The real father of Evolution was an Atheist
(M)-adman
As a young child Charles Darwin avidly collected animal shells, postal
franks, bird's eggs and minerals. Young Charles was influenced by his
father's fashionable interest in natural history. Already showing a
disconnect to reality.
Charles would tell elaborate stories to his family and friends "for the pure
pleasure of attracting attention & surprise", including hoaxes such as
pretending to find apples he'd hidden earlier, and *downright lies* such as
what he later called the "monstrous fable" which persuaded his friend that
the colour of primula flowers could be changed by dosing them with special
water. However, his father benignly ignored these passing games, and Charles
later recounted that he stopped them because no-one paid any attention.In
his teen years, Darwin was described by his father as "only caring for
shooting, dogs, and rat-catching." He frequently collected things; bugs,
coins, shells, so on. His father was also noted as saying his son would
"mess up the house with everlasting rubbish." Child hood psychosis!
his mother had frequently been ill and her available time taken up by
social duties, so his upbringing had largely been in the hands of his three
older sisters. THAT sure explains alot! an older sister ruled that "it was
not right to kill insects" for his collections, and he had to find dead
ones.
Shoots dogs and kills insects. Not much respect for the life he was trying
to explain eh?
Charles was a diligent student, but too sensitive to the sight of blood. He
failed being a doctor because of blood BUT, HERE IS THE FUNNY PART, "I am
going to learn to stuff birds, from a blackamoor... he only charges one
guinea, for an hour every day for two months". Darwin studied taxidermy! He
has no problem removing the insides of dead animals, shooting dogs and
killing insects, but failed medical school because he could not stand the
sight of blood?!
I see a pattern here.
Darwin meets nutball that was the REAL father of evolution:
During their walks Grant expounded to Darwin his radical theory of homology,
an extension of the idea of unity of plan in vogue in Paris at the time. He
argued that all animals had similar organs differing only in complexity and,
controversially, that this showed their common descent. he was troubled by
Grant's atheism and could see that transmutation was far from respectable.
And there ya have it folks. Darwin was not the father of evolution, but
Grant was. And what was Grant? An Atheist.
So just like we see above when "Charles would tell elaborate stories to his
family and friends "for the pure pleasure of attracting attention &
surprise", including hoaxes such as pretending to find apples he'd hidden
earlier, it would seem he was also steeling someone else's theory on common
descent and just making up *downright lies* , "for the pure pleasure of
attracting attention & surprise" and attention.
Flash forward hundreds years latter and the real Darwin is still fooling
people for the pure pleasure of attracting attention & surprise"
How about THAT!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_education
--
God created. No evolution needed.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
John Harshman
> As a young child Charles Darwin avidly collected animal shells, postal
> franks, bird's eggs and minerals. Young Charles was influenced by his
> father's fashionable interest in natural history. Already showing a
> disconnect to reality.
[snip]
> In
> his teen years, Darwin was described by his father as "only caring for
> shooting, dogs, and rat-catching."
[snip]
>
> Shoots dogs and kills insects. Not much respect for the life he was trying
> to explain eh?
And here we see the importance of punctuation. I knew that Adman's poor
punctuation skills would come back to bite him. A clue for you: commas
have meanings.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_education
>
>
>
Augray
wrote in <43qNk.52913$kh2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net> :
>
>As a young child Charles Darwin avidly collected animal shells, postal
>franks, bird's eggs and minerals. Young Charles was influenced by his
>father's fashionable interest in natural history. Already showing a
>disconnect to reality.
>
>Charles would tell elaborate stories to his family and friends "for the pure
>pleasure of attracting attention & surprise", including hoaxes such as
>pretending to find apples he'd hidden earlier, and *downright lies* such as
>what he later called the "monstrous fable" which persuaded his friend that
>the colour of primula flowers could be changed by dosing them with special
>water. However, his father benignly ignored these passing games, and Charles
>later recounted that he stopped them because no-one paid any attention.In
>his teen years, Darwin was described by his father as "only caring for
>shooting, dogs, and rat-catching." He frequently collected things; bugs,
>coins, shells, so on. His father was also noted as saying his son would
>"mess up the house with everlasting rubbish." Child hood psychosis!
>
> his mother had frequently been ill and her available time taken up by
>social duties, so his upbringing had largely been in the hands of his three
>older sisters. THAT sure explains alot! an older sister ruled that "it was
>not right to kill insects" for his collections, and he had to find dead
>ones.
>
>Shoots dogs and kills insects. Not much respect for the life he was trying
>to explain eh?
Who claims that Darwin shot dogs? You're not much for comprehending
what you read, are you?
[snip the rest]
Jessie Ukaine
>
>As a young child Charles Darwin avidly collected animal shells, postal
>franks, bird's eggs and minerals. Young Charles was influenced by his
>father's fashionable interest in natural history. Already showing a
>disconnect to reality.
>
>Charles would tell elaborate stories to his family and friends "for the pure
>pleasure of attracting attention & surprise", including hoaxes such as
>pretending to find apples he'd hidden earlier, and *downright lies* such as
>what he later called the "monstrous fable" which persuaded his friend that
>the colour of primula flowers could be changed by dosing them with special
>water. However, his father benignly ignored these passing games, and Charles
>later recounted that he stopped them because no-one paid any attention.In
>his teen years, Darwin was described by his father as "only caring for
>shooting, dogs, and rat-catching." He frequently collected things; bugs,
>coins, shells, so on. His father was also noted as saying his son would
>"mess up the house with everlasting rubbish." Child hood psychosis!
>
> his mother had frequently been ill and her available time taken up by
>social duties, so his upbringing had largely been in the hands of his three
>older sisters. THAT sure explains alot! an older sister ruled that "it was
>not right to kill insects" for his collections, and he had to find dead
>ones.
>
>Shoots dogs and kills insects. Not much respect for the life he was trying
>to explain eh?
You can't be for real. You misread ""only caring for
shooting, dogs" as a statement that Darwin only cared for shooting
dogs. You can't be that stupid. Nobody is that stupid. Maybe you
didn't see the comma, but it's still too stupid to be real. Are you
trying to tell us that you seriously believe the only thing Darwin
cared about was shooting dogs? He was a Even a ten year old would stop
and say "Wait - this can't be right." You are reading solely for
talking points. You apparently have no interest whatever in what it
actually says. I'm telling you it's a bad strategy if you're out to
actually learn and understand.
By the way, you seem to share Ray's belief in a universal scientific
conspiracy with Darwin as its evil originator. If he was an habitual
dog-shooter, then evolution has to be false, right?
>Charles was a diligent student, but too sensitive to the sight of blood. He
>failed being a doctor because of blood BUT, HERE IS THE FUNNY PART, "I am
>going to learn to stuff birds, from a blackamoor... he only charges one
>guinea, for an hour every day for two months". Darwin studied taxidermy! He
>has no problem removing the insides of dead animals, shooting dogs and
>killing insects, but failed medical school because he could not stand the
>sight of blood?!
>
>I see a pattern here.
Do you take a lot of drugs?. That might help explain the patterns you
see.
>Darwin meets nutball that was the REAL father of evolution:
>During their walks Grant expounded to Darwin his radical theory of homology,
>an extension of the idea of unity of plan in vogue in Paris at the time. He
>argued that all animals had similar organs differing only in complexity and,
>controversially, that this showed their common descent. he was troubled by
>Grant's atheism and could see that transmutation was far from respectable.
>
>And there ya have it folks. Darwin was not the father of evolution, but
>Grant was. And what was Grant? An Atheist.
There is no single father of evolutionary theory. It's like quantum
physics - lots of contributors. If you really need an evil genius to
blame for the world's ills, why don't you try Einstein? He came up
with the whole relativity thing largely by himself. He was even
Jewish. Besides, if you want to prove a scientific conspiracy, you
can't leave physics out.
>So just like we see above when "Charles would tell elaborate stories to his
>family and friends "for the pure pleasure of attracting attention &
>surprise", including hoaxes such as pretending to find apples he'd hidden
>earlier, it would seem he was also steeling someone else's theory on common
>descent and just making up *downright lies* , "for the pure pleasure of
>attracting attention & surprise" and attention.
You do realize that the "downright lies" were the imaginative tales
Charley told when he was seven years old, right? No. You don't
understand that, do you? You don't read *at all* for comprehension.
Your strategy is to find talking points. But you always end up
spouting inanities that show you lack the understanding of a child.
Boy I hope you don't use this strategy in every aspect of your life.
Otherwise your going to have a rough road ahead of you.
>Flash forward hundreds years latter and the real Darwin is still fooling
>people for the pure pleasure of attracting attention & surprise"
>
>How about THAT!
Whether or not it's drugs making you see pretty patterns, they're only
in your head. They don't correspond to anything in the real world.
Uriel
"John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:_DqNk.1467$%11....@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
It seems that you have to cut out parts that were posted that proves the
title's validity and then resort to a grammar flame since you cannot argue
against the the information. Information which btw, was easily verified at
the link.
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_education
>>
>>
>>
>
John Harshman
The link says that Darwin shot dogs?
raven1
wrote:
*Yawn*
Got anything better than a lengthy Argumentum ad Hominem fallacy?
Even if everything stated below was true, it would be irrelevant to
the truth or falsity of Darwin's observations.
Richard Clayton
> howl snarl gargle ATHEIST ATHEIST!! snarl mutter howl
So what? Doesn't matter if Darwin turned tricks in Times Square while
wearing a miniskirt made from kitten skin. Every scientific theory
stands or falls on the evidence, no more and no less.
Frex: It turns out Isaac Newton was a real jerk. That doesn't make the
theory of gravity go away.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"Freedom is the right of all sentient beings." — Optimus Prime
(M)-adman
"His exasperated father once told him off, saying "You care for nothing but
shooting, dogs, and rat-catching, and you will be a disgrace to yourself and
all your family."
http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Charles_Darwin's_education
http://reference.findtarget.com/search/Charles%20Darwin's%20education/
John Harshman
And so we're back to the original lesson: commas mean something. There's
a big difference between that sentence with a common between "shooting"
and "dogs" and the same sentence without the comma. When you have
learned that difference, you will be able to read for comprehension. But
not before then.
Dana Tweedy
"(M)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote in message
news:sQuNk.48453$IB6....@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
snip
>> The link says that Darwin shot dogs?
>
> "His exasperated father once told him off, saying "You care for nothing
> but shooting, dogs, and rat-catching, and you will be a disgrace to
> yourself and all your family."
>
> http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Charles_Darwin's_education
>
> http://reference.findtarget.com/search/Charles%20Darwin's%20education/
Do you really not know the function of a comma? Robert Darwin was not
saying that Charles shot dogs. He was saying that he hunted with dogs.
The shooting Robert mentions was undoubtedly at birds, rabbits, and other
small game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunting_dog
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_dog
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sporting_dog
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hounds
DJT
(M)-adman
Coma aside, what about the rest of it
The Enigmatic One
says...
>It seems that you have to cut out parts that were posted that proves the
>title's validity and then resort to a grammar flame since you cannot argue
>against the the information. Information which btw, was easily verified at
>the link.
Huh.
Madman is clearly a fucking idiot.
But you've decided to step up to prove you're in the same league of
shitsucking morons.
-Tim
Mike Dworetsky
Adman, your lack of reading comprehension is appalling.
You persist in being unable to read the comma between shooting and dogs.
Darwin loved shooting and hunting, and he loved dogs. A real outdoors type.
If you had any idea what early 19th C. surgery was like, **without
anaesthetics**, when done on live people, you might better understand why
Darwin could not deal with medicine as a career. Cutting up dead animals
for taxidermy is something else--they are dead, and can't feel a thing.
Incidentally, cutting up dead animals for food is not very different from
taxidermy in terms of blood and guts, or at least it was not much different
in the 19th C when housewives and cooks had to do the basic butchery. So
that aspect did not faze him particularly.
Did you notice in your reading that Darwin was preparing for ordination as a
priest during his university education?
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Mike Dworetsky
news:43qNk.52913$kh2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
Just picking up on one other point: The usual creationist ad hominem about
Darwin was that he was a racist. But here we see that, in early 19th C
England, when black people were still slaves in America, he was hiring and
studying with a free black man in order to learn a skill, rather than
looking around for a white man to do the same. [All black people in Britain
were free; slavery had been abolished, partly by some of Darwin's
relatives.]
Doesn't this imply that Darwin was not a racist?
Lee
"(M)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote in message
news:43qNk.52913$kh2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
Perhaps in Darwins time with the decreasing power of the church and
increasing exploration of the world the evidence for such ideas as natural
selection was so overwhelming that somebody would eventually have to give
voice to them.
In previous ages people with revolutionary ideas who were thought of by
theocratic authorities as hoaxers may have been burned as heretics or even
crucified.
Maybe you should be gratefull from a creationist perspective that Darwin at
least had the honesty and integrity to remain dead after he passed away.
Dave Oldridge
@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
[drivel snipped]
Whether he was an atheist or not has no bearing on the truth of the
propositions set forth. Just as your being an heretic in full rebellion
against God doesn't mean your science is wrong. It is wrong because the
EVIDENCE shows it to be wrong.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 454777283
Joe Cummings
wrote:
>
I think we'll have to agree that our resident pyramidologist
is at best a semi-literate pyramidologist.
Just make a comparison of his posting with the Wikipedia
source.
Let me hasten to add that this semi-literacy isn't, as is
usually the case, the result of not having paid attention at school;
it is a learned technique, and is commonly found on creationist
websites.
It's what passes for "scholarship" in the creationist world.
Have fun reading for miscomprehesion,
Joe Cummings
TomS
<I3vNk.6148$be....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>, John Harshman stated..."
"Eats, shoots, and leaves."
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
J. J. Lodder
> As a young child Charles Darwin avidly collected animal shells, postal
> franks, bird's eggs and minerals. Young Charles was influenced by his
> father's fashionable interest in natural history. Already showing a
> disconnect to reality.
And even worse, his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin
already was an atheist.
Charles never met him,
but he was strongly influenced by Erasmus' books.
Erasmus Darwin was led into 'regretable heresy'
by contemplating the lavas of Mt Vesuvius.
The vulcano erupts every few thousand years,
and the are many lava flows on top of much weathered previous flows.
(so a faster rate eruptions in the past won't do)
Erasmus Darwin was one of the first to understand
that the biblical timespan was far to short
to make this possible.
You might strive for a similar degree of comprehension,
Jan
TomS
<1ipiuk5.1fx...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J. Lodder stated..."
What about Leonardo da Vinci?
See SJ Gould's essay in "Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the
Diet of Worms".
>
>You might strive for a similar degree of comprehension,
>
>Jan
>
Llanzlan Klazmon
> As a young child Charles Darwin avidly collected animal shells, postal
> franks, bird's eggs and minerals. Young Charles was influenced by his
> father's fashionable interest in natural history. Already showing a
> disconnect to reality.
>
Studying the world = disconnect to reality. Drooling stoooopidity of
the hour brought to you by adfart.
John Harshman
Spelling can be important too. Commas are also different from comas. As
for the rest of it, you are so anxious to show that Darwin was a bad
person that you will grasp at anything. Nor does Darwin being a bad
person have anything to do with the validity of his theories.
Bob T.
You're an idiot. Even if Charles Darwin committed atrocities worse
than Hitler's, it still would not affect the scientific fact of
evolution.
- Bob T.
Inez
> franks, bird's eggs and minerals. Young Charles was influenced by his
> father's fashionable interest in natural history. Already showing a
> disconnect to reality.
B Richardson
Who do you think you are? Anyway?
wf3h
(M)-adman wrote:
>
> Flash forward hundreds years latter and the real Darwin is still fooling
> people for the pure pleasure of attracting attention & surprise"
>
> How about THAT!
>
and we have the word of adman...who thinks that the 3rd century was
the best in history for knowledge...to tell us about darwin
yep. the creationists haven't gotten over the invention of the
printing press and all the damage it's caused to 'true' knowledge'
Boikat
> As a young child Charles Darwin avidly collected animal shells, postal
> franks, bird's eggs and minerals. Young Charles was influenced by his
> father's fashionable interest in natural history. Already showing a
> disconnect to reality.
>
> pleasure of attracting attention & surprise", including hoaxes such as
> pretending to find apples he'd hidden earlier, and *downright lies* such as
> what he later called the "monstrous fable" which persuaded his friend that
> the colour of primula flowers could be changed by dosing them with special
> water. However, his father benignly ignored these passing games, and Charles
> later recounted that he stopped them because no-one paid any attention.In
> coins, shells, so on. His father was also noted as saying his son would
> "mess up the house with everlasting rubbish." Child hood psychosis!
>
> his mother had frequently been ill and her available time taken up by
> social duties, so his upbringing had largely been in the hands of his three
> older sisters. THAT sure explains alot! an older sister ruled that "it was
> not right to kill insects" for his collections, and he had to find dead
> ones.
>
> to explain eh?
>
> failed being a doctor because of blood BUT, HERE IS THE FUNNY PART, "I am
> going to learn to stuff birds, from a blackamoor... he only charges one
> guinea, for an hour every day for two months". Darwin studied taxidermy! He
> has no problem removing the insides of dead animals, shooting dogs and
> killing insects, but failed medical school because he could not stand the
> sight of blood?!
>
> I see a pattern here.
>
> Darwin meets nutball that was the REAL father of evolution:
> During their walks Grant expounded to Darwin his radical theory of homology,
> an extension of the idea of unity of plan in vogue in Paris at the time. He
> argued that all animals had similar organs differing only in complexity and,
> controversially, that this showed their common descent. he was troubled by
> Grant's atheism and could see that transmutation was far from respectable.
>
> And there ya have it folks. Darwin was not the father of evolution, but
> Grant was. And what was Grant? An Atheist.
>
> So just like we see above when "Charles would tell elaborate stories to his
> family and friends "for the pure pleasure of attracting attention &
> surprise", including hoaxes such as pretending to find apples he'd hidden
> earlier, it would seem he was also steeling someone else's theory on common
> attracting attention & surprise" and attention.
>
> Flash forward hundreds years latter and the real Darwin is still fooling
> people for the pure pleasure of attracting attention & surprise"
>
> How about THAT!
This is one of the most immature attempts to discredit Darwin that
I've seen in a long time.
It must be your Stupidistan home schooling education.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_education
>
> --
>
> God created. No evolution needed.
Prove it.
Boikat
Woland
> John Harshman wrote:
> > (M)-adman wrote:
> >> John Harshman wrote:
> >>> Uriel wrote:
What rest of it? That he was a normal precocious child?
Boikat
> John Harshman wrote:
> > (M)-adman wrote:
> >> John Harshman wrote:
> >>> Uriel wrote:
Your "interpretation" was your usual stupid bullcrap.
Boikat
Andre Lieven
> > (M)-adman wrote:
> >> John Harshman wrote:
> >>> Uriel wrote:
It shows that you are a very dishonest MORON.
Gravity exists, no matter what ills Newton might have done,
and evolution is SO HUGELY supported by tons of evidence
acquired since Darwin's death, that any hypothetical and,
in your case, illiterally made up, badnesses on Darwin's
part, affect the current FACT of evolution not one bit.
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond
reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution.
Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history
of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of
the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional
blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that
bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification.
There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can
withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning
new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense
Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher
vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus
Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix
AZ 1983
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Andre
Cheezits
> As a young child Charles Darwin avidly collected animal shells, postal
> franks, bird's eggs and minerals. Young Charles was influenced by his
> father's fashionable interest in natural history. Already showing a
> disconnect to reality.
Explain the logic behind that last sentence.
[irrelevant story and its misinterpretation deleted]
> And there ya have it folks. Darwin was not the father of evolution,
> but Grant was. And what was Grant? An Atheist.
So, he was a smart person then.
> Flash forward hundreds years latter and the real Darwin is still
> fooling people for the pure pleasure of attracting attention &
> surprise"
Kinda like what you're doing, eh? :-D
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Cerpin Taxt
>
> Flash forward many months later and Adman is still annoying
> people for the pure pleasure of attracting attention & surprise
Fixed to reflect irony.
Desertphile
<gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> The real father of Evolution (sic) was an Atheist (sic)
It is impossible for there to be a "father" of a natural
phenomena.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Mitchell Coffey
> > (M)-adman wrote:
> >> John Harshman wrote:
> >>> Uriel wrote:
Among other inaccuracies, your own links contradict the claim that
Robert Edmund Grant was "the real father of Evolution." It discusses
several individuals who advanced theories of biological evolutions
prior to Grant, whom it identifies as a Lamarckian. You also
misrepresent what your links say about Darwin's reasons for leaving
medical school. A great deal else is incorrect, but I'm curious
whether you cribbed the quote attributed to Robert Darwin regarding
"rubbish" directly or indirectly from a line in Irvine Stone's novel,
The Origin?
On the plus side, your "shooting dogs" fabrication, which you use
twice in your story, is rather cleaver as an attention-getting
device. Misspelling "comma" in your second response to Harshman (in
your "Adman" persona) follows perfectly out of your narrative
imperative, though hardly original in nature. And, considering
context, "Uriel" is an above average name for a sock puppet.
These little thing do evince some potential over your usual work,
which is at its best strickly tertiary.
MRC
Vend
<snip>
> Charles would tell elaborate stories to his family and friends "for the pure
> pleasure of attracting attention & surprise", including hoaxes such as
> pretending to find apples he'd hidden earlier, and *downright lies* such as
> what he later called the "monstrous fable" which persuaded his friend that
> the colour of primula flowers could be changed by dosing them with special
> water. However, his father benignly ignored these passing games, and Charles
> later recounted that he stopped them because no-one paid any attention.
Telling lies to attract attention... reminds me of somebody.
>In his teen years, Darwin was described by his father as "only caring for
> shooting, dogs, and rat-catching." He frequently collected things; bugs,
> coins, shells, so on. His father was also noted as saying his son would
> "mess up the house with everlasting rubbish." Child hood psychosis!
>
> his mother had frequently been ill and her available time taken up by
> social duties, so his upbringing had largely been in the hands of his three
> older sisters. THAT sure explains alot! an older sister ruled that "it was
> not right to kill insects" for his collections, and he had to find dead
> ones.
>
> Shoots dogs and kills insects. Not much respect for the life he was trying
> to explain eh?
Indeed.
<snip>
Cheezits
[etc.]
> It is impossible for there to be a "father" of a natural
> phenomena.
Babies aren't natural phenomena?
Sue
--
Your DNA must cry itself to sleep at night. - "Coupling"
(M)-adman
What about the rest of it?
(M)-adman
Don't you have a Star Trek Costume to get into?
(M)-adman
The reasons WHY the nonsense was putforth is equally as important it
determining the truth.
And what was Grant?
Grant (the atheist) gave Darwin his ideas.
Darwin was rich enough to leave his wife at home and spend much time
traveling around. To do what? To take Grant's ideas and make up stuff (as he
was well known for doing as a child) to write a book he never thought would
gather so much fame.
Bob T.
>
> Coma aside, what about the rest of it
If you were in a coma, adman, it would increase your intelligence by
50%.
- Bob T.
(M)-adman
> In article <UyrNk.57857$De7....@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
> ur...@mails.com says...
>
>> It seems that you have to cut out parts that were posted that proves
>> the title's validity and then resort to a grammar flame since you
>> cannot argue against the the information. Information which btw,
>> was easily verified at the link.
>
>
> Madman is clearly a fucking idiot.
>
> But you've decided to step up to prove you're in the same league of
> shitsucking morons.
>
>
> -Tim
Troll.
John Harshman
What about it? Nothing you said was sensible or relevant to evolution.
What would you like me to address, in particular?
(M)-adman
You left out one detail.
Darwin took his ideas from Grant. Grant was an atheist. What or who came
before or after does not matter as Grant was Darwin's influencing factor.
Darwin was a spoiled rich kid that was well known for his outrageous
fabrications. His book was the product of an atheist influence from a man
that never really grew up.
>
> On the plus side, your "shooting dogs" fabrication, which you use
> twice in your story, is rather cleaver as an attention-getting
> device. Misspelling "comma" in your second response to Harshman (in
> your "Adman" persona) follows perfectly out of your narrative
> imperative, though hardly original in nature. And, considering
> context, "Uriel" is an above average name for a sock puppet.
>
> These little thing do evince some potential over your usual work,
> which is at its best strickly tertiary.
We know who your sockpuppet is too teacher
(M)-adman
> "(M)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote in message
> news:43qNk.52913$kh2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> As a young child Charles Darwin avidly collected animal shells,
>> postal franks, bird's eggs and minerals. Young Charles was
>> influenced by his father's fashionable interest in natural history.
>> Already showing a disconnect to reality.
>>
>> the pure
>> pleasure of attracting attention & surprise", including hoaxes such
>> as pretending to find apples he'd hidden earlier, and *downright
>> lies* such as
>> what he later called the "monstrous fable" which persuaded his
>> friend that the colour of primula flowers could be changed by dosing
>> them with special water. However, his father benignly ignored these
>> passing games, and Charles
>> later recounted that he stopped them because no-one paid any
>> "only caring for shooting, dogs, and rat-catching." He frequently
>> collected things; bugs, coins, shells, so on. His father was also
>> noted as saying his son would "mess up the house with everlasting
>> rubbish." Child hood psychosis!
>>
>> his mother had frequently been ill and her available time taken up by
>> social duties, so his upbringing had largely been in the hands of his
>> three
>> older sisters. THAT sure explains alot! an older sister ruled that
>> "it was not right to kill insects" for his collections, and he had
>> to find dead ones.
>>
>> trying to explain eh?
>>
>> blood. He
>> failed being a doctor because of blood BUT, HERE IS THE FUNNY PART,
>> "I am
>> going to learn to stuff birds, from a blackamoor... he only charges
>> one guinea, for an hour every day for two months". Darwin studied
>> taxidermy! He
>> has no problem removing the insides of dead animals, shooting dogs
>> and killing insects, but failed medical school because he could not
>> stand the sight of blood?!
>>
>> I see a pattern here.
>>
>> Darwin meets nutball that was the REAL father of evolution:
>> During their walks Grant expounded to Darwin his radical theory of
>> homology,
>> an extension of the idea of unity of plan in vogue in Paris at the
>> time. He
>> argued that all animals had similar organs differing only in
>> complexity and,
>> controversially, that this showed their common descent. he was
>> troubled by Grant's atheism and could see that transmutation was far
>> from respectable.
>>
>> but Grant was. And what was Grant? An Atheist.
>>
>> to his
>> family and friends "for the pure pleasure of attracting attention &
>> surprise", including hoaxes such as pretending to find apples he'd
>> theory on common
>> descent and just making up *downright lies* , "for the pure pleasure
>> of attracting attention & surprise" and attention.
>>
>> Flash forward hundreds years latter and the real Darwin is still
>> surprise"
>>
>> How about THAT!
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_education
>
>
> Adman, your lack of reading comprehension is appalling.
>
> You persist in being unable to read the comma between shooting and
> dogs. Darwin loved shooting and hunting, and he loved dogs. A real
> outdoors type.
>
> If you had any idea what early 19th C. surgery was like, **without
> anaesthetics**, when done on live people, you might better understand
> why Darwin could not deal with medicine as a career. Cutting up dead
> animals for taxidermy is something else--they are dead, and can't
> feel a thing.
>
> Incidentally, cutting up dead animals for food is not very different
> from taxidermy in terms of blood and guts, or at least it was not
> much different in the 19th C when housewives and cooks had to do the
> basic butchery. So that aspect did not faze him particularly.
>
> Did you notice in your reading that Darwin was preparing for
> ordination as a priest during his university education?
I did not put that in my post but I did notice it.
But that is another example of the overall Darwin. He just could not make up
his mind who he was or what he wanted to be. He had an outrageous
imagination (that was well known by his family) and was easily influenced.
The extremes from Doctor, to priest to taxidermy are evidence of that. He
collected insects as a kid, and traveled around on his parents money (while
married) looking at insects as an adult after he failed at such things as
being a priest, doctor, taxidermist.
When you add it up, it seems as if the founder of evolution was immature,
indecisive and spoiled. Not really a reliable bank of information to
putforth a theory on a topic as wide and complex as life imho.
Tiny Bulcher
> "John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:_DqNk.1467$%11....@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
>> (M)-adman wrote:
>>> As a young child Charles Darwin avidly collected animal shells,
>>> postal franks, bird's eggs and minerals. Young Charles was
>>> influenced by his father's fashionable interest in natural history.
>>> Already showing a disconnect to reality.
>>
>>
>>> In
>>> his teen years, Darwin was described by his father as "only caring
>>> for shooting, dogs, and rat-catching."
>>
>>>
>>> Shoots dogs and kills insects. Not much respect for the life he was
>>> trying to explain eh?
>>
>> poor punctuation skills would come back to bite him. A clue for you:
>> commas have meanings.
>
> It seems that you have to cut out parts that were posted that proves
> the title's validity and then resort to a grammar flame since you
> cannot argue against the the information. Information which btw, was
> easily verified at the link.
>
>>
And was any of that information in any way relevant to Darwin's
scientific life and thought?
Ye Old One
Is that all?
--
Bob.
heekster
wrote:
>Andre Lieven wrote:
Why? Is it time to change your Depends?
heekster
wrote:
>Mike Dworetsky wrote:
I'm trying to figure out three things:
1) Why you are an imbecile
2) Why you are so filled with hate
3) Why you are so astonishingly irrational
Mike Dworetsky
This is an ad hominem argument (something creationists love to do when
discussing Darwin). He didn't fail as a priest--he was never ordained after
taking the degree in divinity. He decided not to become a doctor, he did
not "fail" any exams but changed courses. Even today many 18 or 19 year
olds decide during their first year at university that the course they
started is not really the one they want to do. And no one makes a big fuss
over this. And he didn't fail as a taxidermist, in fact during the Beagle
voyage he did quite a lot of taxidermy. Thought he never became a
professional taxidermist, so what?
Darwin could have been a notorious sheepshagger, or had bad breath, or
offended in any other of many ways, but his theories and published
researches continue to stand on their own merit and are unrelated to
anything in his personal history (which in my view was pretty normal for
many young men of the English Middle Class in Georgian-Victorian England.)
> When you add it up, it seems as if the founder of evolution was immature,
> indecisive and spoiled. Not really a reliable bank of information to
> putforth a theory on a topic as wide and complex as life imho.
>
Your opinion is indeed uninformed and based on ignorance, hence it deserves
to be humble.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
heekster
wrote:
>The Enigmatic One wrote:
Moron.
Mitchell Coffey
> Mitchell Coffey wrote:
> > On Oct 28, 12:02 am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> >> John Harshman wrote:
> >>> (M)-adman wrote:
> >>>> John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>> Uriel wrote:
> >>>>>> "John Harshman" <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote in
What or who came before does matter because you and your Uriel persona
insisted that Grant was "The real father of Evolution." Evidently you
now want to dilute your claim, first to "Darwin took his ideas from
Grant," then even further to that Grant was "Darwin's influencing
factor." Doesn't matter because all of these assertions are
contradicted by the one source you cited: a Wikipedia article (and the
one or two copies or near-copies of that Wikipedia article which you
also cited).
If you meant to say that Grant was one of many scientists and other
intellectuals who influenced Darwin, but could not have been the most
influential one, then the sources support you. You'd also be agreeing
with all or most historians with who've had access to the original
sources that have come available over the last half century. For that
matter, to my knowledge no historian has given Grant the priority you
claim for him.
The reason is clear from the Wikipedia article you cite: Grant was a
Lamarckian, whose work Darwin was already familiar with. Neither did
Grant's theories include some of the most important of Darwin's later
concepts -- such as, oh for instance, the role of natural selection,
the significance of natural variation within biological populations,
the explanatory indeterminacies of the notion of inheritance of
acquired characteristics, the bush-shaped (i.e., non-Lamarckian)
"tree" of common decent and the tendency of species of reproduce to
the limit allowed by their local environment.
Darwin was also already familiar with the work of other evolutionists
-- his grandpa Erasmus, for one. The Wikipedia piece does not show
Darwin coming away particularly impressed by Grant's evolutionary
theories in particular, or Grant's defenses of evolution, in general.
It's not covered much by the Wikipedia piece, but what Darwin did get
out of his encounters with Grant was a lot of background information,
some experience with scientific methodology, familiarity with the
various evolutionary theories floating about at the time, along with
many of the criticisms of them floating around as well.
In my opinion, and the Wikipedia article does suggest this to a
degree, Grant's most important influence on Darwin was inadvertent on
Grant's part: to get Darwin thinking about the inadequacies in past
and contemporary evolutionary theories, and make him figure out how to
zero in on the just what evolutionary theories were failing to
explain. Ever since they started extensive canal building in England
and elsewhere creationist explanations had become less-and-less
viable; Darwin would have known about this, but he also knew that
evolutionary explanations were also unsatisfactory; the flaws in
Grant's theories made that even more apparent to him. For these
reasons and others he stepped onto the Beagle a Creationist, as it was
understood at the time. What he learned over the course of the voyage
drove it home that creationism simply did not explain the World as it
is, and began to point him toward theories that might work.
Browne's two-volume biography of Darwin covers all this and more.
As I recall, Browne also described Grant as something of a
lightweight, which is my feeling as well, so you're not saying
anything new there, either. Darwin doesn't seem to have been
excessively impressed -- particularly by Grant's atheism. Grant's
atheism is irrelevant anyway.
Your making claims contradicted by your our own source, your
fabrications, your lying *twice* in the same post about Darwin liking
to shoot dogs and your silly editorializings (you are shocked, shocked
that an intelligent, creative little boy not even nine liked to make
up stories; for God sake, have you no experience with children?, these
just make you seem stupid, ignorant, weird and immoral. My conviction
that you're just making up things to get attention actually presents
you in a better light than taking you seriously would.
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
> Mike Dworetsky wrote:
> > "(M)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote in message
This is not supported by your source.
> and was easily influenced.
Neither is this. Your source shows him skeptical of Grant.
> The extremes from Doctor, to priest to taxidermy are evidence of that
No it isn't, if you knew anything about the historical period in
question you'd know that.
And he didn't go "to taxidermy" or take it up after college, as you
claim. He took up taxidermy while he was in Med school, from an
expert who taught it to many students and faculty at Edinburgh
University - it was a important skill for naturalists to have at the
time, he couldn't have made the Beagle voyage without it.
>. He
> collected insects as a kid, and traveled around on his parents money (while
> married) looking at insects as an adult after he failed at such things as
> being a priest, doctor, taxidermist.
He didn't fail at any of those profession, you immoral little twit,
your own source doesn't suggest this. And, in God's name, where did
you get this idea that he ever planned to be a professional
taxidermist?! And systematically traveling around on ones families
money was considered part of a young gentleman's education at the
time, you historical ignoramus.
And, yes, he "looked at insects" (that is, demonstrated precocious
scientific interest, and then did genuine scientific work, some of it
being published) before, during and after he went to college.
> When you add it up, it seems as if the founder of evolution was immature,
> indecisive and spoiled. Not really a reliable bank of information to
> put forth a theory on a topic as wide and complex as life imho.
Since the validity of the modern evolutionary sciences does not depend
on the validity of Darwin's 130+ year-old scientific work, and since
your ego-inflated opinion is irrelevant to the validity of Darwin's
scientific work, as is whether or not Darwin was immature, indecisive
and/or spoiled, and since your ego-inflated opinion is based on
perfect ignorance of the relevant history and historical context, and
is contradicted by the one source you cite, and is based in part on
fabrications, a quote from a novel, and obvious lies; well, then,
there's no point in wasting time finishing this post, is there?
MRC
Mitchell Coffey
> Dave Oldridge wrote:
> > @bignews3.bellsouth.net:
>
> > [drivel snipped]
>
> > Whether he was an atheist or not has no bearing on the truth of the
> > propositions set forth. Just as your being an heretic in full
> > rebellion against God doesn't mean your science is wrong. It is
> > wrong because the EVIDENCE shows it to be wrong.
>
> determining the truth.
No it's not; try defending this deranged assertion.
> And what was Grant?
>
> Grant (the atheist) gave Darwin his ideas.
Contradicted by your one source.
> Darwin was rich enough to leave his wife at home and spend much time
> traveling around.
When exactly did he do this?
> To do what? To take Grant's ideas and make up stuff (as he
> was well known for doing as a child) to write a book he never thought would
> gather so much fame.
This is unsupported by your source, and by every other fact I know
of. If you wish to defend these claims with facts, do so. But you
are clearly lying.
MRC
(M)-adman
Denial
(M)-adman
I have never read this much *rationalization* in one post ever.
Congrats on a new record
John Harshman
(Please don't just say "all of it". Pick what is in your opinion the
most important point. Explain why it's important.)
John Vreeland
wrote:
Sir Isaac Newrton denied the Trinity. Does this imply that his Law of
Gravitation is invalid?
--
Three Creation Scientists can have an argument, if two of them are sock puppets." (Apologies to Mark Twain)
(M)-adman
Pretty much "all of it".
Boikat
> John Harshman wrote:
> > (M)-adman wrote:
> >> John Harshman wrote:
> >>> (M)-adman wrote:
> >>>> John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>> (M)-adman wrote:
> >>>>>> John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>>> (M)-adman wrote:
> >>>>>>>> John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Uriel wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> messagenews:_DqNk.1467$%11....@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
What words did you not understand?
Boikat
Dave Oldridge
>Dave Oldridge wrote:
>> "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote in news:43qNk.52913$kh2.12279
>> @bignews3.bellsouth.net:
>>
>> [drivel snipped]
>>
>> Whether he was an atheist or not has no bearing on the truth of the
>> propositions set forth. Just as your being an heretic in full
>> rebellion against God doesn't mean your science is wrong. It is
>> wrong because the EVIDENCE shows it to be wrong.
>
>The reasons WHY the nonsense was putforth is equally as important it
>determining the truth.
1. Your labelling it nonsense does not make it nonsense.
2. Your claim of personal omniscience is totally rejected.
>
>And what was Grant?
>
>Grant (the atheist) gave Darwin his ideas.
>
>Darwin was rich enough to leave his wife at home and spend much time
>traveling around. To do what? To take Grant's ideas and make up stuff
>(as he was well known for doing as a child) to write a book he never
>thought would gather so much fame.
Your lies are noted. The fact that you claim to be doing it as a service
to a god is rejected. That god is rejected and exorcised.
Did you have anything RELEVANT to say, or were you just doing your
father's bidding?
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 454777283
wf3h
> Denial
>
> --
answer to 'what is the longest river in egypt?'
John Harshman
John Harshman
All of it?
(M)-adman
Get behind me satan
--
This has been another:
"helping the evolutionist' to understand" moment, with:
Greg Guarino
wrote:
>
>As a young child Charles Darwin avidly collected animal shells, postal
>franks, bird's eggs and minerals. Young Charles was influenced by his
>father's fashionable interest in natural history. Already showing a
>disconnect to reality.
"Already showing a disconnect to reality" ? That bit is your addition,
right? It sounds to me like young Charles was curious about the world
around him; in other words, connected to reality.
>Charles would tell elaborate stories to his family and friends "for the pure
>pleasure of attracting attention & surprise", including hoaxes such as
>pretending to find apples he'd hidden earlier, and *downright lies* such as
>what he later called the "monstrous fable" which persuaded his friend that
>the colour of primula flowers could be changed by dosing them with special
>water. However, his father benignly ignored these passing games, and Charles
>later recounted that he stopped them because no-one paid any attention.
I don't suppose it was an accident that you left out the mention of
his age at the time : eight. He played clever tricks on his friends at
age eight.
>In
>his teen years, Darwin was described by his father as "only caring for
>shooting, dogs, and rat-catching." He frequently collected things; bugs,
>coins, shells, so on.
His father apparently thought his teenage son was full of frivolous
pursuits, i.e. acting like a teenager.
>His father was also noted as saying his son would
>"mess up the house with everlasting rubbish."
The page you cite doesn't have this quote on it. Perhaps the place you
actually found it contained too much inconvenient information for you
to risk linking to it?
>Child hood psychosis!
Now I have to assume you have no connection with teenagers at all. If
"messing up the house" was a sign of childhood psychosis my 13 year
old could be the subject of a university study.
> his mother had frequently been ill and her available time taken up by
>social duties, so his upbringing had largely been in the hands of his three
>older sisters.
>THAT sure explains alot!
Sisters! Yecccchhh!
>an older sister ruled that "it was
>not right to kill insects" for his collections, and he had to find dead
>ones.
And your point is?
>Shoots dogs and kills insects. Not much respect for the life he was trying
>to explain eh?
He was not trying to explain anything about life at the time. As far
as the "shooting dogs" goes, I suggest two things:
1. Get reading glasses. Some of the little marks on the page are quite
important.
And 2. Think a little. "Shooting dogs"? Does that sound very likely to
you? I hear the English were rather fond of their dogs, and touchy
about them being killed. The problem is not so much that you missed a
comma, it's that your feverish zeal to find some way to discredit
science you blindly grab onto the most blatant nonsense.
>Charles was a diligent student, but too sensitive to the sight of blood. He
>failed being a doctor because of blood BUT, HERE IS THE FUNNY PART, "I am
>going to learn to stuff birds, from a blackamoor... he only charges one
>guinea, for an hour every day for two months". Darwin studied taxidermy! He
>has no problem removing the insides of dead animals, shooting dogs and
>killing insects, but failed medical school because he could not stand the
>sight of blood?!
He didn't shoot dogs. Other than that, I don't find any of the above
particularly odd or contradictory, but even if I did, people are are
often odd and contradictory. They seldom fit neatly into simplistic
categories. Get used to it.
>I see a pattern here.
Me too. "Human being". I'd go as far as to say "Interesting human
being with a curious and creative mind".
>Darwin meets nutball that was the REAL father of evolution:
>During their walks Grant expounded to Darwin his radical theory of homology,
>an extension of the idea of unity of plan in vogue in Paris at the time. He
>argued that all animals had similar organs differing only in complexity and,
>controversially, that this showed their common descent. he was troubled by
>Grant's atheism and could see that transmutation was far from respectable.
>And there ya have it folks. Darwin was not the father of evolution, but
>Grant was. And what was Grant? An Atheist.
If you read carefully, you'll see that Grant (according to the
article) *extended* ideas already in existence. Such is the usual
process of science.
>So just like we see above when "Charles would tell elaborate stories to his
>family and friends "for the pure pleasure of attracting attention &
>surprise", including hoaxes such as pretending to find apples he'd hidden
>earlier,
....when he was eight. And what's wrong with a practical joke, anyway?
A guy I used to work with put 75 cents in a soda machine one day, but
didn't press the dispense button. He waited. An hour or so later a
handyman was working in the lounge that the soda machine was in. My
friend went over to the machine, and with exaggerated precision and
concentration, gave a certain spot on the front of the machine three
quick raps with the heel of his hand. He then pressed the Coke button,
and voila, a soda came out. He left the room without saying anything.
The handyman spent the next ten minutes trying to figure out how to
hit the machine just right to get a free soda.
To me, that sort of harmless mischief is a sign of a fertile
imagination. I'll bet that's why the person who wrote the Wiki article
included that anecdote.
>it would seem he was also steeling someone else's theory on common
>descent
As far as I know, the idea of common descent preceded Darwin, going
back as far as ancient Greece. Natural Selection as an agent of change
was Darwin's most significant contribution. Building on the ideas of
others is the usual case in science, without which none of modern life
would exist.
>and just making up *downright lies* , "for the pure pleasure of
>attracting attention & surprise" and attention.
Read a little more. I think you'll find that Darwin would have done a
great deal less work if he was just making things up.
>Flash forward hundreds years latter and the real Darwin is still fooling
>people for the pure pleasure of attracting attention & surprise"
>
>How about THAT!
I'd say it is on a par with most of your posts; desperate to find any
chink in evolution, biology, science or, in this case, a personal flaw
in a scientist dead over a century, as if that would have any bearing
on modern science.
Greg Guarino
Mike Dworetsky
And once Satan (a horny devil who is usually portrayed nude with only his
little trident and a barbed tail and horns) sidles up behind you--real
close, mind--what happens next???
Andre Lieven
> Dave Oldridge wrote:
> >>> @bignews3.bellsouth.net:
>
> >>> [drivel snipped]
>
> >>> Whether he was an atheist or not has no bearing on the truth of the
> >>> propositions set forth. Just as your being an heretic in full
> >>> rebellion against God doesn't mean your science is wrong. It is
> >>> wrong because the EVIDENCE shows it to be wrong.
>
> >> The reasons WHY the nonsense was putforth is equally as important it
> >> determining the truth.
>
> > 1. Your labelling it nonsense does not make it nonsense.
> > 2. Your claim of personal omniscience is totally rejected.
>
> >> And what was Grant?
>
> >> Grant (the atheist) gave Darwin his ideas.
>
> >> Darwin was rich enough to leave his wife at home and spend much time
> >> traveling around. To do what? To take Grant's ideas and make up stuff
> >> (as he was well known for doing as a child) to write a book he never
> >> thought would gather so much fame.
>
> > Your lies are noted. The fact that you claim to be doing it as a
> > service to a god is rejected. That god is rejected and exorcised.
>
> > Did you have anything RELEVANT to say, or were you just doing your
> > father's bidding?
>
> Get behind me satan
Are you now claiming that both you and satan are gay ?
Andre
Andre Lieven
All of them; assmonkey really IS that stoopid.
Andre
johnetho...@yahoo.com
Translation: I got my ass kicked even worse than usual.
johnetho...@yahoo.com
> On Oct 27, 9:02 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Coma aside, what about the rest of it
>
> 50%.
>
> - Bob T.
Unfortunately a 50% increase from 0 is not very much.
johnetho...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> (M)-adman wrote:
> > John Harshman wrote:
> >> (M)-adman wrote:
> >>> John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> (M)-adman wrote:
> >>>>> John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> (M)-adman wrote:
> >>>>>>> John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>>>> (M)-adman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Uriel wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> messagenews:_DqNk.1467$%11....@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
That would involve telling the truth, which is against his principles
and might get him in trouble with his master Satan.
(M)-adman
This coming from a grown man that dresses up and plays Star Trek.
nothing new from you
(M)-adman
Lookie here! My two favorite k00ks slurping each others butts!
--
This has been another:
"helping the evolutionist' to understand" moment, with:
Dave Oldridge
@bignews4.bellsouth.net:
Whyever would he do that when you're inviting him in the front door and
offering your soul for nothing?
Andre Lieven
Lots of people dress up; Its almost Halloween.
But, I merely run and MC a masquerade, so I must decline the
honour of being a costume particpant.
Thanks for showing that your grasp on facts is utterly
fictional in every area that you make claims about.
> nothing new from you
<Massive Empty Skulled Loon Projection>
You make Brad Guth appear sane by comparison.
In any case, not one of your claims on Darwin or
evolution are at all correct or even close. Thats a fact.
Andre
Robert Carnegie
> As a young child Charles Darwin avidly collected animal shells, postal
> franks, bird's eggs and minerals. Young Charles was influenced by his
> father's fashionable interest in natural history. Already showing a
> disconnect to reality.
On the contrary, the natural world outside your home /is/ "reality".
> Charles would tell elaborate stories to his family and friends "for the pure
> pleasure of attracting attention & surprise", including hoaxes such as
> pretending to find apples he'd hidden earlier, and *downright lies* such as
> what he later called the "monstrous fable" which persuaded his friend that
> the colour of primula flowers could be changed by dosing them with special
> water. However, his father benignly ignored these passing games, and Charles
> later recounted that he stopped them because no-one paid any attention.In
> his teen years, Darwin was described by his father as "only caring for
> shooting, dogs, and rat-catching." He frequently collected things; bugs,
> coins, shells, so on. His father was also noted as saying his son would
> "mess up the house with everlasting rubbish." Child hood psychosis!
Normal child behaviour, I think. Which presumably you haven't ever
seen since you grew up yourself. (If you are an adult. No shame if
you are actually not an adult. I'm sure you're doing your best.)
And I think "Monstrous" merely refers to magnitude, size.
> his mother had frequently been ill and her available time taken up by
> social duties, so his upbringing had largely been in the hands of his three
> older sisters. THAT sure explains alot! an older sister ruled that "it was
> not right to kill insects" for his collections, and he had to find dead
> ones.
>
> Shoots dogs and kills insects. Not much respect for the life he was trying
> to explain eh?
>
> Charles was a diligent student, but too sensitive to the sight of blood. He
> failed being a doctor because of blood BUT, HERE IS THE FUNNY PART, "I am
> going to learn to stuff birds, from a blackamoor... he only charges one
> guinea, for an hour every day for two months". Darwin studied taxidermy! He
> has no problem removing the insides of dead animals, shooting dogs and
> killing insects, but failed medical school because he could not stand the
> sight of blood?!
>
> I see a pattern here.
>
> Darwin meets nutball that was the REAL father of evolution:
> During their walks Grant expounded to Darwin his radical theory of homology,
> an extension of the idea of unity of plan in vogue in Paris at the time. He
> argued that all animals had similar organs differing only in complexity and,
> controversially, that this showed their common descent. he was troubled by
> Grant's atheism and could see that transmutation was far from respectable.
>
> And there ya have it folks. Darwin was not the father of evolution, but
> Grant was. And what was Grant? An Atheist.
>
> So just like we see above when "Charles would tell elaborate stories to his
> family and friends "for the pure pleasure of attracting attention &
> surprise", including hoaxes such as pretending to find apples he'd hidden
> earlier, it would seem he was also steeling someone else's theory on common
> descent and just making up *downright lies* , "for the pure pleasure of
> attracting attention & surprise" and attention.
>
> Flash forward hundreds years latter and the real Darwin is still fooling
> people for the pure pleasure of attracting attention & surprise"
>
> How about THAT!
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_education
Well, you can make Wikipedia say anything, for a while... I thought
this was leading up to declaring Darwin an atheist because he abused
animals. Which of course is refuted by observing that many religions
require the abuse of animals at frequent intervals, as sacrifices.
Incidentally, many of the interesting specimens from the voyage of the
Beagle were observed, killed, examined, and then eaten by the officers
and/or crew.
I can't remember if it was Darwin who was a member of a club that met
to eat as many unusual animals as possible, short of gluttony...
So why didn't your bloke write the flipping book then?
er...@swva.net
As long as you don't deny that he effectively rebutted you. Also,
while we're at it, you have never come up with a counter to the fact
that a scientist's personality is irrelevant to the validity of his
theory. To use Darwin's character as a rationalization for not
accepting evolution, and to attempt to trick others into not accepting
it, is a form of lying to yourself and others. To bring up his
character _at all_ is a form of deceit, since it is off topic.
Eric Root
er...@swva.net
> Dave Oldridge wrote:
I think it's pretty obvious to the Christians on this ng that Satan
is, in fact, behind the Madster.
Eric Root
Kermit
> "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> trolled:
>
> > As a young child Charles Darwin avidly collected animal shells, postal
> > franks, bird's eggs and minerals. Young Charles was influenced by his
> > father's fashionable interest in natural history. Already showing a
> > disconnect to reality.
>
For biblical literalists and other magical thinkers, natural history
distracts one from the "real reality". This reality of course can be
seen only thru the eyes of imagination, and confirmed by tag-teaming
those whose imagination (excuse, please, I mean divine revelations)
lead one to different obvious and eternal truths. Only out-shouting or
outfighting can establish which of many ephemeral and unverifiable
claims will endure.
>
> [irrelevant story and its misinterpretation deleted]
>
> > And there ya have it folks. Darwin was not the father of evolution,
> > but Grant was. And what was Grant? An Atheist.
>
> So, he was a smart person then.
>
> > Flash forward hundreds years latter and the real Darwin is still
> > fooling people for the pure pleasure of attracting attention &
> > surprise"
>
> Kinda like what you're doing, eh? :-D
>
> Sue
> --
> "It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
> make us what we are." - Red Green
Kermit
Tiny Bulcher
> is, in fact, behind the Madster.
Holding a large tube of lube and grinning like a maniac.
eerok
> þus cwæð er...@swva.net:
[...]
>> I think it's pretty obvious to the Christians on this ng
>> that Satan is, in fact, behind the Madster.
>
> Holding a large tube of lube and grinning like a maniac.
Satan = for sure no lube.
--
"No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."
Voltaire
Tiny Bulcher
> Tiny Bulcher wrote:
>> þus cwæð er...@swva.net:
>
> [...]
>
>>> I think it's pretty obvious to the Christians on this ng
>>> that Satan is, in fact, behind the Madster.
>>
>> Holding a large tube of lube and grinning like a maniac.
>
> Satan = for sure no lube.
Satan wants to have it easy. So, lube. But he doesn't want to his
victims to have it easy. So, his lube has chillies in it.