Jesus wept, Darwin hysterically cried?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by kendemyer, Jun 27, 2005.

  1. kendemyer

    kendemyer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    DARWIN AND HYSTERICALLY CRYING?

    The more I found out about Darwin the more the plot appears to thicken.

    Here is what I read recently and I would be interested in further research.

    Here is the full article:

    WAS CHARLES DARWIN PSYCHOTIC? A Study of His Mental Healthby Jerry Bergman, Ph.D :
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:Ukl8a1xfGQsJ:www.icr.org/pubs/imp/pdf/imp-367.pdf+darwin+and+sickness+and+colp
     
  2. kendemyer

    kendemyer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here are some credentials of the psychiatrist Colp cited above:


    Quote:

    "Medical professionals have puzzled over this for years, wondering why he became such a chronic invalid, when, during the voyage, he was so energetic. Then *Ralph Colp, Jr., a physician and psychiatrist, became interested in Darwin's case and, in 1959—a century after Darwin's book,—began researching everything he could find on Darwin. For the next 18 years he exhaustively studied into the matter, and in 1977 published a book on his conclusions (To Be an Invalid: The Illness of Charles Darwin).

    In some respects, Colp is one of the leading experts in "Darwinia" to be found anywhere. He has analyzed everything Darwin wrote and everything written about him. It is maintained by some that Colp had a photographic memory on the essential content of that data. Combining his medical, psychiatric background with an in-depth understanding of Darwin's life, behavior, and symptoms, Colp was prepared to write his book.....

    "Darwin suffered from extreme anxieties as he developed his theories. Colp traces the beginning of Darwin's illness to his first work on evolutionary theory. From the first, his wife Emma worried whether his scientific investigations were going to cost him his soul.

    "Darwin dreamt of being beheaded or hanged; he thought a belief that went so contrary to biblical authority was `like confessing a murder."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 113"

    taken from: http://www.present-truth.org/darwin-sick.htm


    Here is a related story:

    quote:

    "*Darwin was not the only one with such a "health problem"; others experienced it also. For example, *Hugh Miller (1802-1856) started out as a Christian, but was talked into error by associates. He published several books on geology and sedimentary strata; and, in his last (Testimony of the Rocks), he publicly switched over to the "millions of years" theory. Except for partial silicosis, he had always been in good health.

    "While writing Testimony, he suffered from horrible dreams and visions, awakening convinced he had wandered the streets all night. (At such times, he insisted on checking his clothing for mud stains, but none were found.) He often wrote all night and day, with a knife and gun at his side to repel imagined burglars or intruders. There were searing headaches; He thought his brain was burning out."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), pp. 305-306.

    Miller shot himself three years before *Darwin published Origin."

    taken from: http://www.present-truth.org/darwin-sick.htm
     
  3. kendemyer

    kendemyer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

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

    I would also be interested in this also as I like the subject of the history of science:

    quote:

    "Darwin’s many psychological or psychologically influenced physical health symptoms included severe depression, insomnia, hysterical crying, dying sensations, shaking, fainting spells, muscle twitches,shortness of breath, trembling, nausea, vomiting, severe anxiety, depersonalization,seeing spots, treading on air and vision, and other visual hallucinations (Barloon and Noyes, 1997, p. 139; Picover, 1998, p. 290; Colp, 1977, p. 97; Bean, 1978,p. 573)."

    TAKEN FROM: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:Ukl8a1xfGQsJ:www.icr.org/pubs/imp/pdf/imp-367.pdf+darwin+and+sickness+and+colp
     
  4. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    People today simply do not realize the immensity of the blessing of aspirin, tylenol, other basic, simple medications we take for granted today.
     
  5. kendemyer

    kendemyer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

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

    Now I believe there is good evidence that many of the macroevolutionism's most ardent supporters are professed materialist/atheist. Dawkins comes to mind. Or as I like to call him Mr. Bright since he seems to be a big supporter of the Bright movement among professed atheist. Personally, I think calling yourself a Bright is rather odd but that is just me. [​IMG]

    Since science is a social endeavor, I think this thread raises some interesting history of science questions in regards to the professed materialist community who are scientists: Psychology Examines Atheism And Theism Plus..... at: http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=369 Perhaps, the macroevolutionary hypothesis paradigm will die hard. I do believe there is good evidence that it is not true (see: creationism at: http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=180 )
     
  6. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Macroevolutionary hypothesis not true? I cite the development of the large, single hoof of the horse from a former three toed version to be an example of macroevolution. That it happened is seen by the documentation of three toed horse species in the past and the presence of shin splints on horses today.
     
  7. kendemyer

    kendemyer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Science Now regarding Darwin's hysterical crying:

    Here is what Science Now says which is a online magazine affiliated with the journal Science I believe:

    Here is the full Science Now article:

    http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1997/108/4


    A NEW 500 PAGE BOOK ON DARWIN MENTIONS HIS HYSTERICAL CRYING


    Here is something I read from the Washington monthly and it describes a book which I believe may be pertinent:

    Here is the full article:

    http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n5_v23/ai_10746080



    I also cite:




    I also cite:

     
  8. Travelsong

    Travelsong
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    More strawman tactics. Christians are looking more and more silly, but what's worse is that they continue to cut off an entire segment of society from the Gospel through sheer ignorance.

    What a shame. Instead of winning souls, we call scientists liars who hold atheistic beliefs while at the same time enjoying all the modern conveniences and medical aid that science has provided for us.

    It's obvious the church as a whole has grown complacent and stagnant to the point of bickering and devouring itself over trivialities.
     
  9. kendemyer

    kendemyer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

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

    False dilemna. Macroevolution hypothesis is not necesary for biological science progress. I know someone who works for a extremely well published biology researcher as a biology graduate student and he says he never uses the macroevolutionary hypothesis in his work.
     
  10. Travelsong

    Travelsong
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Irrelevent. The point is that science by default does not include God as the answer when determining the systems and laws by which the universe operates. Many Chrisians will hypocritically accept the benefits of science when it comes to technology or medical treatment, but as soon as science claims the evidence from nature reveals creation to be very old or humans to have a shared common ancestry with all living things it suddenly becomes godless and atheistic.

    Yet YEC's still fail to present a better explanation for the data.

    I'm expected to hear the same arguments which have been refuted for decades (entropy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics, c14 dating etc. etc.) and believe this empty YEC rhetoric.
     
  11. benz

    benz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    0
    It takes allot more faith to believe that we are from monkies and all of the universe came out of nothing.. than it is to Believe that there is a Universal Creator who loves me and made me in his image and then Saved me from Death..
    While We humans believe this lie Fallen angels are laughin at us sayin they dummer for monkies to believe our lies...
    COULD IT BE HE WAS DEAMON POSSESED using science to degrading the authencity of God... Its a lie and a half...
     
  12. 13th Disciple

    13th Disciple
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    But it's still a horse? This should be micro-evolution.
     
  13. 13th Disciple

    13th Disciple
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is an interesting topic that I haven't looked upon. I knew Darwin was wacko but now there seems to be empirical evidence to document!!!
     
  14. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "But it's still a horse? This should be micro-evolution. "

    If biologists use the term "macroevolution" they are generally talking about speciation. So I must assume that you are either inventing a new meaning of the word or that you think that the whole chain of fossils that he referred to are a single species. First off, this would mean that you think that modern equines such as various zebra and horse species are actually a single species.

    Second, this would men that you think that the earliest in the chain and the modern horses are a single species. Even though there is a change from an animal that size of a small dog to the large animals that we see today. Even though there was a change from an animal with 3/4 toes per foot and with pads to an animal with 1 toe pper foot with hooves. Even though there was a change from a general brwosing animal to a dedicated grazer with a very different set of teeth including a different number of molars and a different shape to the head. Even though there was a change from a very flexible set of legs to a set of legs optimized for speed that are not very flexible and which even have some bones fused together.

    Even better, you must think that horses and rhinos and tapirs are the same species since they both trace their histories to this same initial animal and genetic testing confirms the relationship.

    Hmmm... Maybe the horse is a good example of a very well supported case of macroevolution.

    "This is an interesting topic that I haven't looked upon. I knew Darwin was wacko but now there seems to be empirical evidence to document!!! "

    If you wish to have a reason not to accept evolution, it does not matter if Darwin was "wacko" or not. It has nothing to do with the validity of the theory. To think that it does is to commit a logical fallacy; poisoning the well also known as the genetic fallacy. Besides, there has been a lot learned since Darwin.
     
  15. 13th Disciple

    13th Disciple
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    A horse is a horse...
    Cut off a leg it's still a 3 legged horse...
    A horse born with a birth defect with both front legs missing...is still a horse!
    If the horse evolves into a different animal ;say a snake , then you have macro-evolution!
    Don't bait people by promising macro-evolution and showing examples of micro-evolution! Micro-evolution has been observed and qualifies as truth , macro-evolution has not been observed and is speculation. Actually macro-evolution is more of a fairy tale where a frog can turn into a prince!
     
  16. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    A horse is a horse except when horse, zebra, rhinos and tapirs can all trace their ancestry back to the same small animal with traits completely unlike any modern horse.

    If you consider the sweeping changes between Eohippus and moderns horses to be mere microevolution without speciation then I guess that ALL of what is considered to be evolution can be considered to be nothing more than microevolution and that there is no distinctive process to be called macroevolution. You seem to be able to define any series of changes, no matter how drastic, as mere microevolution.

    I guess you must also think that horses, zebras, tapirs and rhinos are all the same species then.

    Amazing. You think that a genuine series of what you have claimed cannot exist is nothing but "baiting."

    I guess you also think that the evoution of the horses from their land dwelling ancestor must also be mere microevolution.

    http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/23.html?
     
  17. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Replace "horse" with "whale" in that last sentence.
     
  18. 13th Disciple

    13th Disciple
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah , lets replace horse with whale because evolutionist have beaten the old horse to death! Evolutionists have been so anxious to prove their theory they cite the horse , whale whatever they can last grasp to show it's true...can't hardly find an evolution of the horse chart anymore because Creation Science has blown this apart and exposed the scam.

    As for the whale , Gup20 showed how it wasn't possible. If you will not accept his arguement ; why should anyone else bother? Good reading , especially the "I love fish stories" posts!!! lol
     
  19. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Funny that you do not tell us just how "Creation Science has blown this apart and exposed the scam."

    Also funny that you must have stopped reading after you got to Gup's response. His "problems" on the whale evolution were based on a misrepresentation of the process and not the actual process. There just is no logical reason for us to observe all of the thing we do with the whales other than common descent. (Fossil record, genetic testing, atavisms, ontogeny, pseudogenes, etc.) Any proposed reasons have been arbitray and capricious and do not fit the actual data. Just as there there is no logical YE explanation for the detailed series of fossils that we observe leading to the modern horse. Especially since the same progenitor leads to rhinos and is confirmed through genetic testing. The horse fossil record is so detailed that it cannot be denied and YEers are reduced to grasping at the straw of asserting them to be all one species dispite the vast differences in morphology from beginning to end. YEers just have no answers for the actual data, so they must misrepresent it.

    But that is the usual case with YE "explanations." They hardly ever seem to be able to deal wit the actual science so they build a strawman and knock that down instead. Their misrepresentations do a great harm and are one reason I find it so important to expose them for what they are.
     
  20. 13th Disciple

    13th Disciple
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    ADNAN OKTAR
    Evolutionist propaganda about marine mammals resembles the 'horse series' that was once put forward in the same way, but which evolutionists then admitted was invalid. A number of extinct mammals that lived at different times were lined up behind one another, and the evolutionists of the time tried to impose this as 'firm evidence.' Yet the truth emerged over time, and it was realized that these animals could not be each others' ancestors, that they had emerged in different periods, and that they were actually independent extinct species.


    Articles written by National Geographic and T.V. shows produced by anxious evolutionists to prove their theory has been rejected by scientists.

    Here is a quote from Mike Schultz...
    Horse evolution is supposed to be the end all and be all to prove that horses evolved yet they are teaching the kids in school some crazy things. Like these horses are evolving but the truth is they don't tell them that it starts out with eohippus, with 18 pairs of ribs and then you keep going on to the next generation and then you can't make up how many ribs they are supposed to have. There a lot of problems with this horse evolution. It is made up by [H.C. Marsh] 1874 from fossils scattered across the world and not from the same location, which was Lucy's problem, scattered over almost two miles at different depths. Modern Horses are found in layers with or lower than ancient horses, if you believe in the geologic column that presents a problem for your theory. The ancient horse is not a horse but is like the [Hirex] still alive today, I have seen one in a zoo. Ribs, toes, feet, everything is totally different. South American fossils go from one toe to three toe and they are never found in the order presented, [Mothill] just put them together in the order he thought that they should go. And it is all being taught as fact and peddling to push evolution as true. And once you start to fall for this lie of evolution that has no evidence for it; scientific evidence, that which you can measure, taste, touch, weigh and smell and all of that. Once you began to fall for that you'll have a hard time with the Bible.

    Quote from Dr. Kent Hovind....
    Textbooks often state that the horse evolved from a four-toed ancestor. Othniel C. Marsh invented this entire series back in the 1870s. He gathered animals from all over the world and arranged them in the order he thought they would have evolved, though the animals are not found in the right order. Even if they had been found in order, that would not prove evolutionary relationships. The entire horse evolution series was disproved years ago. No knowledgeable scientist would support the horse evolution as depicted in textbooks.
    Modern horse skeletons have been found in layers older than (at least according to the evolutionist view of geology) the so-called four toed ancestors. Also, an animal nearly identical to the Hyracotherium (the so-called ancestor of all horses) is a small, four-toed, meat-eating animal that is still alive in South America today! In addition, the fossils in South America show one-toed horses in lower layers than their supposed three-toed ancestors.
    In 1995 the Tulsa, Oklahoma Zoo removed the display showing this disproved claim about horse evolution (after over 2,000 area residents signed a petition demanding that it be removed, and elected officials and news media got involved.) Pages that show the horse evolution should be deleted in future editions of textbooks and a warning label placed in the front of those that include it, warning students that the book contains outdated, false information. Call or write for more information about the long-disproved horse series if you would like.

    Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum in New York, N.Y. has been quoted as saying: "I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we've got a problem" [emphasis added] (Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems. Santee, CA: Master Book Publishers, 1984.).
    Despite Dr. Eldredge's disclaimer, the exhibit remains on display in the American Museum.


    I have heard all sorts of stories on the whale as whales evolved from wolves , land dwellers evolving from whales , pigs and whales share a common ancestor ,etc,etc...
    If you believe the geologic column then it disputes the whale evolution theory because whales appear suddenly as a full funtioning creature with complex mechanisms so contrary to what you claim as clear cut proof of evolution ; There is no proven evidence that whales evolved from land mammals.
    The changes would have to be rapid and it doesn't happen rapid according to evolution.
    I also feel that any creature in any transitional stages would not survive and would rapidly become extinct according to survival of the fittest.

    Why can't you accept the fact that the whale and the horse as being a magnificent creation of God Almighty and we should stand in awe at such perfect well designed creatures?
    Whale of a trouble

    Another Whale tale

    Whale ....fact from fiction


    Pseudogenes


    Whale Fairy Tale by National Geographic

    If the YEC leaders had mental health issues as Darwin...we would certainly be called out!
    Evolutionists I have dealt with have referred to creationist as being wacko even though the evidence is clearly on our side and evolution evidence is lacking. Yet the founder of the evolution religion had mental issues? Go figure..........
     

Share This Page

Loading...