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: 7
50
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   
I'd still much rather believe a sick man of science than a delusional man of religion.

Science has never started wars in the name of theories.

You don't hear about physics students being molested by their professors in the news.

You don't hear about biology majors blowing themselves up in a crowded city center in the name of evolution.

Stupid science- why would anyone want to believe in substantiated facts.




posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by Skyfloating
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 .

Trying to discredit a scientist by calling him mentally ill? Not only does that show disrepect to the scientists.. but it also disrepects people with mental illnesses.

Just because someone is depressed or suicidal does not mean they are deluded or wrong.. and it certainly does not invalidate their previous scientific accomplishments.

Bad form.


[edit on 26-6-2010 by riley]


Actually it sheds light on a man who was NOT a scientist and how it disrespects the mentally ill is anyone's guess. What should he have done? Used a more sugar coated and politically correct term for the word?



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


'Materialism' as in the pursuit of all things material rather than the belief in only material things.

I now understand the point you were making, still disagree but I fully understand your reasoning.

People believe in 'materailism' as you put it as it is the only thing there is undeniable proof of.
All other theories are simply that, theories with no proof whatsover, and so leaps of faith are required if anyone is to place any belief in them.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisBenoit
I'd still much rather believe a sick man of science than a delusional man of religion.

Science has never started wars in the name of theories.

No but it sure has contributed to the weapons of mass destruction for wars



You don't hear about physics students being molested by their professors in the news.


Oh I think if you check around with all the teachers getting caught molesting students, I'm sure you'll find some from the science dept




You don't hear about biology majors blowing themselves up in a crowded city center in the name of evolution.


No but you will find that derek klebold and his buddy went around killing classmates and teachers in their beliefs name and several more for they killed in the name of Natural Selection.

Serial Killer Jeffery Dahmer said it was his belief that we are all just cosmic accidents that made it much easier to take the lives of those he killed. That was his testimony. Now I know you won't accept that but it is predicated on the same illogical argument you are alluding to with religion I presume.



Stupid science- why would anyone want to believe in substantiated facts.

well because substantiated means they have evidence to support them. What evolution has done is written many peer reviewed papers that invariably are bereft of any scientific method protocols they have used and the peer reviewed papers become the evidence for the evidence.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The Universe is pure perfection, beautiful and wonderful to those who understand it and its rules and also the karmic purpose of incarnating onto these training-grounds of choice called Earth.


Very well said.
I agree completely.
And starred and flagged the thread.

Darwin?? seriously people still belive in that?.....pfff.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   

the primate family of mammals (eg chimpanzees, gorillas etc) all have 48 chromosomes, with the only exception being humans who have 46. However, human beings share 98% of the 20,000 + genes with the rest of the primate family.

However, this is not to say that 98% of the total 3 Billion bases of DNA of human beings is the same as the total 3 Billion bases of other primates. The “junk DNA” of human beings, which constitutes the vast majority of DNA is substantially different in many parts to primates.

What is without question is that human beings are different to other primates in many respects, the most striking being the statistically unique number of extinction level anomalies found in humans and no other species to have ever existed on planet Earth!

These include:
+ The oversize head of new born babies relative to the birth canal of female humans- a genetic anomaly that has been present since the origin of the species;

+ The ability to choke on food- given the human mouth does not allow a person to breath and swallow at the same time- a genetic anomaly that has been present since the origin of the species;

+ The absence of a bone within the male human penis which means copulation requires a significantly longer period of time that a male and female are vulnerable to attack than any other known species- a genetic anomaly that has been present since the origin of the species;

+ The absence of significant hair on the human body which means humans require clothing to avoid hypothermia and dehydration in the open and increased risk of viral/bacteria attack - a genetic anomaly that has been present since the origin of the species;

+ The extremely poor repair qualities of human skin, worse than any known mammal meaning even a relatively small event for other species with strong, resistant skin can prove fatal to humans a genetic anomaly that has been present since the origin of the species.

Any one of these genetic anomolies should have been enough to create such a disadvantage to the human species to render it extinct. But excluding any notion of civilization, the existence of no less than five such genetic anomolies in one species means the human race should simply not exist- for it defies the laws of evolution to think a species could survive "natural selection" and at the same time have so many defects promoting its extinction.
evilone-org



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Wouldn't surprise me. However, after learning that Darwin was a fan of Malthus, I am much less impressed.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 





Could any sane person assert that as a fact? So for me, just recently learning that Darwin had severe issues, was a relief.


It's usually not the teacher that's considered the mentally challenged...
So what you're realy saying is that everyone who believes in Darwins idea about evolution are insane (?)

You have successfully offended those who believe in evolution. What a dissapointing day it is when mods of ats can make such hateful threads.



The really interesting question is if jesus was mentally ill, would that make his message of peace and love any less valid? Quite a few men claimed to be divine. Was Buddha mentally ill? Was Muhammad? Perhaps what he said was true. Maybe he was just a peaceful man trying to spread his agenda by claiming divine nature.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   
www.youtube.com...

The collective unconscious Carl Jung knew, from his own profound inner work and that of his patients that we are tied to a much greater archaic collective unconscious mind that emits universal symbols and processes we all share. Darwin more than likely broke down these barriers by thinking outside the box to find his own reality of thoughts that steered mankind a to a different way of thinking about our world.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   
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. In other words parents can have offspring of radically different genetic composition.

Plus, if a genetic anamoly is produced by a parent then this anamoly can reproduce with others of the parent species (or maybe some other 'cousin' species) to produce more anamolies of the same genetic composition as the original anamoly.

Which means reproduction between two critters which are genetically different.

It is a lot to believe and has never been observed in nature.

I would also like to know: What did come first, the chicken or the egg.

A person being mad has nothing to do with the quality of their work. If Darwin were a healthy person his work would still be lacking. Darwin's theory is only a hypothesis which can not really be tested and lacks any semblance of logic. Darwin did not know there was such a thing as DNA when he wrote his Origin of Species.

I find it ironic that gene splicing is intelligent design more than natural selection.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daniem


It's usually not the teacher that's considered the mentally challenged...
So what you're realy saying is that everyone who believes in Darwins idea about evolution are insane (?)


I see this all the time these days. the old "So what you're REALLY saying is" Then the misrepresent the persons very easy to understand post, into something casting him as an insensitive dolt. If that wasn't enough, danien goes on to give him a reprisal for saying the thing skyfloating never said.



You have successfully offended those who believe in evolution. What a dissapointing day it is when mods of ats can make such hateful threads.


Must you be so dramatic?



The really interesting question is if jesus was mentally ill, would that make his message of peace and love any less valid?


I can assure you, THAT would be so BIG a BLOCKBUSTER for people like you daneim I doubt we'd ever hear the end of it but yes it sure would make it worthy of re-thinking the whole thing



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   
You have to love the guys who criticize Darwin, but then claim the bible is proof of God's existence...especially since evolution has been proven over an over again.

The guys who say evolution is wrong are still using "Christian science websites" to "debunk" evolution...that's why we get such gems as "if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?", or "we have lost all our body hair and would freeze and go extinct...but we didn't, so there's a god".

I'm sick and tired of having to educate the ignorant. Every week there's a new anti-evolution thread, and every single time it ends the same way. Evolutionist present proof after proof and correct the whole "why are there still monkeys" retard questions, and Christian evangelists continue to refuse to look at the proof because they believe it contradicts there religion. It's as if you are trying to explain math to a 2 year old blind and depth kid...

If you're not too ignorant, read this, it debunks all of the creationists false statements on the past 2 pages...and it got scientific backup for all its claims.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   

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



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Prosecutor

Actually it sheds light on a man who was NOT a scientist

Actually he was..

and how it disrespects the mentally ill is anyone's guess. What should he have done? Used a more sugar coated and politically correct term for the word?

What do you mean "sugar coated"? Have you another word for mental illness that you prefer to use?


Einstein had dispraxia.. are you lot going to invalidate his work because of that mental defect? What about Hawkings? Yes he has motor neuron disease.. but if he also became suicidal tommorow should all his work be invalidated even though you wouldn't be able to even comprehend his work anyway?

With genius comes insanity.. thats often the way it is. MOST scientists have some form of mental illness or "quirks". Many have aspergers syndrome. If you have a problem with a scientist's theories.. actually come up with an argument against them. Picking on someone's mental state just makes it look like people are too scared to argue the actual science so they attack the person instead. It is a very lazy form of attack and below the belt.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by riley]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by Skyfloating
 



All other theories are simply that, theories with no proof whatsover, and so leaps of faith are required if anyone is to place any belief in them.




chemistry.about.com...


A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.



A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.


The reason a theory is a theory and not a fact is that a theory has to be proven, and to prove something it has to happen every time. You would have to test until it doesn't happen, and that one time means you would have to fix the theory.

My pet peeve is someone not knowing what a theory is, and saying it is just a guess with no proof.

Do some readings on theories, please! In levels of truth it goes guess - hypothesis (educated guess)- theory - law.


Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.


Evolution doesn't give details on how we where created, just how we evolved. It is safe to say no one knows how that first self replicating molecule started.




To the OP: Darwin may have been mentally ill (like many other geniuses) but he came up with a wonderful theory (much like Einstein, who could have been called insane that explains how life formed, and why we are the way we are today.

I don't care what religious belief someone is, but the Darwin problem we have today is much like the problem with Galileo in the past. It is really stupid to deny evolution, whatever your belief may be.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by Phlynx]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by plutoxgirl

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The Universe is pure perfection, beautiful and wonderful to those who understand it and its rules and also the karmic purpose of incarnating onto these training-grounds of choice called Earth.


Very well said.
I agree completely.
And starred and flagged the thread.

Darwin?? seriously people still belive in that?.....pfff.




Yeah, strange huh... 1+1 = 2 and not ? + ? = infinity...

Dont ask me why... those fools...



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
I was very religious the first half of my life. But - then it dawned on me - I was assimilated.

I did not choose to believe in a god.


That is very well-said. Many of my first questions about religion and God were about people who were born in places where they did not believe in religion and God... What of their souls? Would God send them to Hell just because they grew up never having the "chance" at salvation? I realized that NOT believing in God was the default. My parents and others in society imprinted the idea of a supreme creator on me. I was indoctrinated with others' beliefs that had no proof.


Originally posted by Skyfloating
Just as a matter of interest in pointing out the difference between materialists/atheists and spiritualists:


I just want to point out that not all atheists are materialists. You seem to make the same mistake that a lot of people do in that you seem to think that all atheists think that there is no spiritual aspect to us. And that is incorrect. Materialists are atheists, but not all atheists are materialists. Just a clarification there.
There are MANY who are Spiritual Atheists, lacking a belief in a deity, but believing in a spiritual realm of some sort.

And since you didn't answer my first post on page 2, I will ask again, in a different way. What are you suggesting with the OP? That because Darwin may have been "mentally ill", that there is a God after all? Basically, is that what you're suggesting? That because Darwin was conflicted and ill, all his work is hogwash and evolution and atheism are bunk? I would just like a clear answer to that, please.
Thanks.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Sky, I'm glad this tidbit got you excited. There are I think uncountable reasons for depression and mental illness. I could imagine that Darwin was frustrated by so much of his world being opposed to the discoveries he had made. I can imagine that would be as depressing as having a spiritual belief and that spiritual belief being out of the mainstream. An interesting find but not totally unexpected as we are all human. Although there are more than a few threads and posters on ATS that would argue that point.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
There are MANY who are Spiritual Atheists, lacking a belief in a deity, but believing in a spiritual realm of some sort.



You do put out a good point there. Many groups of Buddhists would be considered Spiritual Atheists.




top topics



 
50
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join