Charles Darwin vs. Abraham Lincoln

reply to post by Mike_A


Since you seem to have some level of respect [snip]...I will post more tomorrow.

Since this thread is Titled Darwin vs. Lincoln you must understand that all data about Lincoln and Darwin will be some history mixed with some subjective opinion. Some things can be proved, while others must be believed.

But still I will be back some other day. And I am not a he.


Edited to remove inflammatory comments.
Civility And Decorum Are Required on AboveTopSecret.com

[edit on 16-2-2009 by dbates]

Originally posted by burntheships
Like the disease that is in your brain? Name a source or get off this thread.

While I am not as jaded as you to take over some ones thread, I still will get a mod. Get lost!

So... you ask for an example... and when he gives you one, you resort to ad hominem, and threaten to find a MOD?

GW is giving you exactly what you asked for... why get angry?

Is it because there's yet another point of evidence you must try to ignore? or your entire premise in this thread goes down in flames?

sigh... GW is going to deliver a smack down... I can feel it... either that... or he'll struggle not to... lol

He will most likely not get lost after a response like that though lol

reply to post by burntheships


LOL yah GW...

I can see her point now...

how rude it is for me to engage in the battle of the wits with someone who is clearly unarmed...

I've never been called rude before though... thats a new one...

what happened to ATS during my sabbatical?

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by Mike_A

Since this thread is Titled Darwin vs. Lincoln you must understand that all data about Lincoln and Darwin will be some history mixed with some subjective opinion.

I do understand that but it has nothing to do with what I asked.

I hope you do answer the question because without one I'm left baffled as to what it is you are truly trying to say.

reply to post by burntheships

You read my comments about the other two morons?

Why are we morons in your eyes? Because we don't indulge your perspective and instantly claim it true? You are the one who started with the preconceived conclusion.

reply to post by nj2day

Then get off this thread if that is what you believe!

reply to post by burntheships

You are a moron becuase I say you are one.

Which is the exact same logic I can tell you use to believe that evolution is bad. Because you say so. Wow. Clearly we are dealing with a debating mastermind, I stand in awe of your reasoning prowess.

So... getting back to the point you were making about Lincoln vs Darwin...

Darwin's theories have exponentially compounded all scientists knowledge of how our world works...

Lincoln's procomation freed slaves in one country... and thats about it...

I would have to say that Darwin has a much further reaching global influence than lincoln ever did...

reply to post by nj2day


In your Godless mind sure. Your opinions are just that. Your opinions.
You think Darwin was more influential, and you may be right. That is what I was asking for in the first place. After all, the only way to ever prove it will be to wait untill the day it is all judged. Who is to say that the way is narrow and few will walk it?

Thanks for you opinion though, nice break from the crap.





[edit on 16-2-2009 by burntheships]

reply to post by burntheships


Darwin has done much to further science, and medicine... I'm sure you read that link I sent right?

Darwin's theories have saved more lives than Lincoln ever did...

Or are you only aware of darwin's one theory?

Originally posted by nj2day
So... getting back to the point you were making about Lincoln vs Darwin...

Darwin's theories have exponentially compounded all scientists knowledge of how our world works...

Lincoln's procomation freed slaves in one country... and thats about it...

I would have to say that Darwin has a much further reaching global influence than lincoln ever did...

Word.

What an inane thread. Lincoln was just an overrated politician who happened to be in the right place at the right time to be a so-called hero. Any idiot could have guided the powerful north to victory over the south. That he took so long to do it speaks to his incompetence. Slavery was barely on his radar, btw. And Darwin changed our understanding of ourselves, our world, and where we came from. Too much advancement of civilization for you? Deal with it. Take the pathetic Christian trolling elsewhere.

reply to post by Good Wolf

Clearly we are dealing with a debating mastermind, I stand in awe of your reasoning prowess.

Yes, the lady is clearly a master debater.

Welcome to ATS, Advocatrix of Maritime Arson. I predict your stay with us will be brief but eventful.

You will certainly not be interested to learn Darwin's views on slavery, which he expresses several times in The Voyage of the Beagle, and which seem to have inspired his work on natural selection, but what the heck, here's the link anyway.

Now why don't you trot off and start a thread on something you know about? There's a good girl...

reply to post by burntheships


Dont want to burst your bubble here but if you actually go out and read up on the subjects you are debating about before you start , you will notice that most of the major countries had abolished slavery before the U.S did..

I don't see Lincoln as a hero. His use of the "Fed" to impose on the states was completely unconstitutional. He wasn't liberating slaves but facilitating a central "Government" which has lead to extreme extortion and coercion of states and states rights.

Darwin got it backwards too. Spirit is very weak here, the tendency is degradation not elevation. It is a perpetual sifting process where the spirit oscillates between higher states and lower states only gaining the higher state by outside assistance limiting it's decent.

By Malcolm Jones | NEWSWEEK
July 7-14, 2008 issue


Who Was More Important: Lincoln or Darwin?

As soon as you do start comparing this odd couple, you discover there is more to this birthday coincidence than the same astrological chart (as Aquarians, they should both be stubborn, visionary, tolerant, free-spirited, rebellious, genial but remote and detached—hmmm, so far so good). Two recent books give them double billing: historian David R. Contosta's "Rebel Giants" and New Yorker writer Adam Gopnik's "Angels and Ages." Contosta's joint biography doesn't turn up anything new, but the biographical parallels he sets forth are enough to make us see each man afresh. Both lost their mothers in early childhood. Both suffered from depression (Darwin also suffered from a variety of crippling stomach ailments and chronic headaches), and both wrestled with religious doubt. Each had a strained relationship with his father, and each of them lost children to early death. Both spent the better part of their 20s trying to settle on a career, and neither man gave much evidence of his future greatness until well into middle age: Darwin published "The Origin of Species" when he was 50, and Lincoln won the presidency a year later. Both men were private and guarded. Most of Darwin's friendships were conducted through the mail, and after his five-year voyage on HMS Beagle as a young man, he rarely left his home in the English countryside. Lincoln, though a much more public man, carefully cultivated a bumpkin persona that encouraged both friends and enemies to underestimate his considerable, almost Machiavellian skill as a politician.

They were two crippled "late bloomers" with similar problems through life.
In their 50's, they began their walk of destiny to an infamous ending, respectively, and in a usurp of individual fame and glory, they were neither equal nor unequal.

One on either side of the line, almost as if Mason and a Dixon were more than a line.

The silverspoon youth, ameteur naturalist, beetle collector, rockhound, then Doctor, almost singlehandedly redefined biological science. Once;

Darwin had scolded his teenage son, saying, "You care for nothing but shooting, dogs, and rat catching, and you will be a disgrace to yourself and all your family."

The riddlesome and self-made Lincoln, a Bible and Shakespeare buff, then Congressman, President and Prose writer, had true wit.

"I have endured a great deal of ridicule without much malice; and have received a great deal of kindness, not quite free from ridicule. I am used to it."

Darwin seems to have been able to think only with a pen in his hand. He was a compulsive note taker and list maker...

Lincoln was a compulsive scribbler, forever jotting down phrases, notes and ideas on scraps of paper,

I think that what Darwin took 5 years to accomplish,
Lincoln did with 29 words at Gettysburg.

The above notwithstanding, I believe the two definitely left a huge impact in the historical record, and that Lincoln had a fatal tie with the Psychopaths of his time, and Darwin ....well the comparing criteria are not balanced.
Most say Lincoln, and I agree.
Those who chose Darwin...I hold nothing caustic towards you.

I chose quotes from this article, althoug have delved in more depth in all the twists. Darwin? Not much reading. Last time I read about him was helping my daughter on homework.

I think Lincoln was taller too.

Lincoln did not free the slaves.

The Confederacy declared their independence from the union before the Emancipation Proclamation. The Confederacy did not consider themselves subject to US laws. The Emancipation Proclamation was just hot air on paper.

For those of you who want a book to read:

Lost Tribes and Lost Continents, by Robert Wauchope. Wauchope describes many people here to perfection, in this 1962 book.