Charles Darwin was mentally ill

Originally posted by maria_stardust
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

This is quite a thread you've started Sky!

However, I am troubled by your premise that any psychological problems that Darwin may have had should somehow refute his work regarding evolution.

There are many spiritual people that suffer from the same types of mental and emotional problems that Darwin is alleged to have experienced.

Take the work of famed mathematician and Nobel Laureate, John Nash, for example. His work is brilliant and many of his ideas have influenced other areas of academics such as economics, computer science and biology.

Does that make his work any less viable?

I think not. We are all human, and as a result, are susceptible to the same range of emotional, mental and psychological problems that are part of the human condition.

To suggest that evolutionary science should be disregarded because Darwin may have suffered from some form of psychological distress is simply ridiculous.

I don't think trivializing the work darwin stole from other scientists lends to the insanity of the theory as being any less credible just because he had a mental disorder. IT EXPLAINS IT

Originally posted by PieKeeper


If you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know that "Climate Gate" was actually just a misunderstanding of the language: www.newsweek.com...

No, that is what idiots like the one who wrote that article do for AGW apologists like yourself. Perhaps you should consider who it was making this article saying "News Papers" retract climategate. HA HA that is hilarious
It is because I DO know what I am talking about, that little silly articles from dishonest journalists like that, don't shake the foundations of my complete disdain for the entire AGW junk science scam

The headline claims that multiple papers have retracted 'climategate' claims. She actually only quotes one paper (references another German paper), and here is the problem: Neither of these articles have anything to do whatsoever with climategate. It is a subtle misdirection, she opens up by talking about climategate then mentions the two article retractions, but there is no link between the two. Climategate was a leak or hack of emails from the CRU in Britian, the articles were talking about mistakes in the UN IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), two totally separate issues. This mistake invalidates the entire point of the article, but the mistakes don't stop there.

Her opening statement speaks of climategate as a "highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal", which is a hard pill to swallow. The emails were released on a relatively unknown blog, and bloggers (like me) went through the emails and found all the goodies ourselves. Even is this claim is to be believed, the author attempts to completely dismiss climategate by mentioning the 'inquiries' into Jones and Mann. The inquiry into Jones is almost comical in its brevity. Considering the gravity of the accusations and the serious implications of Jones cooking the books, the Oxburgh report was a total of....five pages. Not only that, but they didn't keep any record of how they reached their conclusions that Jones was innocent, leaving us to simply trust them. The Mann investigation was just as bad. Penn State had little incentive to chastise the man who gets them millions every year in funding.

If it is hard for you to believe that both of these investigations could be farces, let me simply direct you to the climategate e-mails themselves. Anyone who claims that climategate is a non-issue has not read the e-mails, or doesn't understand them. Read them here (I can highlight a few of the better ones if you desire):

www.eastangliaemails.com...

Yet another problem with the article is the focus on ONE mistake in the AR4. This is still regarded by many to be a mistake, but even if you throw out this Amazon claim the AR4 is still full of mistakes. The false glacier claim is the most well known, but there are many more, quite a few which yours truly has found. They claim that climate change will reduce African tourism, but their source doesn't mention Africa or tourism. They claim Canadian wildfires substantially negatively affected the local economy, but their source actually shows positive gains. They claim that the mangroves in Bangladesh are being irreversibly damaged by climate change, yet their source only mentions Pakistan's mangroves. They cite a newspaper article claiming that 1.3 billion agricultural workers will be negatively affected by climate change, yet the article doesn't cite any study or article at all. These are just some of the mistakes I personally have found. Yet another IPCC mistake (at least it seems to be so far) was revealed just yesterday:

climaterealists.com...

To claim that climategate is now rendered false by two newspaper's retractions about a separate issue, and to go on and claim that the AR4 actually isn't full of mistakes, is a lie. As Mark Twain said, "A lie can get halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on."
www.snafu-comics.com...

I got to say, I couldn't have said it better myself


[edit on 27-6-2010 by Prosecutor]

Originally posted by Prosecutor
...in the meantime, its cult like followers act JUST LIKE any fundamentalist retard I have ever seen putting some of the most cleverly crafted public relations spin on it as Melatonin demonstrates in his posts.

So, in essence, you think the thread was perhaps a case of lying/trolling/fishing in an effort to bolster 'sky-fairies'? An 'ends justify the means' type situation in some incoherent dishonest effort to teach the great unwashed the errors of their ways and illustrate the high standards of magical thinking?

Figures. I guess it racked up the pages like the good old days of the tag-team and their moronic threads.

The more things change the more they stay the same, eh?

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Prosecutor
...in the meantime, its cult like followers act JUST LIKE any fundamentalist retard I have ever seen putting some of the most cleverly crafted public relations spin on it as Melatonin demonstrates in his posts.

So, in essence, you think the thread was perhaps a case of lying/trolling/fishing in an effort to bolster 'sky-fairies'? An 'ends justify the means' type situation in some incoherent dishonest effort to teach the great unwashed the errors of their ways and illustrate the high standards of magical thinking?

Figures. I guess it racked up the pages like the good old days of the tag-team and their moronic threads.

The more things change the more they stay the same, eh?

in essence? I think it is pretty clear by the use of words like "perhaps" and "maybe" or "he may have felt" in my posts which would suggest "in essence" anyway that I am not sure and merely offering opinions off the cuff. but must you spin my posts too Mr Melatonin. If you mis-represent my posts just so you have an excuse, yet another opportunity it would seem, to mention sky fairies etc,.

I assume, you intentionally make this presumptuous assessment then framed as a question so you can go right on affirming without waiting for validation your question was correct or not.

Then you use what YOU think I said as yet ANOTHER excuse to make the argument that sky floating is trolling. Do you not see how many people have already posted exaggerations of outrage, some going so far as to say it is the worst kind of action on the part of the infallible ATS moderators as if they have no human side what so ever.

My oh my is this what ATS is going to be like when ever someone says anything that is counter to the paragon of divine virtue the father of science and apparently, YOUR HERO Charles Darwin? That swarms of atheists defending the doctrine of evolution mangle every thing that is said.

If I didn't know better, I would think you and your "gang" have some kind of orchestrated method of attacking evolution skeptics. Not only that, but are so bold they make public posts suggesting his removal they are SO offended. I was born at night but it wasn't last night Mr Melatonin and I know a zealot when I see one and I can smell a fanatic right through the computer. That isn't the "essence" of what I am saying, it's just scratching the surface.

Using the kind of embellished BS I have seen being posted as an attack to cast this moderator as someone who according to them, is not "good enough" to have his own opinions.

Well, at least not if they malign Pope Darwin

Figures. I guess it racked up the pages like the good old days of the tag-team and their moronic threads.

Private joke? or am I supposed to think you type under your breath like people who talk to themselves?



[edit on 27-6-2010 by Prosecutor]

Originally posted by Prosecutor
in essence? I think it is pretty clear by the use of words like "perhaps" and "maybe" or "he may have felt" in my posts which would suggest "in essence"

That's cool. Just nice to know the sort of standards we atheists have to live up to.

Won't be too hard for many of us, I'm sure.

Then you use what YOU think I said as yet ANOTHER excuse to make the argument that sky floating is trolling. Do you not see how many people have already posted exaggerations of outrage, some going so far as to say it is the worst kind of action on the part of the infallible ATS moderators as if they have no human side what so ever.

No, I'm not entirely sure. I have two positions on this:

1. He is, as you and JPhish suggest, just playing dishonest fishing games in some rather sad effort at teaching atheists a lesson. The sort of 'foot in mouth' approach that the tag-team was pretty good at.

2. He really thought this sort of ad-hominem would hold any credence.

The first is a variant of what, I have an intuition you've heard me call, 'lying for jesus' in other situations (I have this feeling we've met here before). Although lying for magical thinking would be more pertinent here maybe.

For the second: You see, there is a difference between religion and science. In science, we can validate the rantings of psychotic mad-men. In religion, the street-corner confirmed psychotic spouting theology essentially holds as much weight as any other theological position.

Thus, even if Darwin was actually a psychotic baby-eater, we could still verify what could be his random babblings. Similarly, we can verify particular claims of religious texts and their adherents - often shown to be wildly erroneous, of course. Sometimes, like mindfulness, we find that they have uses when stripped of the fluff.

If I didn't know better, I would think you and your "gang" have some kind of orchestrated method of attacking evolution skeptics. Not only that, but are so bold they make public posts suggesting his removal they are SO offended.

Don't really care, never asked him to be removed so it's pretty much irrelevant.

Indeed, I'll defend people's rights to denigrate people who have various forms of mental disorder, ginger hair, black skin, or big ears. And I hope they would defend my right to call them an asshole if I so wished. Of course, not sure I can do that here.

I was born at night but it wasn't last night Mr Melatonin and I know a zealot when I see one and I can smell a fanatic right through the computer. That isn't the essence of what I am saying, it's just scratching the surface using the kind of embellished BS I have seen being posted to cast this moderator as someone not good enough to have his own opinions. Well, at least not if they malign Pope Darwin

He can have whatever opinion he wants. And I'll hold it in the esteem I think it deserves.

However, I don't think stating that Darwin might have suffered a depressive disorder is maligning Darwin in any way. It's not that unusual, its not anything to be ashamed of, and makes little difference to his scientific work.

Conversely, proposing that because Darwin might have suffered depression therefore his work should be devalued is readily open to being maligned.

ABE: now please excuse me while I go and watch some football.

[edit on 27-6-2010 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Prosecutor
don't shake the foundations of my complete disdain for the entire AGW junk science scam

Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for. You have a deep set belief that climate change isn't real.

The climate is changing and there is evidence all over the place for it. The question is whether or not it's caused by man.

You said that I probably didn't work in the science field. I'm actually a student of Wildlife Biology. Do you work in the science field?

On a slightly related topic, not many people know Darwin's famous book is actually named "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or
The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

While he's held up as a champion of the atheists, he in reality didn't rule out the possibility that some unseen force favored and preserved certain species over others, and that's what gave them the advantages others lacked.

Originally posted by mothershipzeta

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I can have a blast holding a mirror up to those who throw around words such as "mentally ill" to describe spiritual people.

But you have no problem doing it yourself. If you're secure in your faith/spirituality, it shouldn't trouble you to the point that you use the same tactics they do. It's one more piece of ammunition for those who love to find hypocrisy in the religious/spiritual.

Man it's a fact and not a theory that Darwin was indeed mentally ill. Mentally ill to the point of having long conversations with imaginary people. And if you read his biography you would know that even him wasn't really sure about his theories.

His theory on the evolution was so problematic in his mind that even him considered not publishing it. He only did so after long ups and downs, internal conflicts and his wife support to do so.

Personally I find that his theory on the human evolution misses way too many pieces to be taken seriously.

And since Stephen Hawkins was mentioned earlier I must say he is a bit of a moron that likes to think he is the holder of the light of the truth. He uses and abuses his condition way too much in his favor to sell his ideas and theories and nowadays mostly talks #.

Originally posted by Risen
On a slightly related topic, not many people know Darwin's famous book is actually named "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or
The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

While he's held up as a champion of the atheists, he in reality didn't rule out the possibility that some unseen force favored and preserved certain species over others, and that's what gave them the advantages others lacked.

That title does not refer to any kind of supreme being, it simply refers to the fact that in a given environment a certain species will have advantages over others and therefore will be favoured for survival. This isn't favouritism by any kind of intelligent entity, simply the situation the organism finds itself in.

A wooly mammoth will be favoured by natural selection over a normal elephant in the arctic for example. I cannot believe you just tried to warp that title, have you actually read Darwins book in full?


Still none of it matters, Darwins theory can be accepted by believers or none believers. Evolution has nothing at all to do with God. It simply contradicts every creation myth out there.

[edit on 27-6-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Originally posted by thomas_
Man it's a fact and not a theory that Darwin was indeed mentally ill. Mentally ill to the point of having long conversations with imaginary people. And if you read his biography you would know that even him wasn't really sure about his theories.

His theory on the evolution was so problematic in his mind that even him considered not publishing it. He only did so after long ups and downs, internal conflicts and his wife support to do so.

Personally I find that his theory on the human evolution misses way too many pieces to be taken seriously.

Ok please present the evidence you seem to have knowledge of to counter the theory. If you can provide evidence that Darwin was wrong you will be getting a Noble prize pretty soon. As others have stated, it doesn't matter if Darwin was absolutely crazy because his theory has been tested by others and found to be true.

Basically you cry fowl just like others but present zero evidence that can be backed up with fact.

Originally posted by thomas_
And since Stephen Hawkins was mentioned earlier I must say he is a bit of a moron that likes to think he is the holder of the light of the truth. He uses and abuses his condition way too much in his favor to sell his ideas and theories and nowadays mostly talks #.

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

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?

Maybe he was thinking this, long before we had studies to prove what he was thinking wasnt crazy.

www.uihealthcare.com...

Electroconvulsive therapy, or ECT, is the fastest and surest way to relieve depression. When other treatments have failed, when a patient is too suicidal for anything less effective, when depression is too severe to wait for drugs to work, electroconvulsive theapy is the treatment of choice. Compared to drugs, though, it is expensive, often requires hospitalization, and demands a greater commitment from patients. For these reasons it is reserved for more serious and unresponsive depressions.

The rest of the OP is not really worth comment. It seems to me sort of a mindless and self serving bashing of someone for purposes of self aggrandizement. The logic is terrible. The reinforcement of a wedge between spirituality and the sciences is deplorable. (After all it was originally "mystics" who founded science as we know it today) And overall it just seems about as UN-spiritual as one can get.

To the poster who declined the kool-aid though. That was brilliant.

[edit on 27-6-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]

reply to post by Risen


Exactly. Not to mention that as far as I know he started as Catholic, his wife was one and a good portion of his conflict with his own theory was the possibility of it destroying faith in God in general.

But he did had it's issues with life, death and God's existence which personally I not only find natural but healthy.

For those that don't mind a "few" cinematic liberties there is a film about him and his time while writing the evolution of the species theory called Creation.

Personally I just don't approve how he pieced together all the pieces regarding the human evolution and how others took that seriously enough to the point of not questioning further and instead building over it's foundations. Something that I consider way too very wrong since the pieces he used don't really fit together to begin with.

Originally posted by thomas_

Personally I just don't approve how he pieced together all the pieces regarding the human evolution and how others took that seriously enough to the point of not questioning further and instead building over it's foundations. Something that I consider way too very wrong since the pieces he used don't really fit together to begin with.

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.

Originally posted by Daniem


Evolution is real, but not to people who are brainwashed into beliving other creation stories, like you, and NOT taught about evolution, as you clearly dont know much about. You have to realize that some things are myths, and some things are facts. You seem to have things twisted.

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.

Funny thing about mental illness, drug addiction and alcoholism.. the most intelligent people to ever walk the earth "suffered" from at least one of them. Just sayin'.

Originally posted by anglodemonicmatrix
Those that the Gods do not like they destroy just ask Steven Hawking.

I can't believe you typed something like this. Who types this sort of thing?
Someone with a black heart I would imagine!

Originally posted by thomas_

Originally posted by mothershipzeta

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I can have a blast holding a mirror up to those who throw around words such as "mentally ill" to describe spiritual people.

And since Stephen Hawkins was mentioned earlier I must say he is a bit of a moron that likes to think he is the holder of the light of the truth. He uses and abuses his condition way too much in his favor to sell his ideas and theories and nowadays mostly talks #.

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

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984That title does not refer to any kind of supreme being, it simply refers to the fact that in a given environment a certain species will have advantages over others and therefore will be favoured for survival.

He didn't think very much of organized religion, but he believed in a God that was in control of everything, and therefore favoring and preserving certain races over others through evolution.

I kid you not. Do some reading on it. Even the wiki is pretty clear he wasn't an atheist like most commonly believe, and if you dig deeper you'll find things like him talking about how the 'Negroid race' is far older than Caucasians, yet much less evolved. How can that be possible using the rules of evolution we normally attribute to him? The defining difference between what he thought and what we do now, is the mutations aren't quite so random when you've got God in the equation.

btw i don't agree with any of Darwin's racism, and would prefer to not sidetrack the thread with it. Just using it as an example of how our modern views of evolution aren't exactly what Darwin himself believed.

[edit on 27-6-2010 by Risen]

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

You are using Darwin's mental state as some sort of evidence against the facts that give supportive proof that The Theory Of Evolution which he was the first to propose is incorrect.
That does not follow any logical process, especially when considering the many other scientists, politicians, regents, philosophers etc who have greatly contributed to mankinds development whilst also being clinically insane.

You also suggest that his mental state was a karmic consequence of his un-spiritual thoughts about The Theory Of Evolution, as is all mental and physical illness, yet offer absolutely no supportive evidence whatsoever other than your opinion.

And then at the end of your last post you attempt to pull a joker out of the pack by suddenly revealing your own personal defenition of 'materialism' in an effort to support your 'theory' despite knowing full well that everyone would have been using the dictionary definition throughout the thread, the two being very different!

I love how Skyfloating conveniently ignores the bold text, and instead attempts to refute your materialism argument, as if it was the basis of the post.

I suggest the OP look up "ad hominem", and shortly thereafter apologize for creating such a fallacious thread that amounts to little more than trolling.