The Evo-atheists can’t stand the FACT that their big hero was a nobody who was an academic failure. He was a pathetic dabbler in a sea of professionals. He was simply out of his league. He was pontificating on botany and geology and natural history, but was studying theology, which he couldn’t even get right. The man with no scientific training whatsoever is the “scientist” we are supposed to worship? Sounds more like L Ron Hubbard than Isaac Newton. lol
97 comments
Oh dear God you people are delusional. The only people that care THAT much about Darwin are you obsessed lunatics (just like the only people that care THAT much about gay sex are you obsessed lunatics). This is becoming more common - since the anti-reality madmen have given up trying to refute evolution with facts, they start gossiping about Darwin's personal life. He was a card-carrying member of the Stonecutters, he married his aunt, his bloodlines trace back to the powerful Teutonic Knights, his uncle gave blowjobs to Nietzsche, they had strange ceremonies on the night he was born, etc etc.
What the fuck is with this constant need to worship everybody? Nobody "worships" scientists, you moron. Also, being an academic failure [if at all] has nothing to do with being a good scientist. Science is the search for knowledge. There is no pre-requisite in terms of training to prepare you for it. You are either inquisitive or you're not. Now shut the fuck up.
Listen, ToGodBeTheGlory. I have never met you and you will likely never read this. But I can deduce from your statements - so vacous and ignorant that they, frankly, boggle the mind - that you are a pox on the face of humanity. And if it's a choice between eternity in heaven with you, or eternity in the intimate company of Satan's red hot poker; I'm siding with Beelzebub.
I will never understand why you - and others of your ilk - must insist on poisoning my - and others' - brain(s) with your vile opinions and dragging us all down into the paranoia inducing, herd-mentality effecting pit you inhabit.
Thank you, and goodnight.
All Darwin did was establish one of the most vital and productive scientific theories of all time, upon which all modern biology is based. ToGodBeTheGlory, on the other hand, is noted for ... wait, I'm sure it will come to me.
There's no worship involved, dumbass, and even if you were correct about Darwin, that would not reflect at all on whether or not evolution or natural selection take place (they do!).
If you are speaking of Darwin, you're sadly deluded.
For science, unlike religion, does not require the person who *discovers* scientific information to even be a nice person.
All it requires is facts.
Facts to prove the scientific discovery.
Darwin *discovered* the *fact* of evolution of life on earth.
If he had not discovered it, someone else would have: that is the way of discoveries. They are facts waiting for someone to stumble over them.
Contrast this with religion: it's based entirely on belief. Thus, the messenger is sacrosanct. If the messenger is unworthy, then the message is useless.
No one needs to even *respect* Charles Darwin, let alone "worship" him.
Only a religious fool would think otherwise.
The Evo-atheists can’t stand the FACT that their big hero was a nobody who was an academic failure.
Yeah he was. So what?
Okay look here's the thing. If Darwin was so out of his leauge, if he was so over his head and his ideas were so silly and ridiculous, why wasn't he laughed out of the scientific community? Why have his ideas became the corner stone of modern biology?
The ones who can't stand the facts are you.
This guy forgets that Evolution is happening. Deaths are increasing due to the ever changing(evolving) cancer strains, the altering(evolving) influenza virus, and the hoardes of bacteria that evolve faster because we use antibacterial soaps that kill 99.9%, but the .1% come back to haunt us.
Evo-atheists? - The Catholic Church and Anglican Church accept evolutionary theory.
Academic Failure? - Expressing a theory that still holds broadly true over 150 years on, and is used as the basis for much of biology?
Not getting theology right? - How's that going for you guys? What is the one true sect of Christianity?
Isaac Newton? - Genius who spent much of his time on alchemy?
The only way to reason with this level of moron is to punctuate arguments with a sturdy club.
However, in the interest of truth, I must point out that Darwin was a gifted student and his academic records are widely available. The closest he came to an academic "failure" was deciding that he was too sensitive to deal with the gore and suffering of treating patients as a physician.
One question which is seldom explored is: what did Darwin do in the twenty years between his voyage and the publication of the Origin of Species? He spent that time in the scholarly pursuit of support and refutation of his evolving theory. He read the works of the greatest scientists preceding him and corresponded with the greatest scientists of his day.
Some of that correspondence survives. When he was writing to a learned expert, he used precise scientific terminology at the cutting-edge of 19th century science. The actual content of On the Origin of Species was geared to interested amateurs of the time.
On the many subjects unrelated to his specific theory he expressed a thorough understanding of contemporary scientific achievement. And it's apparent that he spent his life learning and applying that knowledge.
To call such a man, even if everything he published is wrong, a "academic failure" is a lie. A simple, bald-faced, easily refuted lie.
Scientific training does not a scientist make. Granted, it helps NOW, but back in Darwin's time that was not uncommon. Really all you need to be a scientist is curiosity, attention to detail, and a willingness to find out what you don't know (and whether anyone else knows). The massive amount of information we have on science now makes a structured learning program a huge advantage for someone just starting out.
If I were worried about that "fact" I and others wouldn't be able to defend it logically (and it's been 150 years for crying out loud), we'd just bluster and bluff like you would do if pressed.
And finally, we DO NOT worship Darwin any more than we worship Pasteur or Boyle; you just don't make as big a deal about their work because it doesn't disagree with your precious book.
"The Evo-atheists can’t stand the FACT that their big hero was a nobody..."
Look, up in the sky!
It's a bird,
It's a plane,
No!
It's Super Darwin! Dant-de-dant, de-dant-den-did-dant!
ToGodBeTheGlory is a moron easily recognised by his constant attempts to create a new word "evo-atheists" which is a totally meaningless term.
He is also identified by his lack of understanding of evolution, the scientific method and of what actually happened in history.
1. Darwin wasn't a pathetic dabbler and came up with the most comprehensive biological theory to date.
2. He was not studying theology at all, let alone getting it wrong.
3. He had enough scientific training to come up with the most comprehensive biological theory to date.
4. Atheists do not worship him.
5. L. Ron Hubbard is not in Darwin's league, or vice versa. Not by a long shot.
5. You are wrong.
6. Shut up.
I'm an evo-pagan. I know some evo-Christians and evo-agnostics. None of us worship Darwin. Where do we fit into this fascinating scenario?
P.S. I've been looking for months for the perfect username, thanks dude!!!
^^^
Er, well, it's more accurate to say that Charles Darwin came up with a better explanation for the origin of species than a tribe of bronze age desert nomads making up bedtime stories around a campfire did.
No. The Evo-atheists can't stand when fundies end their vomit with "I'll pray for you." which you thankfully didn't.
But you, ToGodBeTheGlory, are an idiot admiral nonetheless.
What your defunct brain is not capable of understanding, is that we don't worship scientists. Also, how can one fail at theology? What is theology anyway, isn't it like the study of the fictional?
"their big hero was a nobody who was an academic failure"
Linus Torvalds is not a nobody.
...
Wait, are you talking about Darwin?
"The man with no scientific training whatsoever is the “scientist” we are supposed to worship?"
Atheists don't worship anyone. That's kind of the point. Oh, and you guys worship a carpenter, so I wouldn't talk.
One of the greatest evolutionary theorists was also a nazi. I don't worship him, I just find his work on things like the golden ratio useful. In the same way, it would be foolish to reject the work the nazis carried out on treatment of diabetes, even though I disagree with their politics. The muslims invented algebra. I think Islam is the world's most totalitarian religion, but algebra is great.
ergo, I do not worship anyone.
Here's a pseudu-philosophical conundrum that might be just be relevant
The Nazis used huge amounts of X -ray radiation to shoot animated footage of the knee-joint in action from various angles. The radiation used killed the subjects
Does that mean we should reject their evidence of how the knee works?
Obviously not.
In the same way, whether Darwin was a Christian or not makes absolutely no difference as to what he discovered. It is a fact that evolution exists, and that a slightly modified version of Darwin's theory accounts for it. After all, no-one knew of DNA in Darwin's day.
I wonder why I preach to the converted here...
If this is about Evo-atheists, what about religious people who accept evolution?
Is ToGodBeTheSupidity trying for his own special site on FSTDT?
The fundo-cretinists can't STAND the FACT that Darwin was an accomplished scientist for example he won an award for his work in geology just before On the Origin of Species was published, while all ToGodBeTheStory can do is potificate on goddidditt, and he even fails at that. He fails so hard I lol.
You do know he invented the science of biology since prior to him there were no biologists...
And he was an entomologist. Specifically a Coleopterist since he was interested in beetles.
Before that there was no biology. There was natural history which basically catalogued animals. After him biology began to understand what it was doing. He is like Newton. Cause Newton invented Physics. Likewise like Lavoisier since Laviosier started the catalogue of chemistry prior to which there was only "alchemy".
Typical. Since you can't come up with a valid argument against the theory of evolution, you attack the man who originated it. It doesn't matter what Darwin did or said after he wrote On The Origin of the Species , other scientists have validated it.
The funny thing is the main objection you fundies have against evolution is this blind belief in the creation story found in Genesis 1 and 2, which has absolutely no evidence to back it up, and was copied from the Babylonians by a bunch of Bronze Age Middle Eastern goat herders.
Yeah, that's a valid alternative...
That'd be why the Royal Society, of which Darwin was a 'Fellow', began awarding the 'Darwin Medal' to "work of acknowledged distinction in the area of biology" in 1890.
Speaking of Fellows of the Royal Society, let's see who else has been awarded that honour (FRS or HFM), shall we?
Sir Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Stephen Hawking, David Bohm, Max Born, James Clerk Maxwell, Sir Karl Popper, Ernest Rutherford, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Sigmund Freud, Murray Gell-Mann, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Wolfgang Pauli, Martin Schwarzschild, etc.
TGBTG, you fail... well everything really.
Shameless Projection award goes to... ToGodBeTheGlory. Come up and take a bow.
Seriously. Atheists don't worship anything. That's what makes us atheists (facepalm).
And.. apparently your idea of a scientific failure is someone who comes up with a unifying theory that revolutionizes science. Understandable why you have no problem with creationism.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.