking are the high priests of our current society, it is they that seek to communicate to us what 'god' is and translate to us the messages of creation, but they can only do so if we are first tuned to understand the priest. Which I feel we are not.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 


Always the brilliant historian, Kilgore. Its good to see you again, its been awhile.

The pendulum that swings too far one way often has to swing equally far in the opposite direction before settling down towards the balance point again. Science goes far too far in its dismissal of things it cannot yet describe, and it also far to dismissive of the "mystic" means by which ancients without our material culture were able to discern these truths. But then spirituality went too far to divorce itself from intellect as well.

Hopefully if an argument begins for ending the war between the spiritual and secular in earnest, perhaps we can return to that accelerated path for knowing truths, this time with the technology to make it useful to us in material ways.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 




However, on a cautionary note, I do fear that in this age of specialism, we are in danger of losing touch with the connectivity of all things. The dissension between the 'spiritual' and the 'scientific' is just one example of this, I believe.


This was the message I perceived (or imagined) from the movie Avatar. One species completely focused on the spiritual, and the other on technology and "science".
We absolutely CAN have it both ways, but our overall interests wax and wane in this regard. You don't have to pick and choose, when in fact you can be a student of both.

Perhaps it takes more focus to direct attention to the full scope of our humanity/spirituality, and we just aren't cut out for it. Yet.

Anyway, that was a fantastic post.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Hopefully if an argument begins for ending the war between the spiritual and secular in earnest, perhaps we can return to that accelerated path for knowing truths, this time with the technology to make it useful to us in material ways.


I do very much hope so, and before it is too late. And it is getting very close to bedtime for us as a species. I was listening to an interview with the director of a production of the Morte d'Arthur, who stated that the basic premise of Mallory's work was that right cannot conquer might and that when Arthur and his knights set out on the quest for the Holy Grail, they do so in the belief that they should forget about this life and concentrate on the next. It is that belief, in my opinion, that has tainted our progress for centuries and allowed for the rape of our planet. Yes, I believe that we should approach death with equanimity, but not at the cost of those yet to live, which is how it seems to be translated.

Good to see you too, and it should be noted that had it not been for you, I would not have seen all the dimensions of this very argument. Thank you for allowing me to see you up there on the Dark Mountain.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Err yes actually it is up to you, if you make a claim that something is wrong then it is up to you, making the positive claim to provide evidence for that opinion if you wish others to accept it. To me this seems like you are trying to squirm your way out of it.


I'm not claiming anything, I'm expressing my own personal opinion. This topic has been discussed ad nauseum in here.


Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984Furthermore theories are collections of facts, a framework in which facts fit and support one another. The fact you don't even understand that suggests you have no knowledge of what theory means within a scientific context and therefore your opinion means very little.


Sorry my friend but theories are theories no matter their context. Otherwise they would be facts and explain things fully. Even if composed by collection of facts they don't have enough of those facts to become a FACT otherwise they wouldn't be THEORIES period.


Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984Entitled? Absolutely you are. I am also entitled to say that you are absolutely wrong and nearly every scientist out there also says you're wrong. Basically you are bashing your head off of a wall of reality and refusing to admit the wall is there. If you want to live like that then fine but it's people like you who thought the Earth was the centre of the universe and refused to accept the evidence to the contrary and this will hold civilization back.


Kinda harsh!!


So now I'm automatically a religious freak that believes that Adam and Eve were created from mud and hips of one another or some crap like that and used to live here in flat earth which is the center of the universe just because I said I don't entirely agree with what science current says regarding evolution?

Nice! Please point where I said one thing where you had enough data to get to that conclusion and classify me like that.

Honestly I'm being forced to see you just like someone that loves to point fingers and assume things based on nothing.


Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984Again you are not obliged but the logical thing when presented with evidence is to accept it, going against this is not logical.


No my friend. The logical thing to do when presented with evidence is to question it and only accept it if you judge it to be valid. Blindly accepting things just because someone has presented them as evidence, said so or said they fit and make sense in my opinion is not only illogical but plain ignorance.


Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984Actually it is far more difficult to accept new evidence than it is to carry on believing what you do in the face of evidence to the contrary.


First of where in the hell did I said in what I believe other than saying that I don't agree with some or most of the current theories regarding human evolution?

You're once again assuming things and creating what you think I believe in your fertile brain. All I said is that I don't agree with all of the current theories on human evolution. But if you are thick enough to refuse to accept that fact and wants to keep fabricating what you think I believe without hearing from me, be my guest.

But according to you I don't understand why it should be so difficult for to accept new evidences once you said the only logical thing to do when faced with evidence is to accept it.

If there is no room for questioning it should be pretty damn easy to accept things. No?


Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984Nope that's not what i believe. Everyone should consider the facts and they are entitled to carry on believing whatever they wish. However when it comes to scientific advance and what kids are taught in schools then i say leave it to the people who have spent a long time studying the evidence and formulating theories to explain it.

Still the point of this thread, as you yourself made clear was to discuss Darwin so lets get back to it shall we.


Partially agree. And this is probably where we think so differently. The teaching currently in place in most schools is a process that resembles more of a indoctrination. And that in my opinion is as bad as teaching kids that Adam was made of mud and Eve was created from his hip.

Schools should teach kids to question, to develop critical thinking and to question everything before accepting things even if the said source is a largely accepted and prestigious one. But most don't do that because in order to achieve that they need to disrupt their own "chain of command" and put their authorities in check.

Anyway to go further on this this would drift way too much from the intent of this thread so let's leave it for another time, thread or simply to your imagination.


cheers!



[edit on 27-6-2010 by thomas_]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by thomas_
Sorry my friend but theories are theories no matter their context, otherwise they would be facts and explain things fully. Even if composed by collection of facts they don't have enough of those facts to become a FACT otherwise they wouldn't be THEORIES period.


I just won't bother with you further as you are unable to understand the difference between theory in the usage of the common individual and the use of the word in a scientific context. In science a theory is given a higher level of respect than a simple fact because a theory takes a load of facts and puts them together into a cohesive framework. The theory is then a fact as it is made of facts. You do understand that the idea of critical mass is a theory yes? Yet we have used that theory to set off nuclear bombs, but it's still a theory.

If you can't comprehend this simple fact then it can be accepted you are simply ignorant of science and therefore your opinion can be ignored.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 


Fantastic post Kilgore,

it was only really in the mid 1800's that the Rig Veda was translated by Max Muller from sanskrit, he then went on the translate the sacred books of the East approx 50 volumes. Darwins rival Wallace also took part in experiments in spiritualism with a view to measure and verify as in other sciences. It is important to note that religion was the control of the day.

What the OP tends to ignore is that Darwin may have suffered illness, however if he was in physical pain for approx 40 years and was treated with the medicine of the day, arsenic included, geez anyone would want to pull the plug... he didn;t though did he!

There is a very very large ego floating about and the cheek to suggest meditation to others is odd at best.

Should that ego have a diagnosis all to itself cause it sure is a biggie.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by thomas_
Sorry my friend but theories are theories no matter their context, otherwise they would be facts and explain things fully. Even if composed by collection of facts they don't have enough of those facts to become a FACT otherwise they wouldn't be THEORIES period.


I just won't bother with you further as you are unable to understand the difference between theory in the usage of the common individual and the use of the word in a scientific context. In science a theory is given a higher level of respect than a simple fact because a theory takes a load of facts and puts them together into a cohesive framework. The theory is then a fact as it is made of facts. You do understand that the idea of critical mass is a theory yes? Yet we have used that theory to set off nuclear bombs, but it's still a theory.

If you can't comprehend this simple fact then it can be accepted you are simply ignorant of science and therefore your opinion can be ignored.


Oh boy from biology and human evolution to physics... sweet!

And yes I do get that. The theory concept in fact varies a lot from science to science. In some you can test things for A+B and use them even if partially in others not so much and you have to use a bit of imagination and inference to make things fit but they are theories nonetheless. And even if useful or partially true they remain theories.

You can't try as much and as hard as you can, but there are enough inconsistencies in the human evolution theory for any intelligent person to question. In the very same way that there is enough holes and inconsistencies in any religious books for one to question it or not accept it.

Stop being a extremist single minded chap. I'm not closed to one like of thinking and I'm not posting in here in defense of any religion if that is what bothers you so much.

But perhaps you're right. Science is too smart to be wrong as they never been before. They know everything and have a answer to explain everything.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by thomas_
You can't try as much and as hard as you can, but there are enough inconsistencies in the human evolution theory for any intelligent person to question. In the very same way that there is enough holes and inconsistencies in any religious books for one to question it or not accept it.


If this is so then please provide those inconsistences and if correct i will happily change my mind about evolution. That's the thing i change my mind with evidence, i have no static positions which will never change, unlike your self. If you can't provide the evidence then you are simply speaking from a position of ignorance.

If you once again fail to take up that challenge it will show you up as either someone trolling the thread or someone who creates their opinion from what they wish is true rather than what is true.

Last reply unless you can provide evidence.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Of course, real spiritual things are not comprehended by the mind at all as the mind is far too small and man far too limited.
So all real spiritual events, healings, supernatural occurances would be regarded as not normal becuase people would rather believe in drugs healing than simple faith.
In that case, my mate Kevin is insane. But he's still alive while those in his ward are now dead.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


You want evidence? So do I. I haven't had anyone show me anything that proves evolution. I'm shown a monkey skull and told it's an early human. I'm sorry, but everything coming from a single celled microbe than appeared in a puddle of hot slime (where did the slime come from) on a planet that appeared after a big bang (where did the material come from) that occurred from the existance of nothing is really insane.

However, a big bang is close to what the Bible describes anyway. An instantaneous event, so maybe it's all linked and we know time is slowing down which makes sense to that theory.

But for Atheists I ask them to go back before the 'bang'. Where did all the material come from? If God doesn't exist, how come my mates cancer disappeared after speaking to it? Some things can't be explained by our feeble minds and faith in God requires less faith than faith in evolution.

[edit on 27-6-2010 by daggyz]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by daggyz
 


Evolution is the change in the gene frequency of a population.

Sorry, but that actually happens all the time, and requires no faith. You simply accept the fact or deny it.



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join