DARWIN/MACROEVOLUTION HYPOTHESIS AND THE OCCULTIST FIT/FEVER

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by kendemyer, Jun 23, 2005.

  1. kendemyer

    kendemyer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    DARWIN/MACROEVOLUTION HYPOTHESIS AND THE OCCULTIST FIT/FEVER


    MACROEVOLUTION HYPOTHESIS AND ALFRED WALLACE AND SPIRITUALISM AND DARWIN

    Here is what once source says about Darwin and Wallace:

    Here is what Henry Morris wrote about the Ternate essay in regards to Wallace and he takes quite of bit of the material from Wallace himself:

    It does appear as if Wallace obtained his ideas that he forwarded to Darwin while he was suffering from a fever:

    WALLACE AND THE OCCULT


    Wallace was well known to be strongly involved with spiritualism/occult.


    Here is a source regarding Alfred Wallace:

    http://www.strangescience.net/wallace.htm


    Here is what another gentleman says about the Wallace/Darwin/Evolution and the occult/satanic:

    http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/whostarted.htm


    BBC ON DARWIN'S RELUCTANCE

    Here is what the BBC says about Darwin's extreme procrastination in regards to publishing his hypothesis (I do not afree with everything here. For example, I believe the macroevolutionary position is a hypothesis and not a theory):




    Darwin died 23 years after the publising the Origin of the Species. Who knows when he would have finished his book if it were not for Wallace.


    TERNATE ESSAY


    Here is some more information regarding the Ternate essay:

    SUMMARY

    To be fair to Darwin, he disapproved of Wallace's spiritualism. Also, just because a man involved with spiritualism/occult appears to have strongly influenced Darwin in regards to his final hypothesis and its timing as far as its release does not necessarily mean Darwin was wrong in regards to his hypothesis although I do believe he was wrong (see: http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=180 ).


    ADDENDUM

    Below is something I read which is interesting and I have done some fact checking although I have not fully corroborated its veracity:

    Another source goes farther and says:




    Here is the whole online book cited above:

    Charles Darwin - the Truth? by Andrew J. Bradbury
    http://www3.mistral.co.uk/bradburyac/dar1.html
     
  2. Mercury

    Mercury
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Too bad there were about 20 paragraphs before the point where the author decided "to be fair".
     
  3. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
  4. kendemyer

    kendemyer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    TO: Mercury

    You quoted me as saying:

    That was a misquote. You should have at least had a ..... given after the last word in your attempted quote indicating it was a partial quote of a sentence.

    Here is what I actually said:

    TO: UTEOTW

    No genetic falllacy. See the above quote. I presented history of science information. Each reader is going to have to decide for himself the weight to give the evidence I presented regarding the source of Darwin's ideas in regards to the history of science issue here.
     
  5. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "No genetic falllacy. See the above quote. I presented history of science information. Each reader is going to have to decide for himself the weight to give the evidence I presented regarding the source of Darwin's ideas in regards to the history of science issue here."

    If the point was not to cause some to doubt science based on what you presented, then what was the point?

    If you went through all this with the hope of dissuading some from accepting the science, then the fallacy was committed. If that was not your intent, then I am not sure what it was.
     
  6. kendemyer

    kendemyer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    TO: UTEOTW

    Many readers of the baptistboard have varied interest. Some like the social science of history. I presented history of science information for those who are interested.
     
  7. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    As long as everyone understands that it is the "social science of history" in which you are interested. It you ever crossover into using this as a reason to discount the science, or if a reader makes that same mistake, then it is a logical fallacy and not a valid reason for doubt. If it is just history in which you are interest, we're good.
     

Share This Page

Loading...