Darwin Did Drugs?
DrSilence1488
In reading biographies of him, yes he regularly dosed himself with morphine,
though I doubt he was an addict. Brother Erasmus was indeed heroine addict.
AC
You are awrare, aren't you, that we know this is your sockpuppet?
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
Pip R. Lagenta
I heard that Jesus was a wino.
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
---
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
Ross Langerak
"DrSilence1488" <drsile...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031212195721...@mb-m10.aol.com...
Assuming that is true, what does it mean for the theory of evolution?
Michael Gray
>though I doubt he was an addict. Brother Erasmus was indeed heroine addict.
" heroine addict."!
I'm pretty sure he was a hero addict as well.
John Wilkins
Now this is total and utter bullshit. Neither Chas nor Ras were drug
addicts. I have never seen any mention of this in any biography, so
you're going to have to back that up. Since I have nearly every
biography written about him since 1960, I can check your claims. Of
course, if you can't, then you must be lying, right? I wonder what God
might think of those who lie...
--
John Wilkins
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?
wilkins.id.au
Lenny Flank
So was Edgar Allen Poe.
Jimmy Swaggert screwed hookers, and Jim Bakker was a thief. <shrug>
BFD.
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Mitchell Coffey
(DrSilence1488) wrote:
Which biographies? Which pages?
Mitchell Coffey
DrSilence1488
DrSilence1488 <drsile...@aol.com> wrote:
> Darwin did drugs SolaTheist>>
>
> In reading biographies of him, yes he regularly dosed himself with morphine,
> though I doubt he was an addict. Brother Erasmus was indeed heroin addict.
Now this is total and utter bullsh*t. Neither Chas nor Ras were drug
addicts. I have never seen any mention of this in any biography, so
you're going to have to back that up. Welkins>>
Read Desmond & Moore. Several mention of Charles dosing himself with morphine
(et al) . Also, much made of brother Erasmus' addiction, there.
ReidRover
Ok have access to the book can you give me a page number or even a chapter?
ReidRover
>Date: 12/13/2003 12:02 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <20031213030701...@mb-m18.aol.com>
>
>>
>>From: drsile...@aol.com (DrSilence1488)
>>Date: 12/12/2003 11:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <20031213024021...@mb-m28.aol.com>
>>
>>
>>DrSilence1488 <drsile...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Darwin did drugs SolaTheist>>
>>>
>>> In reading biographies of him, yes he regularly dosed himself with
>>morphine,
>>> though I doubt he was an addict. Brother Erasmus was indeed heroin addict.
>>
Come to think of it Heroin was first prepared in around 1874 according to the
CDC..that would have been an astounding feat for Erasmus, to be an addict as he
died in 1802..ah the wonders of creationist study
(discovered by C.R. Wright 1874.St Mary's Hospital ,London)
Andrew Arensburger
I figure this means he couldn't stop reading Harlequin romances.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Where am I? Where am I going? And what am I doing in this handbasket?
Michael Gray
<arensb.no-...@umd.edu> wrote:
>Michael Gray <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 00:52:55 +0000 (UTC), drsile...@aol.com
>> (DrSilence1488) wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>though I doubt he was an addict. Brother Erasmus was indeed heroine addict.
>
>> " heroine addict."!
>> I'm pretty sure he was a hero addict as well.
>
> I figure this means he couldn't stop reading Harlequin romances.
I have it from the same impeccable sources that Miss DrSilence1480
uses, that Erasmus was a "Mills-and-Boon" man.
It's a little known fact that it was Charles who had the Harlequin
novels stashed under the his death bed (on which he did not recant).
Ernest Major
<reid...@aol.com> writes
>
>Come to think of it Heroin was first prepared in around 1874 according to the
>CDC..that would have been an astounding feat for Erasmus, to be an addict as he
>died in 1802..ah the wonders of creationist study
>
nor uncle, nor grandson. If I read Desmond and Moore correctly, Erasmus
Darwin, the brother, died in 1881.
There's no entries for "addiction", "heroin" or "morphine", or even for
"laudanum", in the index of Desmond and Moore; I can't in general speak
for sub-entries. There's a reference to page 659 for the prescription of
morphia pills for pain, for a condition diagnosed as angina, after a
seizure, within the last two months of his life. It doesn't appear to be
stated that he took them, but it's not an unreasonable assumption.
--
alias Ernest Major
Justin Emalius
They don't call him Rush for nothing you know!
--
That is all.
Justin Emalius
stew dean
> Darwin did drugs SolaTheist>>
>
> In reading biographies of him, yes he regularly dosed himself with morphine,
> though I doubt he was an addict. Brother Erasmus was indeed heroine addict.
And Newton was an Alchemist.
Darwin was responsible for allowing children of all religions to be
taught in his local school.
So what difference does this make to evolution? None.
If Darwin never existed someone else would be the father of evolution.
Ditto Newton and gravity etc. It's best to seperate out the person
from the subject. After all we don't call those who accept gravity
Newtonists do we? (well maybe somewhere they do)
Stew Dean
Nancy Kroohs
> DrSilence1488 wrote:
> > Darwin did drugs SolaTheist>>
> >
> > In reading biographies of him, yes he regularly dosed himself with morphine,
> > though I doubt he was an addict. Brother Erasmus was indeed heroine addict.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> So was Edgar Allen Poe.
>
> Jimmy Swaggert screwed hookers, and Jim Bakker was a thief. <shrug>
>
> BFD.
>
More to the point, Isaac Newton was an antisocial, misogynistic,
mercury-poisoned paranoid nutcase, but that doesn't mean that apples
actually fall upwards.
Nancy
Sarah Berel-Harrop
"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VxWZaLAXRv2$Ew...@meden.demon.co.uk...
the official biographies are suppressing it!
John Wilkins
Ras was thought to be the wastrel, in that he never had a profession or
career, but as far as I know his greatest vice was port.
Louis
Ok then, I have evidence from the BIBLE that JESUS was a DRUG DEALER
and SWORE regularly! How's that "Dr" Silence? (Dr!! Ha ha ha, have you
any idea what it takes to REALLY earn the title Dr I ask? Anyway I
digress...)
First of all Jesus the Dealer:
* He travelled with 12 burly geezers everywhere he went, and was
"friendly" with prostitues (probably had 'em on skag to make them work
for him, the pimping messiah!).
* He supposedly fed 500 people with two small loaves and five small
fishes (or something similar), the bible leaves out the enormous bag
of amphetamine sulphate he used to help suppress their appetites.
* The water into wine was a bit of an obvious give away!
Jesus the Potty Mouth:
* Jesus was a carpenter. Has anyone known a chippy to come on site in
the morning and his first words NOT be "Alright! Which one of you
f*cking c*nts has stolen my f*cking paper?"? No, I thought not.
* Jesus supposedly walked on water. Are you seriously asking people to
believe he did not turn around to the assembled apostles and say "F*ck
me, I've only gone and f*cking well done it!". No I thought that was a
bit too far to go too.
* The Romans nailed him to a bit of wood. Now what did Jesus say? Was
it "F-F-F-F-F-F-F-Forgive them father, they know not what they do!"?
No, I doubt it. If someone nailed YOU to a bit of wood I would imagine
that the air would be blue.
(With humble apologies to the Mark Thomas Comedy Product, for knowing
plagiarism of the above)
So you see Silence (for I will not call you Dr, it's a title you have
neither earnt in real life nor warranted by your conduct here) we too
can make silly things up to try to prove silly points.
What you have failed to understand and respond to in any rational
fashion is the serious points made by many posters about the issues
you raise in your dribblings of inanity. The theory of evolution would
stand as strong today if Darwin were a crack smoking, paedophilic,
baby murderering, racist, wife beating, turd gobbling, Bush supporting
lunatic. It wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference to the
SCIENCE. It might mean that people didn't think very highly of him as
a MAN, but as a SCIENTIST his work was excellent, and this is well
documented. Sadly for you this is one death blow to your idiocy. The
other death blow is that he was not a bad man in the sense you are
trying to portray. He was a decent chap by all documented accounts,
and if he did things that we today see as slightly socially awkward
then remember that judging one culture (for it was a different
culture) by the whims of our own is foolish in the extreme. Let us
hope that future historians are as kind to our foolish ways as we
should be to the foolish ways of previous eras.
Anyway, since I doubt that a substansive response to this post, or
indeed any other, is either within your paltry capabilities or likely
to be forthcoming, I shall cease to deal with you.
Louis
Wakboth
>
> In reading biographies of him, yes he regularly dosed himself with morphine,
> though I doubt he was an addict. Brother Erasmus was indeed heroine addict.
Considering that in Darwin's lifetime, the best painkillers available
were various derivatives of opium and morphine, I wouldn't be
surprised if he had taken morphine at some point of his life. (Okay,
there was salisylic acid since 1838, but it was hell on the stomach,
and although acetylsalisylic acid was discovered in 1859, it only came
onto the market in 1889.)
And finally, so what?
Theory of evolution stands or falls on evidence, not on Darwin. And it
has stood one and half a century, despite everything, and has only
become stronger, more precise and more accepted. It's not going to
fall in your lifetime, or your "daughter's" so despair.
-- Wakboth
DrSilence1488
>>> In reading biographies of him, yes he regularly dosed himself with
>>morphine,
>>> though I doubt he was an addict. Brother Erasmus was indeed heroin addict.
>>
Come to think of it Heroin was first prepared in around 1874 according to the
CDC..that would have been an astounding feat for Erasmus, to be an addict as he
died in 1802..ah the wonders of creationist study riedrover>>
Retreating into fantasy, Evolutionism now tells us that Charles Darwin's
brother Erasmus died in 1802.
caerbannog
> Darwin did drugs SolaTheist>>
........
I know that spelling-flames are frowned upon here, but I
think that you mis-spelled "Rush".
Arne Vogel
Port Lauderdale?
Arne Vogel
> There's a reference to page 659 for the prescription of
> morphia pills for pain, for a condition diagnosed as angina, after a
> seizure, within the last two months of his life.
There you have it! He was a typical heroin junkie, which makes his
brother's theory from 20 years earlier *bunk*!
Arne Vogel
CD's paternal grandfather was called Erasmus, too, "Dr." Silence, and
he's a bit more widely known. That may have to do with the fact that
Charles' brother did not have much of an effect on history.
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus_Darwin
Had you actually said "His brother Erasmus", chances would have been
that other persons understood whom you mean. "Brother Erasmus" may well
be taken as a quip on your (invalid) equation of evolutionary theory
with a religion.
Matt Silberstein
(DrSilence1488):
Dishonest, ignorant, and nasty. You have the hit the trifecta.
AC
As someone else pointed out, Newton was one mean son-of-a-bitch. His later
years showed spectacular avarice.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
Lenny Flank
> DrSilence1488 wrote:
>
>>Darwin did drugs SolaTheist>>
>>
>>In reading biographies of him, yes he regularly dosed himself with
>>morphine, though I doubt he was an addict. Brother Erasmus was indeed
>>heroine addict.
>
>
> They don't call him Rush for nothing you know!
>
How many members of the Bush family have been in drug/alcohol rehab now
. . . .?
Ernest Major
<s...@hal-pc.org> writes
>> There's no entries for "addiction", "heroin" or "morphine", or even for
>> "laudanum", in the index of Desmond and Moore; I can't in general speak
>> morphia pills for pain, for a condition diagnosed as angina, after a
>> stated that he took them, but it's not an unreasonable assumption.
>
I failed to take sufficient account of the misdirection as well of the
equivocation. "Opium" is in the index. There's two or three mentions of
Charles taking opium medicinally; and two mentions of opium in
connection with Erasmus Alvey "Ras" Darwin which could easily be read,
at least sans context, as recreational use.
--
alias Ernest Major
Mujin
Personally I reject the Newtonist fallacy in favour of pushy-pully
gremlins of minuscule size.
--
Kevyn Winkless kevyn at the-winkless.net
Commit a sin twice and it will not seem a crime.
Jewish Saying
Louann Miller
*sigh*
Charles Darwin's brother Erasmus was named after their grandfather
Erasmus, who was a famous proto-scientist in his own right. I hate to
oppress you with foreign customs, but around here people gain
credibility by knowing what the hell they're talking about.
Louann
Louann Miller
Kroohs) wrote:
>Isaac Newton was an antisocial, misogynistic,
>mercury-poisoned paranoid nutcase, but that doesn't mean that apples
>actually fall upwards.
bang it goes straight into the tagline file.
Louann
Dale
news:uvimtv8phkd6d6uu4...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:02:20 +0000 (UTC),
> ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote:
>
> >drsile...@aol.com (DrSilence1488) wrote in message
news:<20031212195721...@mb-m10.aol.com>...
> >> Darwin did drugs SolaTheist>>
> >>
> >> In reading biographies of him, yes he regularly dosed himself with
morphine,
> >> though I doubt he was an addict. Brother Erasmus was indeed heroine
addict.
> >
> >And Newton was an Alchemist.
> >
> >Darwin was responsible for allowing children of all religions to be
> >taught in his local school.
> >
> >So what difference does this make to evolution? None.
> >
> >If Darwin never existed someone else would be the father of evolution.
> >Ditto Newton and gravity etc. It's best to seperate out the person
> >from the subject. After all we don't call those who accept gravity
> >Newtonists do we? (well maybe somewhere they do)
> >
> Personally I reject the Newtonist fallacy in favour of pushy-pully
> gremlins of minuscule size.
Teach the controversy!
Mujin
Perhaps I should write to the school board and demand equal time <g>
--
Kevyn Winkless kevyn at the-winkless.net
"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the
sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of
necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be
against God, he would accept them."
--Martin Luther [1483 --- 1546]
DrSilence1488
I failed to take sufficient account of the misdirection as well of the
equivocation. "Opium" is in the index. There's two or three mentions of
Charles taking opium medicinally; and two mentions of opium in
connection with Erasmus Alvey "Ras" Darwin which could easily be read,
at least sans context, as recreational use.
Ernst Major
>>
I didn't read the index, but the entire book. My recollection, too, is in the
section when brother Erasmus is going out with Harriet Martineau, that the
other Darwins are worried about Erasmus' opium addiction.
Boris the Spider
DrSilence1488 wrote:
> Darwin did drugs SolaTheist>>
>
> In reading biographies of him, yes he regularly dosed himself with morphine,
> though I doubt he was an addict. Brother Erasmus was indeed heroine addict.
And you are a spectacular example that the "designer" was far from intelligent.
But your point is what, now???
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by drsile...@aol.com
(DrSilence1488):
<snip>
>Brother Erasmus was indeed heroine addict.
Quite a few of us are. Nicole Kidman, for instance.
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
John Wilkins
Browne's first volume _Voyaging_ lists his initial treatments
- 1834 on voyage, clomel (mercurous chloride)
- 1840 - same, and "the ubiquitous "blue pill" of British medicine
boxes, an opium-based mixture which had a stimulating and usually
purgative effect on the intestines and liver" (p426)
Browne's second volume, _Power of Place_ lists some of the medications
Darwin took -
1864
- Condy's Ionized Fluid (soda water)
- Podophyllum (a drastic purgative - it is used nowadays for removing
warts by painting it on the wart)
- A mixture of chalk, magnesia and carb (bicarb?) of ammonia (p228)
- Nicotine, in the form of snuff (p234)
- Antacids (p244)
1865
- treated by diet and exercise
1873
- strychnine and iodine (p400)
No other mentions occur of any drugs.
Ras is mentioned as an opium user on page 286 of Desmond and Moore, and
again on p646. On p334, Charles is mentioned as taking opium pills in
1845 when feeling sick, presumably the same blue pills mentioned above.
Again, in 1847 (p347) Charles is mentioned as taking opium and bismuth
as medications.
As he was dying in 1882 (p660-662)), he is mentioned to have taken amyl
nitrate as an anti-spasmodic (and presumably as an anginal treatment),
and then the opium tablet above.
I think it is pretty clear that
1. I was wrong about Ras - he was an opium addict
2. Charles never took opium except as a medication, as was the custom of
the day. He was certainly not addicted to it, as he is not mentioned as
taking it regularly. Presumably, he could see what it did to Ras.
It is noteworthy that drugs in medicine were a lot less regulated in
those days (hell, in my youth I was able to buy some pretty dangerous
chemicals from the pharmacist without adult permission, and despite
vicious rumors, I am not that old). Opium was not regulated until the
20thC. He certainly never took heroin, but might have been prescribed a
morphiate occasionally, we don't have the records. The evidence is
against it.
Incidentally, I was given morphine once, medically. So far as I know, I
am not an addict either.
Johnny Bravo
<morbiu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 00:52:55 +0000 (UTC), drsile...@aol.com
>(DrSilence1488) wrote:
>
>>Darwin did drugs SolaTheist>>
>>
>>In reading biographies of him, yes he regularly dosed himself with morphine,
>>though I doubt he was an addict. Brother Erasmus was indeed heroine addict.
>
>I heard that Jesus was a wino.
All the powers of a god and his first miracle was turning water into
wine. He could have been out there healing the sick, letting the
blind see, letting the lame walk, but no; he had to be a big hit at a
party.
--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft
Dana Tweedy
"Johnny Bravo" <nos...@no.com> wrote in message
news:5mcntvoijhbn74vm9...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 01:51:34 +0000 (UTC), "Pip R. Lagenta"
> <morbiu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 00:52:55 +0000 (UTC), drsile...@aol.com
> >(DrSilence1488) wrote:
> >
> >>Darwin did drugs SolaTheist>>
> >>
> >>In reading biographies of him, yes he regularly dosed himself with
morphine,
> >>though I doubt he was an addict. Brother Erasmus was indeed heroine
addict.
> >
> >I heard that Jesus was a wino.
>
> All the powers of a god and his first miracle was turning water into
> wine. He could have been out there healing the sick, letting the
> blind see, letting the lame walk, but no; he had to be a big hit at a
> party.
All the other Gods' kids were doing it.
DJT
Ernest Major
<wil...@wehi.edu.au> writes
>
>Ras is mentioned as an opium user on page 286 of Desmond and Moore, and
>again on p646. On p334, Charles is mentioned as taking opium pills in
>1845 when feeling sick, presumably the same blue pills mentioned above.
>Again, in 1847 (p347) Charles is mentioned as taking opium and bismuth
>as medications.
>
>As he was dying in 1882 (p660-662)), he is mentioned to have taken amyl
>nitrate as an anti-spasmodic (and presumably as an anginal treatment),
>and then the opium tablet above.
>
>I think it is pretty clear that
>
>1. I was wrong about Ras - he was an opium addict
I don't find the statements in Desmond and Moore to be completely clear
on this point (short of rereading more of the context), especially
compared to the bald statement in respect of one of his Wedgewood
uncles. However the following URL is pretty clear
<URL:http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7569_pr93_1032001__moore_
correct_10_3_2001.asp>
--
alias Ernest Major
mel turner
>Justin Emalius wrote:
>> DrSilence1488 wrote:
>>
>>>Darwin did drugs SolaTheist>>
>>>
>>>In reading biographies of him, yes he regularly dosed himself with
>>>morphine, though I doubt he was an addict. Brother Erasmus was indeed
>>>heroine addict.
>> They don't call him Rush for nothing you know!
>
>How many members of the Bush family have been in drug/alcohol rehab now
>. . . .?
Are there any that should be, but aren't?
cheers
DrSilence1488
1. I was wrong about Ras - he was an opium addict
2. Charles never took opium except as a medication, as was the custom of
Basically as I said at outset of this thread. Especially, that Charles appeared
not to be an addict. In reviewing numerous replies to my several posts, am
starting to notice which (very few) posters are intelligent and reasonable.
You, Ernest Major, and few others, come to mind. Most claim that I am some
absurd "troll", instead of a man of science and who has read all the works of
Darwin, as well as his grandfather Erasmus.
In that byone day, opiates and their administering figured largely in the
Darwin line, more than many might realize. It appears likely that Erasmus (the
grandfather) killed his wife with a knowing overdose. Perhaps euthanasia. Also
that Robert Darwin (the father of Charles) killed his wife (Darwin's mother) in
much the same way. Anyone who has read much of Charles Darwin will realize that
there was "something", some missing dimension in the death of his mother, which
he was never able to fully understand nor come to terms with. A researcher, at
depth, of the biographies, diaries, and publications of all the Darwins will
understand why the above conclusions were arrived at.
Mitchell Coffey
> >> There's no entries for "addiction", "heroin" or "morphine", or even for
> >> "laudanum", in the index of Desmond and Moore Poster ??>>
>
> I failed to take sufficient account of the misdirection as well of the
> equivocation. "Opium" is in the index. There's two or three mentions of
> Charles taking opium medicinally; and two mentions of opium in
> connection with Erasmus Alvey "Ras" Darwin which could easily be read,
> at least sans context, as recreational use.
> Ernst Major
> >>
>
> I didn't read the index, but the entire book.
This seems unlikely, you get so much of Darwin's history wrong.
> My recollection, too, is in the
> section when brother Erasmus is going out with Harriet Martineau, that the
> other Darwins are worried about Erasmus' opium addiction.
Your claim was that "Brother Erasmus was indeed heroin addict." You
also claimed that Charles Darwin "regularly dosed himself with
morphine." You seem to have no evidence for that, either. I have the
book, name the pages.
Mitchell Coffey
Pip R. Lagenta
Clue:
<http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem>
<http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html>
<http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ad%20hominem>
<http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/adhomine.html>
Drift:
<http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/inforfal.html>
<http://www2.sjsu.edu/faculty/carranza/study6.htm>
<http://www.beige.org/~gltweasl/fallacy.html>
<http://www.lawrence.edu/dept/philosophy/research/ryckmant/duff_on_fallacies.htm>
If you can't get a clue, then at least get the drift.
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
---
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
John Wilkins
> I think it is pretty clear that
> 1. I was wrong about Ras - he was an opium addict
> 2. Charles never took opium except as a medication, as was the custom of
> the day. He was certainly not addicted John Wilkins>>
>
> Basically as I said at outset of this thread. Especially, that Charles
> appeared not to be an addict. In reviewing numerous replies to my several
> posts, am starting to notice which (very few) posters are intelligent and
> reasonable. You, Ernest Major, and few others, come to mind. Most claim
> that I am some absurd "troll", instead of a man of science and who has
> read all the works of Darwin, as well as his grandfather Erasmus.
You read "Loves of Plants" and "Zoonomia"? I rather doubt that. They
aren't in a modern edition, and all there is I know of is King-Hele's
anthology.
By the way, I listed the *opium* uses of Ras and Charles. You said they
were *heroin* addicts. You also implied Charles' work was influenced by
drugs. If I have taken morphine in hospital, and do published work (and
I have), is my work therefore influenced by drugs? Certainly I did not
suffer the pain of surgical removal of my wisdom teeth, but I doubt it
adds a "missing influence" to my ideas on evolution or philosophy.
>
> In that byone day, opiates and their administering figured largely in the
> Darwin line, more than many might realize. It appears likely that Erasmus
> (the grandfather) killed his wife with a knowing overdose. Perhaps
> euthanasia. Also that Robert Darwin (the father of Charles) killed his
> wife (Darwin's mother) in much the same way. Anyone who has read much of
> Charles Darwin will realize that there was "something", some missing
> dimension in the death of his mother, which he was never able to fully
> understand nor come to terms with. A researcher, at depth, of the
> biographies, diaries, and publications of all the Darwins will understand
> why the above conclusions were arrived at.
I have not heard of these extraordinary claims. Please back them up.
Ross Langerak
"DrSilence1488" <drsile...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031213230534...@mb-m13.aol.com...
Again, assuming this is true, what does it mean for the theory of
evolution?
Ross Langerak
>
> DrSilence1488 <drsile...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Darwin did drugs SolaTheist>>
> >
> > In reading biographies of him, yes he regularly dosed himself with
morphine,
addict.
>
> Now this is total and utter bullsh*t. Neither Chas nor Ras were drug
> addicts. I have never seen any mention of this in any biography, so
> you're going to have to back that up. Welkins>>
>
> Read Desmond & Moore. Several mention of Charles dosing himself with
morphine
> (et al) . Also, much made of brother Erasmus' addiction, there.
Again, assuming this is true, what does it mean for the theory of
evolution?
Ross Langerak
>
> >>> In reading biographies of him, yes he regularly dosed himself
with
> >>morphine,
> >>> though I doubt he was an addict. Brother Erasmus was indeed
heroin addict.
> >>
>
according to the
> CDC..that would have been an astounding feat for Erasmus, to be an
addict as he
>
> Retreating into fantasy, Evolutionism now tells us that Charles
Darwin's
> brother Erasmus died in 1802.
Again, assuming this is true, what does it mean for the theory of
evolution?
Ross Langerak
Again, assuming this is true, what does it mean for the theory of
evolution?
ReidRover
>Date: 12/13/2003 7:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <20031213101636...@mb-m10.aol.com>
>
>
>>>> In reading biographies of him, yes he regularly dosed himself with
>>>morphine,
>>>> though I doubt he was an addict. Brother Erasmus was indeed heroin
>addict.
>>>
>
>Come to think of it Heroin was first prepared in around 1874 according to the
>CDC..that would have been an astounding feat for Erasmus, to be an addict as
>he
>died in 1802..ah the wonders of creationist study riedrover>>
>
>Retreating into fantasy, Evolutionism now tells us that Charles Darwin's
>brother Erasmus died i
No Dr Erasmus Darwin , who i thought you were referring too with an under the
table "evolution is religion" quip with the Brother with a capital "B", died in
1802. So i see you meant Erasmus , Charles brother, without the capital "B".
Ah well lets have the references..and I mean page numbers from Desmonds and
Moores book..if you have read it.
mel turner
rlan...@earthlink.net wrote...
Obviously, if it's true, then Darwin was a sometime drug user who was
right about evolution, as is amply shown by the scientific evidence,
both available then and acquired since.
And if he'd been a horribly disgusting, drunken person who regularly
beat his wife and liked to kick puppies, he'd have been a vile,
drunken, wife-beating, puppy-kicking guy who was right about evolution.
cheers
Eric Gill
news:20031213230534...@mb-m13.aol.com:
<snip>
> Most claim that I am some
> absurd "troll", instead of a man of science and who has read all the
> works of Darwin, as well as his grandfather Erasmus.
Probably because you *act* like a loony, absurd Creationist propogandist
troll.
You'll want to change that behavior if you want different treatment.
<snip>
Cheezits
> drsile...@aol.com (DrSilence1488) wrote in
> news:20031213230534...@mb-m13.aol.com:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Most claim that I am some
Then post a f***ing SCIENTIFIC discussion of EVOLUTION like I politely
suggested. Or get your daughter to dictate one to you. You're obsessed
with Darwin. Darwin did this, Darwin did that. Sheeeeeesh.
> Probably because you *act* like a loony, absurd Creationist propogandist
> troll.
So it's all an act!
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Roadrunner
> Darwin did drugs SolaTheist>>
>
> In reading biographies of him, yes he regularly dosed himself with
morphine,
addict.
>
>
>
Nothing new under the sun, Sigmund Freud was also addicted and this at the
same time as he thought up his famous theories, great!
Ernest Major
<drsile...@aol.com> writes
>
>Basically as I said at outset of this thread. Especially, that Charles appeared
>not to be an addict. In reviewing numerous replies to my several posts, am
>starting to notice which (very few) posters are intelligent and reasonable.
>You, Ernest Major, and few others, come to mind. Most claim that I am some
>absurd "troll", instead of a man of science and who has read all the works of
>Darwin, as well as his grandfather Erasmus.
>
Within this thread you have equivocated between medicinal and
recreational use of drugs, and between opium and morphine; you made a
probable error in your reference to heroine (sic); you've engaged in ad
hominem and guilt by association; you may have intentionally sown
confusion between the first (notable) Erasmus Darwin and Charles'
brother; you've probably misrepresented the amount of material about
Erasmus's opium use in Desmond and Moore. You've also falsely implied
that I haven't read that book.
Elsewhere in this newgroups your participation is most notable for
fables about your putative daughter, for bearing false witness against
Charles Darwin, and for a lack of substantive comment on the evidence or
the issues.
This is not the behaviour of a man of science. If you are one,
implausible at that seems, then you abandoned that role when you sat
down at your keyboard.
Your behaviour does not necessarily make you a troll; trollishness, as I
use the term, depends on motivation as well as behaviour. There are
other, similarly discreditable, explanations for your posting record.
For example, you could be a person concerned about the threat to
education, the economy and civil rights posed by the creationist
movement, trying to discredit that movement by pretending to be a
dishonest creationist (in which case your would be ethically wrong, and
tactically mistaken). But this is an unconvincing explanation; it is
unlikely that such a person would think that this is best strategy he
could follow.
[Four other alternative hypotheses omitted.]
Regardless, you have earned the responses you have garnered. Any
politeness shown is for the lurkers, and only incidentally to yourself.
--
alias Ernest Major
Bobby D. Bryant
> Darwin did drugs SolaTheist>>
>
> In reading biographies of him, yes he regularly dosed himself with
> morphine, though I doubt he was an addict. Brother Erasmus was indeed
> heroine addict.
If Newton was a head, would you reject the reality of gravity?
IMO the best argument against creationism is the lameness of the arguments
creationists offer to support their views. If you happen to have a good
argument, please cut to the chase.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Geoff Offermann
>
> In reading biographies of him, yes he regularly dosed himself with
morphine,
> though I doubt he was an addict. Brother Erasmus was indeed heroine
addict.
Yeah, so what. Sherlock Holmes was a coke junkie.
Morbert
> Darwin did drugs SolaTheist>>
>
> In reading biographies of him, yes he regularly dosed himself with morphine,
> though I doubt he was an addict. Brother Erasmus was indeed heroine addict.
Creationism is not a scientific theory. When you understand that, we'll
reply with something different than this post.
Stelios Zacharias
<rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"DrSilence1488" <drsile...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20031212195721...@mb-m10.aol.com...
>> Darwin did drugs SolaTheist>>
>>
>> In reading biographies of him, yes he regularly dosed himself with
>morphine,
>> though I doubt he was an addict. Brother Erasmus was indeed heroine
>addict.
>
>Assuming that is true, what does it mean for the theory of evolution?
My maths teacher taught me that the sum of the squares of the
sides of a right angled triangle is equal to the square of the
hypotenuse. If he had been an abuser of hard drugs, would this
make the Pythagoras Theorem a bad theory?
What if Pythagoras himself could be shown to have been a crazy
heroin addict?
Stelios Zacharias
--
The address in the headers is real and does not need de-mungeing
Mujin
<goatskin...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 02:11:19 +0000 (UTC), "Ross Langerak"
><rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"DrSilence1488" <drsile...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:20031212195721...@mb-m10.aol.com...
>>> Darwin did drugs SolaTheist>>
>>>
>>> In reading biographies of him, yes he regularly dosed himself with
>>morphine,
>>> though I doubt he was an addict. Brother Erasmus was indeed heroine
>>addict.
>>
>>Assuming that is true, what does it mean for the theory of evolution?
>
>My maths teacher taught me that the sum of the squares of the
>sides of a right angled triangle is equal to the square of the
>hypotenuse. If he had been an abuser of hard drugs, would this
>make the Pythagoras Theorem a bad theory?
>
>What if Pythagoras himself could be shown to have been a crazy
>heroin addict?
Better yet, how about if he was a crazed cultist?
http://www.angelfire.com/weird2/andstrife/bios/pythagoras.html
--
K
"I meant," said Ipslore bitterly, "what is there in this world that truly makes living worth while?"
Death thought about it "Cats," he said eventually, "Cats are Nice."
--Terry Pratchett, Sourcery
DrSilence1488
Then, he should not be lionized nor held up as a beacon of virtue.
AC
Seamus Ma' Cleriec
> What if Pythagoras himself could be shown to have been a crazy
> heroin addict? goatkin>>
>
> Then, he should not be lionized nor held up as a beacon of virtue.
Who holds Darwin "as a beacon of virtue" ?
Seamus Ma' Cleriec
> Darwin did drugs SolaTheist>>
>
> In reading biographies of him, yes he regularly dosed himself with morphine,
> though I doubt he was an addict. Brother Erasmus was indeed heroine addict.
Heroin was created in 1874 and was originally marketed as a safe,
non-addictive substitute for morphine. Note that it was legal and
considered safe. So - how does morphine and heroin use relect on one's
morals, when, in accord with the times, the use of which was not
immoral ?
Note : the term Coca in "Coca-Cola" is due to the inclusion of cocaine
in early formulizations. The use of illicit drugs only came to be
considered immoral post WW1.
BTW - I have a "heroine" addict. I think Angleina Jolie (Lara Croft)
is quite a babe :-) .
Louann Miller
I'd be prepared to go as far as "a nicer guy than most, especially in
re racial attitudes compared to people of his own culture and
generation."
But even if he was Hannibal Lecter, what has that got to do with
whether he had his facts straight or not?
Mark Isaak
Ma' Cleriec) wrote:
Compared with creationists like McCoy, Roadrunner, and DrSilence1488,
Darwin's virtue was somewhere between saintlike and godlike.
--
Mark Isaak at...@earthlink.net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Nantko Schanssema
>On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:55:53 +0000 (UTC), zawa...@yahoo.com (Seamus
>Ma' Cleriec) wrote:
>
>>drsile...@aol.com (DrSilence1488) wrote in message news:<20031216223000...@mb-m18.aol.com>...
>>> What if Pythagoras himself could be shown to have been a crazy
>>> heroin addict? goatkin>>
>>>
>>> Then, he should not be lionized nor held up as a beacon of virtue.
>>
>>Who holds Darwin "as a beacon of virtue" ?
>
>Compared with creationists like McCoy, Roadrunner, and DrSilence1488,
>Darwin's virtue was somewhere between saintlike and godlike.
I'm nut sure that's a favourable comparison. Some gods aren't
particularly virtuous. Wouldn't know about saints...
regards,
Nantko
--
The invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike. (Delos McKown)
catshark
<loua...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:21:40 +0000 (UTC), Rena...@yahoo.com (Nancy
>Kroohs) wrote:
>
>>Isaac Newton was an antisocial, misogynistic,
>>mercury-poisoned paranoid nutcase, but that doesn't mean that apples
>>actually fall upwards.
>
>bang it goes straight into the tagline file.
>
>Louann
Why, it's so good, it could even be a sig file . . .
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Isaac Newton was an antisocial, misogynistic,
mercury-poisoned paranoid nutcase . . .
but that doesn't mean that apples fall upwards.
- Nancy Kroohs -
John Wilkins
> DrSilence1488 <drsile...@aol.com> wrote:
> > In that byone day, opiates and their administering figured largely in the
> > Darwin line, more than many might realize. It appears likely that Erasmus
> > (the grandfather) killed his wife with a knowing overdose. Perhaps
> > euthanasia. Also that Robert Darwin (the father of Charles) killed his
> > wife (Darwin's mother) in much the same way. Anyone who has read much of
> > Charles Darwin will realize that there was "something", some missing
> > dimension in the death of his mother, which he was never able to fully
> > understand nor come to terms with. A researcher, at depth, of the
> > biographies, diaries, and publications of all the Darwins will understand
> > why the above conclusions were arrived at.
>
> I have not heard of these extraordinary claims. Please back them up.
Are you planning to back this up, or are you just throwing out claims
out of your arse? I have read pretty much all the biographies, and
publications, as well as Darwin's Notebooks. It sounds like a
deliberately lie to me.
--
John Wilkins - wilkins.id.au
[I]magine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "...interesting
hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? ...
must have been made to have me in it." Douglas Adams, Salmon of Doubt
ReidRover
>Date: 12/17/2003 7:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <1g661qx.t1diu8klr5n9N%wil...@wehi.edu.au>
>
>John Wilkins <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote:
>> DrSilence1488 <drsile...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> > In that byone day, opiates and their administering figured largely in the
>> > Darwin line, more than many might realize. It appears likely that Erasmus
>> > (the grandfather) killed his wife with a knowing overdose. Perhaps
>> > euthanasia. Also that Robert Darwin (the father of Charles) killed his
>> > wife (Darwin's mother) in much the same way. Anyone who has read much of
>> > Charles Darwin will realize that there was "something", some missing
>> > dimension in the death of his mother, which he was never able to fully
>> > understand nor come to terms with. A researcher, at depth, of the
>> > biographies, diaries, and publications of all the Darwins will understand
>> > why the above conclusions were arrived at.
>>
>> I have not heard of these extraordinary claims. Please back them up.
>
>Are you planning to back this up, or are you just throwing out claims
>out of your arse? I have read pretty much all the biographies, and
>publications, as well as Darwin's Notebooks. It sounds like a
>deliberately lie to m
with euthanasia.
A reative of mine works in a Care facility dealing with dying people all the
time often a Doctor will prescribe morphine to help them at least be painfree
in their last hours..evil bastards those Doctors eh?
Grinder
"Nantko Schanssema" <nan...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:nak1uv8jeoiipgd54...@4ax.com...
> Mark Isaak <at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net>:
>
> >On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:55:53 +0000 (UTC), zawa...@yahoo.com (Seamus
> >Ma' Cleriec) wrote:
> >
> >>drsile...@aol.com (DrSilence1488) wrote in message
news:<20031216223000...@mb-m18.aol.com>...
> >>> What if Pythagoras himself could be shown to have been a crazy
> >>> heroin addict? goatkin>>
> >>>
> >>> Then, he should not be lionized nor held up as a beacon of virtue.
> >>
> >>Who holds Darwin "as a beacon of virtue" ?
> >
> >Compared with creationists like McCoy, Roadrunner, and DrSilence1488,
> >Darwin's virtue was somewhere between saintlike and godlike.
>
> I'm nut sure that's a favourable comparison. Some gods aren't
> particularly virtuous. Wouldn't know about saints...
Some of the popes look a little iffy:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_139.html
John Wilkins
We could start a double effect doctrine and really confuse him here.
Clearly he thinks that taking care of the dying is a crime against God's
will. Which tells us so much about his God...
ReidRover
>Date: 12/17/2003 9:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <1g666f3.4e6m3zzm4f3wN%wil...@wehi.edu.au>
Yeah everyone dying should be aurally assaulted by the shouting of the horrors
of hell which awaits them. And you wouldnt want to give dying folks drugs
heaven forbid they might get addicted !!!!
DrSilence1488
overdose. Perhaps euthanasia. Also that Robert Darwin (the father of Charles)
killed his wife (Darwin's mother) in much the same way. >>
Are you planning to back this up, or are you just throwing out claims
out of your arse? I have read pretty much all the biographies, and
publications, as well as Darwin's Notebooks. It sounds like a
deliberately lie to me. John welkins>>
Just as: most here also denied his brother Erasmus was an addict, until you
read much more closely. To arrive at above conclusions, you would need to read
much more deeply yet --all published biographies, including diaries, also
bearing in mind that earlier bio's were "sanitized". I do not make any claims
for light or transient reasons. And, yes, I have all the works of all the
Darwins (including Erasmus' "poetry"). A close comparison of Erasmus' poetry
also easily shows from whom he had plagiarized. If Gould had lived long enough,
very likely he would have "discovered" this and might have published that
subject.
Deaddog
Most claim that I am some
> absurd "troll", instead of a man of science and who has read all the works
of
> Darwin, as well as his grandfather Erasmus.
Well, DrSilence, you have to understand that irrespective of whether you are
a troll or not, your behavior has the same sort of 'hit and run' qualities
as a troll. That is, you never, ever substantively follow-up cogent replies
except in those instances where you think you might have scored a point (as
with Wilkins).
And I think this really demonstrates the power of the true scientific
approach, as opposed to your laughable interpretation of science and
pathetic and false mimicry of the scientific approach. John Wilkins, when
he realized he might be incorrect on a point, stated that he was likely
incorrect on a point. The discussion moved on. Facts were corrected.
Now, there are also remain any number of threads left hanging in which you
said something unbelievably stupid, were challenged on it, frequently in an
extremely reasonable fashion, and then just ... disappeared. You cannot
remotely support most of the false arguments that you toss about. They are
not true arguments. They are not attempts to engage scientists. They are
not starting points for discussion. They are either trolls, propaganda, or
the pent-up stupidity of a lifetime. Under any of these circumstances, you
shouldn't be particularly surprised that at least some people assume the
first option, that you are a troll. In some ways this is the most laudable
of the options available to you.
You see, DrSilence1488, in the real world, the world where people live and
breathe and work, your sort of propaganda does not go a very long way. Give
and take discussions are demanded of those who would advance scientific
arguments, whether in the peer-reviewed literature or in political venues.
When it came time to argue over 'challenges' to evolutionary fact and theory
in biology textbooks in Texas, many real scientists showed up at the
statehouse and presented their arguments for strongly teaching evolution.
Fewer Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates showed up, but one
interesting characteristic of their arguments was that they did not attempt
to engage the scientific community in discussion. They essentially babbled
much of the same propaganda that you do (only I must admit that they did it
much better; you really aren't very interesting for the most part). The
assembled scientists dealt with their propaganda head-on, by showing
point-by-point where and how it was wrong. And that was that. Evolution is
being taught, Intelligent Design and Creationism are not.
If you wish to have an impact beyond being a minor pimple on the rump end of
a newsgroup, then you will at some point have to take your propaganda into
the real world.
And we'll be there. Waiting. Every time.
Non-woof
gen2rev
(DrSilence1488) wrote in <20031218034053...@mb-m03.aol.com>:
So, are you going to back up your claim that Darwin's father and
grandfather killed their wives, or not?
Desertphile
<at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:55:53 +0000 (UTC), zawa...@yahoo.com (Seamus
> Ma' Cleriec) wrote:
> >drsile...@aol.com (DrSilence1488) wrote in message news:<20031216223000...@mb-m18.aol.com>...
> >> What if Pythagoras himself could be shown to have been a crazy
> >> heroin addict? goatkin>>
> >>
> >> Then, he should not be lionized nor held up as a beacon of virtue.
>> Who holds Darwin "as a beacon of virtue" ?
> Compared with creationists like McCoy, Roadrunner, and DrSilence1488,
> Darwin's virtue was somewhere between saintlike and godlike.
Charles Darwin did not make a living out of lying and deceiving: Duane
Gish, the two Morris's, Kent Hovind, and many other Big Name
Creationists *DO!*
> --
> Mark Isaak at...@earthlink.net
> "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
> the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
> being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
> exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering (Bush2's hero)
DrSilence1488
There is the small matter of plagiarizing Wallace wholecloth and of arranging
to cheat Wallace out of priority to the Theory. As well, Sam Butler catching
Darwin up in another crafty web of deceit and lies.
Duane Gish, the two Morris's, Kent Hovind dessertphile>>
In contrast to men with earned science credentials, Darwin owned a Theology
Degree virtually purchased for him by his doting father.
Geoff Offermann
> Charles Darwin did not make a living out of lying and deceiving
dessertphile>>
>
> There is the small matter of plagiarizing Wallace wholecloth and of
arranging
> to cheat Wallace out of priority to the Theory.
Who told you that? Darwin had a near complete work on his theory
when Wallace sent him his own abstract. Darwing was going to chalk
it up to experience but was talked into publishing his work as well by
Huxley, et al. Wallace published his work as well and both were
presented to the Royal Society on the same day.
In the Origin of Species, Darwin credits Wallace for having
independently arrived at the same conclusions.
While Darwin, in public discourse, always referred to Wallace
as his co-theorist, Wallace always gave sole credit to Darwin.
The British are so polite. To eachother anyway.
> As well, Sam Butler catching
> Darwin up in another crafty web of deceit and lies.
Not sure what you're driving at here. Who is Sam Butler?
> Duane Gish, the two Morris's, Kent Hovind dessertphile>>
>
> In contrast to men with earned science credentials, Darwin owned a
Theology
> Degree virtually purchased for him by his doting father.
Uh, "virtually"? No, I'm sure his father paid his tuition. Regardless,
who cares if he had 10 degrees or none. He was certainly one of
the most intelligent and accomplished individuals ever.
By the way, by what degree of advanced study do you take
the title of doctor?
DarwinistsforDonkeys
From: deser...@whitehouse.gov (Desertphile)
Date: 18/12/2003 8:42 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <brtle3$7di8s$9...@ID-197010.news.uni-berlin.de>
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:13:34 +0000 (UTC), Mark Isaak
<at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:55:53 +0000 (UTC), zawa...@yahoo.com (Seamus
> Ma' Cleriec) wrote:
> >drsile...@aol.com (DrSilence1488) wrote in message
news:<20031216223000...@mb-m18.aol.com>...
> >> What if Pythagoras himself could be shown to have been a crazy
> >> heroin addict? goatkin>>
> >>
> >> Then, he should not be lionized nor held up as a beacon of virtue.
>> Who holds Darwin "as a beacon of virtue" ?
> Compared with creationists like McCoy, Roadrunner, and DrSilence1488,
> Darwin's virtue was somewhere between saintlike and godlike.
Charles Darwin did not make a living out of lying and deceiving: Duane
Gish, the two Morris's, Kent Hovind, and many other Big Name
Creationists *DO!*
Errr, Charles Darwin only plagarized his theory from this other guy (
cough-cough ) and was only a racist, see Descent of Man ( cough-cough ) and
gave rise to the idea that nature destroys the weak and the strong survive,
reminds me of the Nazi ideology ( cough-cough )......but that's about it, he
was soooooooo holy and peaceful.....if you count being stoned on drugs peaceful
:)...i know some do , cha-cha
darwindiddrugs
DarwinistsforDonkeys
Date: 18/12/2003 10:04 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <20031218220933...@mb-m18.aol.com>
>Stop! Don't you know evolutionists have the right to lie and plagiarize
whenever they want, i mean, look at their leader.....( which you well exposed
might i add ) :)
darwindiddrugs
Desertphile
(DrSilence1488) wrote:
>> Charles Darwin did not make a living out of lying and deceiving
> There is the small matter of plagiarizing Wallace wholecloth
Wrong. Darwin came first by a decade or two, and then published more
or less before Wallace. But then, you know this already.
--
http://desertphile.org
The I.C.R. Cult Exposed: http://holysmoke.org/icr-cult.htm
DrSilence1488
Wrong. Darwin came first by a decade or two, and then published more or less
before Wallace. Dessertphile>>
I show Alfred Wallace's Ternate paper under date of February 1858. And Blyth
publishing twice on natural selection, prior. With Darwin publishing nothing on
Evolution prior to either of these men.
John Wilkins
He's playing with you all. There have always been claims of Darwin being
a plagiarist and they have always been shown false. I have an entire FAQ
on this, for gods' sakes. Won't *someone* read it?
This is his use of John Langdon Brooks for the Wallace priority (which
is a very weak case based on might have happeneds rather than evidence
asserting it) and Loren Eiseley for the Blyth claim (again, using poor
historiography).
Keep responding and he will trot out every claim since Osborne's 1890s
claim that Aristotle or Epicurus invented evolution (which neither of
them did). It's a death spiral that you can only block, not counter. The
only way to win this particular denigration game is not to play.
Instead, get him to document each claim he makes. I'll bet you'll find
he has only secondary sources, and those are probably from a website
somewhere.
Chris Thompson
>
> There is the small matter of plagiarizing Wallace wholecloth and of arranging
> to cheat Wallace out of priority to the Theory. As well, Sam Butler catching
> Darwin up in another crafty web of deceit and lies.
Ah. So Darwin went out of his way to plagiarize an idea that was completely wrong?
People who sleepwalk should not rack out in upper bunks, my friend.
DrSilence1488
> before Wallace. Dessertphile
> I show Alfred Wallace's Ternate paper under date of February 1858. And Blyth
publishing twice on natural selection, prior. With Darwin publishing nothing on
Evolution prior to either of these men.
He's playing with you all...I have an entire FAQ...Won't *someone* read it?
It's a death spiral that you can only block, not counter...I'll bet you'll find
he has only secondary sources, and those are probably from a website somewhere.
JohnWelkins>>
I get...so tired of evolutionist zealots who have never really studied the
subject.Anyone who has read the material and can think critically must surely
be: a "troll" or cribbing from secondary website. True believers in
evolutionism can not possibly sustain an argument, but rather believe that if
they keep attacking the messenger, he will go away in disgust.
AC
YOu can demolish Darwin for all I care. The theory that has been built up
since his time is what counts. You're just wasting your time. There's no
statues of Darwin in my house.
Michael Clark
Darn it! Will you people ~please~ stop turning my irony meter
into a smoking pile of twisted metal?!!
Geoff Offermann
Methinks you have an overly developed sense of persecution.
Louann Miller
(DrSilence1488) wrote:
>
>He's playing with you all...I have an entire FAQ...Won't *someone* read it?
>It's a death spiral that you can only block, not counter...I'll bet you'll find
>he has only secondary sources, and those are probably from a website somewhere.
> JohnWelkins>>
>
>I get...so tired of evolutionist zealots who have never really studied the
>subject.Anyone who has read the material and can think critically must surely
>be: a "troll" or cribbing from secondary website. True believers in
>evolutionism can not possibly sustain an argument, but rather believe that if
>they keep attacking the messenger, he will go away in disgust.
You mis-spelled "As a matter of fact no, I won't read the FAQ."
For those with integrity on the other hand,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precursors/precurread.html
Louann
Desertphile
Wilkins) wrote:
> DrSilence1488 <drsile...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > > There is the small matter of plagiarizing >Wallace wholecloth
>>> Wrong. Darwin came first by a decade or two, and then published
>>> more or less before Wallace.
> > I show Alfred Wallace's Ternate paper under date of February 1858. And
> > Blyth publishing twice on natural selection, prior. With Darwin publishing
> > nothing on Evolution prior to either of these men.
Appears mental.
> He's playing with you all. There have always been claims of Darwin being
> a plagiarist and they have always been shown false. I have an entire FAQ
> on this, for gods' sakes. Won't *someone* read it?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precursors/precurread.html
I read a "Darwin - Wallace" FAQ. I have also read a few biographies
about Charles Darwin. My admiration for his liberal opinions, beliefs,
and behavior has been greatly increased by such learning; for
paradozers such as "silent1488" here to assert Darwin was a
"plagerist" is to assert a falsehood; a lie. The evidence showing
otherwise is so readily available, it beggers the imagination to
believe the claimants do not know they are repeating a falsehood. That
is so say, "silent1488" is *LYING.* That is typical Creationist
behavior, alas.
> This is his use of John Langdon Brooks for the Wallace priority (which
> is a very weak case based on might have happeneds rather than evidence
> asserting it) and Loren Eiseley for the Blyth claim (again, using poor
> historiography).
>
> Keep responding and he will trot out every claim since Osborne's 1890s
> claim that Aristotle or Epicurus invented evolution (which neither of
> them did). It's a death spiral that you can only block, not counter. The
> only way to win this particular denigration game is not to play.
The fact that live evolved and evolves was well-known before Charles
Darwin was born: what was not known was the various mechanisms
involved--- Charles Darwin greatly supplied that. Erasmus Darwin, near
the end of the 1700s, and his peers recognized evolution when they say
it, and speculated on how evolution worked and works.
> Instead, get him to document each claim he makes. I'll bet you'll find
> he has only secondary sources, and those are probably from a website
> somewhere.
A Creationist that documents his sources?! Surely you jest! :-)
> --
> John Wilkins - wilkins.id.au
> [I]magine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "...interesting
> hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? ...
> must have been made to have me in it." Douglas Adams, Salmon of Doubt
Desertphile
(DrSilence1488) wrote:
>>> There is the small matter of plagiarizing Wallace wholecloth
>> Wrong. Darwin came first by a decade or two, and then published
>> more or less before Wallace.
> I show Alfred Wallace's Ternate paper under date of February 1858.
> And Blyth publishing twice on natural selection, prior. With Darwin
> publishing nothing on Evolution prior to either of these men.
You are, once again, not making any sense. Darwin's private journals
have been widely published; so have a great many of his lettrers; so
have letters written to him by his peers. The evidence shows he "sat"
on his discoveries out of religious conviction and angst, and out of
compassion to his wife and children. As you know (or SHOULD, since you
brought up the subject), it was only after Darwin read a letter from
Wallace did Darwin start publishing his discoveries. Darwin also did a
better job of the task than Wallace, going so far as to apply
falsification to the chief components of his theory (natural selection
with differential reproductive success, i.e., evolution).
Geoff Offermann
news:bs2ji5$8sdje$6...@ID-197010.news.uni-berlin.de...
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 01:08:52 +0000 (UTC), wil...@wehi.edu.au (John
> Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > DrSilence1488 <drsile...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > There is the small matter of plagiarizing >Wallace wholecloth
>
> >>> Wrong. Darwin came first by a decade or two, and then published
> >>> more or less before Wallace.
>
> > > I show Alfred Wallace's Ternate paper under date of February 1858. And
> > > Blyth publishing twice on natural selection, prior. With Darwin
publishing
> > > nothing on Evolution prior to either of these men.
>
> Appears mental.
>
> > He's playing with you all. There have always been claims of Darwin being
> > a plagiarist and they have always been shown false. I have an entire FAQ
> > on this, for gods' sakes. Won't *someone* read it?
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precursors/precurread.html
>
> I read a "Darwin - Wallace" FAQ. I have also read a few biographies
> about Charles Darwin. My admiration for his liberal opinions, beliefs,
> and behavior has been greatly increased by such learning; for
> paradozers such as "silent1488" here to assert Darwin was a
> "plagerist" is to assert a falsehood; a lie. The evidence showing
> otherwise is so readily available, it beggers the imagination to
> believe the claimants do not know they are repeating a falsehood. That
> is so say, "silent1488" is *LYING.* That is typical Creationist
> behavior, alas.
No he's probably not lying. He's just an idiot that parrots stuff he
reads by other creationists and hasn't an ounce or originality
in his sorry mind.
DrSilence1488
before Wallace.
I show Alfred Wallace's Ternate paper under date of February 1858. And Blyth
publishing twice on natural selection, prior. With Darwin publishing nothing on
Evolution prior to either of these men. DrSilence>>
You are, once again, not making any sense. Darwin's private journals
have been widely published; so have a great many of his lettrers; so
have letters written to him by his peers. The evidence shows dessertphile>>
Interrogate the logic in above claim. Darwin's "private journals", published
years later, qualifies as "published scientific papers" on evolution, before
1858? Surely a candidate for "Most Laughable Posting".
Mitchell Coffey
And where did "Desertphile" claim that "Darwin's 'private journals'"
qualified as "'published scientific papers' on evolution"? Nowhere,
he cited Darwin's private journals as evidence that Darwin "'sat' on
his discoveries out of religious conviction and angst, and out of
compassion to his wife and children."
What is laughable is how crudely you lie. Desertphile's post didn't
even include the words "published scientific papers," which you
attribute to him as a direct quote!
Meanwhile, his facts destroys your argument. Instead of responding to
arguments he didn't make, why don't you respond honestly for once?
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
(DarwinistsforDonkeys) wrote:
>Subject: Re: Darwin Did Drugs?
>From: deser...@whitehouse.gov (Desertphile)
>Date: 18/12/2003 8:42 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <brtle3$7di8s$9...@ID-197010.news.uni-berlin.de>
>
>On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:13:34 +0000 (UTC), Mark Isaak
><at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:55:53 +0000 (UTC), zawa...@yahoo.com (Seamus
>> Ma' Cleriec) wrote:
>
>> >drsile...@aol.com (DrSilence1488) wrote in message
>news:<20031216223000...@mb-m18.aol.com>...
>
>> >> What if Pythagoras himself could be shown to have been a crazy
>> >> heroin addict? goatkin>>
>> >>
>> >> Then, he should not be lionized nor held up as a beacon of virtue.
>
>>> Who holds Darwin "as a beacon of virtue" ?
>
>> Compared with creationists like McCoy, Roadrunner, and DrSilence1488,
>> Darwin's virtue was somewhere between saintlike and godlike.
>
>Charles Darwin did not make a living out of lying and deceiving: Duane
>Gish, the two Morris's, Kent Hovind, and many other Big Name
>Creationists *DO!*
>
>
>Errr, Charles Darwin only plagarized his theory from this other guy (
>cough-cough )
No he didn't, which is why you have been unable to post facts that
support this claim, or dispute the facts cited by others that show
that you are wrong.
> and was only a racist, see Descent of Man ( cough-cough )
In Darwin's day, virturally everyone in Europe and the United State
was a racist. Descent of Man, which you evidently haven't read, shows
Darwin to be less racist than most in his day and place.
Great stronghold of racism in the United State, the South, has also
been the great stronghold of Creationism. The hypocracy and
dishonesty of Creationist in continuing to use this canard is
breathtaking.
>and gave rise to the idea that nature destroys the weak and the strong survive,
No it didn't. It is a notion that had been around a long time before
Darwin published.
>reminds me of the Nazi ideology ( cough-cough )......
That's only because you know little about Nazi ideology.
> but that's about it, he
>was soooooooo holy and peaceful.....if you count being stoned on drugs peaceful
[snip]
You've already been shown to be lying about what your own source says
about Darwin and drugs. You have no shame.
Mitchell Coffey
Desertphile
(DrSilence1488) wrote:
>> You are, once again, not making any sense. Darwin's private journals
>> have been widely published; so have a great many of his lettrers; so
>> have letters written to him by his peers.
> Interrogate the logic in above claim. Darwin's "private journals", published
> years later, qualifies as "published scientific papers" on evolution, before
> 1858?
Where did you get this "'published scientific papers'" attribution
from? Certainly not from anything I wrote.
> Surely a candidate for "Most Laughable Posting".
Your post may be "laughable" to some, but I find you, frankly, more
than a wee bit pitiable.
--
http://desertphile.org
The I.C.R. Cult Exposed: http://holysmoke.org/icr-cult.htm
"Scientology: the 'science' of making money." http://holysmoke.org/theta.htm
Arne Vogel
Ah there are the arguments to support your claims! E.g. that Darwin
wanted to shoot savages, and wrote it in his diaries! Oh no, wait, it's
just a little dust on my computer screen...