1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Darwin's strange illness

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by kendemyer, Jun 24, 2005.

Top Posters
  1. kendemyer

    kendemyer New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    #1 kendemyer, Jun 24, 2005
  2. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Same warning here as on the other thread. As long as it is history that you or others are interested in, this might be fun for someone. But if you intend for this to be a reason to doubt the science, or if a reader takes it as a reason to doubt the science, then this is an example of the genetic fallacy.

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html

    "A Genetic Fallacy is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. It is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing."
     
    #2 UTEOTW, Jun 24, 2005
  3. kendemyer

    kendemyer New Member

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

    I only debated at two evolutionist run forums. One was open to debate and the other was not.

    The first link I gave is being moved and put into archives along with other threads I posted. It appears as if the forum owner is not open to debate. While regretable, I am not going to lose any sleep over it.

    You can access the thread material here :

    http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=1181

    (I gave this as a alternative website )

    Here is one line of information the second thread does not have.


    Also, in one instance when Darwin's macroevolutionary position was very lightly publically praised by Charles Lyell, Darwin had a vomiting problem that lasted 10 days (see Scientific American source given later in this post).

    TO: UTEOTW


    I am not saying you said I commited a genetic fallacy. I do wish to say, however, I did not. I gave history of science information.

    I did not say that Darwin vomited a lot when his macroevolution position was lightly praised or criticized and he had doubts, therefore don't believe in the macroevolutionary position.

    Here is what I did say though:

    "Is it surprising there is evidence for Darwin ruining his health when he was at the forefront of promoting his foolish ideas (see: creationism at: http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=180 )."


    In short, I posit that Darwin had foolish ideas and doubts and he did not handle the criticism well and therefore he vomited. I do not say, Darwin vomited and had doubt and did not handle the criticism well therefore his macroevolution ideas were spurious.
     
    #3 kendemyer, Jun 25, 2005
  4. av1611jim

    av1611jim New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    So...there are some folks who theorize that ol' Chucky Darwin was a mental case?
    I suppose that would explain his wacky ideas.
    And I also suppose that that theory is just as valid as his own theory on the origin of species. Based on the evidence of course!!! [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
    #4 av1611jim, Jun 25, 2005
  5. kendemyer

    kendemyer New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is what I wrote at another forum:


    ....I think you are correct about the eye quotes being taken out of context.

    With that being said, I did some research and I think Darwin may have had some emotional issues in connection with the eye in regards to his ideas (how much I do not know).

    I cite:

    At this same time, I do think this is true as well:

     
    #5 kendemyer, Jun 25, 2005
  6. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks, av1611, for reminding us all once again how the anti-evolution crowd has so little in the way of evidence to cite.
     
    #6 Paul of Eugene, Jun 25, 2005
  7. kendemyer

    kendemyer New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    TO: av1611jim

    You wrote:

    I will let readers read the following Scientific American quote and decide for themselves:

     
    #7 kendemyer, Jun 25, 2005
  8. kendemyer

    kendemyer New Member

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

    I now predict that perhaps some evolutionist now may wish to say, "Well even if it were true, that Darwin was not exactly a paragon of mental health that doesn't mean he was wrong." Of course, I have already admited this and I certainly never committed the genetic fallacy (not that anyone accused me of it).

    I would also add that even though some evolutionist may have to be dragged into admitting that there is evidence that Darwin acted strangely that doesn't necessarily mean that they are wrong about Darwin being given a clean bill of mental health. [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
    #8 kendemyer, Jun 25, 2005
  9. kendemyer

    kendemyer New Member

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

    Denial is not just a river in Egypt. ;)
     
    #9 kendemyer, Jun 25, 2005
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...