Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I tried to follow that and there's a lot of apparently valid palaeontology. If there is some passage saying that Wallace 'changed' his views on evolution (and that has to mean that he came to disbelief it and decided that it came about some other way or you are simply fiddling with the meanings) please paste it.
However, this thread is about proving God to ourselves. Even if you could disprove evolution, that would not prove a god, let alone a particular god. This is irrelevant to supporting your argument.
You might perhaps try to argue ID as evidence for God, but trying to make evolutionists recant is doing nothing to help you.
P.s I suppose you have this in mind.
David Klinghoffer reviews: "In Alfred Russel Wallace: A Rediscovered Life, published by Discovery Institute Press, Flannery shows how Wallace ultimately came to reject the sufficiency of his own theory of natural selection to explain what he called in the title of his final work and magnum opus, The World of Life (1910).
"Beyond the “self-acting agency” of undirected evolution, he argued, there must be some “Creative Power,” a “directive Mind,” and an “ultimate Purpose.”
Wallace jumps the tracks, and this is the sort of thing about which he and Darwin never agreed:
Neither natural selection nor the more general theory of evolution can give any account whatever of the origin of sensational or conscious life.
".. we give examples of what we call Wallace’s “wild side,” such as attending seances and imagining that he communicated with spirits. That irrational disposition may have overwhelmed him late in life to the point where he’d fit in with the Discoveroids, but in his prime he was totally convinced of the validity of evolution.
However, it’s can’t be denied that Wallace thought man had some characteristics that weren’t explained by his and Darwin’s theory."
But this isn't ID. It isn't even Theism. It certainly isn't a rejection of Evolution. Wallace was quite happy with the mechanics of natural selection but saw room some something else which evolution - accepting Theists also believe.
It's been said many times - Evolution is not intended to disprove God. It does undermine genesis and does make it unnecessary to have some intelligent creator behind the process. Darwin lost his faith more through the Problem of Evil than evolution theory. I was atheist before I knew anything about evolution theory. Wallace, despite his interest in the spirit consciousness. did not come to reject evolution.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-14-2011 at 07:04 AM..
I suspect that you found the "information" that Wallace refuted evolution on some apologetic or intelligent design site, because I am unable to find that information on any legitimate unbiased site.
I suspect that you found the "information" that Wallace refuted evolution on some apologetic or intelligent design site, because I am unable to find that information on any legitimate unbiased site.
Wallace was changing toward the end of his life, and he did change his views but died before he published anything. I have a few things I have to find that I will share, but the evolutionist of his time defintely have tried to cover this up.
And that website you gave me is not Wallaces own website; Good greif, the man died years ago, that site was made by someonelse who is biased.
Yes I know the man is dead, and cannot support his own site from the grave...Just how stupid do you think I am?
Quote:
This website is intended to be an island of accurate information in the sea of misinformation about Wallace. It contains information about Wallace's life and work. The content on this site was written by evolutionary biologist and entomologist Dr George Beccaloni
Yes I know the man is dead, and cannot support his own site from the grave...Just how stupid do you think I am?
Its not " His site", he didnot endorse it. You endorsed it. And I do not use the term " Stupid" in my debates. I don't use such derating terms, I don't need to, my words have their own merit.
But I have noticed that a lot of Atheist here use such terms. I disagree with that.
You prove God to yourself by " Survival of the fittest historical information." Millions of things have occured in human history that were never recorded, it just died out. Yet the reputation of God has survived, and the bible has survived and taken its place as the worlds greatest book. Think about that, and know that only the strong survive!
You prove God to yourself by understanding the joy of sex that he instilled in marriage. Wow! A stimulating proof of God! He created sex, and I for one am glad he did. It is impossible for sex to have evolved through means of chance and mistakes by nature over time. The male was given and outward projectile, the female an inward recepticle; I'm telling you man, its just perfection in design. This was done deliberately; see, design is deliberate, evolution is chance and luck. Theres a vast difference.
You prove God to yourself by understanding that animals mate, humans have sex! Totally different, the joy we receive is deliberate design.
Wallace was changing toward the end of his life, and he did change his views but died before he published anything. I have a few things I have to find that I will share, but the evolutionist of his time defintely have tried to cover this up.
And that website you gave me is not Wallaces own website; Good greif, the man died years ago, that site was made by someonelse who is biased.
Bias aside, if you can adduce any evidence that Wallace came to question evolution theory as distinct from feeling that it couldn't account for some aspects of human mind or what he saw as 'spirit', by all means post it. So far I have found nothing that indicates that he had any doubts about the evidence for natural selection.
You should realize that, even if he, Darwin and Dawkins got religion, that would not make a darn bit of difference to the evidence for evolution, nor do I see that it has any bearing on the point of the thread, which is proving God to ones'self.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
