The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
EDITED
Every theory that the scientists of the world had put forward during the 15th to 19th century had witnessed a whirl wind of opposition from those who were conservatives. Most of these theories were proved right quite a long time before the 20th century. But, the theory of evolution was questioned by conservatives even in the 20th century.
Please note that we are talking here about the conservatives; those who want to say that evolution is impossible, or those who say that life originated in 4004 B.C.
One such person was REV. Father William A. Williams, D.D. (I’m quite unsure what does the D.D. here stands for). He had put forward 50 arguments against evolution of man in a systematic manner in his book "The evolution of man scientifically disproved in 50 arguments". (Yes, he accepts plants and animals might have evolved, but man did not)
I have started this thread for two reasons: -
A record attempt for the world's longest thread dealing with arguments (this one is not a much serious reason), and more importantly for counter-attacking some wild arguments as well as the savage use of scientific principles by the author and to share them with people on ukchatforums.com
Now, first off I am posting the summary of the introduction of this book. Please note that this book is now public domain, and no copyright law is being infringed by discussing or summarizing this book on ukchatforums. You can check out the details on www.gutenberg.org
The summary of this introduction can be used to prove the author wrong in his own tracks. After this, I would regularly post his summarized arguments and the contradictions that I find to them, as and when I get time. Do remember that the contradictions that I post here are my own and not borrowed. The things that I'll be using would be common logic and some basic principles, so that every body can argue and understand it. Also note that we are not proving the theory of evolution (most of it is universally accepted), but disproving the contents of Father’s book.
So here we commence-----
Summary of the introduction of Evo. Of Man disproved
(Here "we" means the readers of Father’s book. Treat the text as if you were reading Father Williams' book; and not his summary by me)
This book is designed,
(1) As an up-to-date text book, and a companion to all other text books on evolution; and
(2) As an antidote to books in libraries teaching evolution, infidelity and atheism; and
(3) As an aid to all students, parents, teachers, ministers, lawyers, doctors, and all other lovers of the truth.
Let it be understood, at the outset, that every proved theory of science is to be accepted. Only the most intense prejudice and the maddest folly would lead any one to reject the proved conclusions of science. Every theory to which mathematics can be applied will be proved or disproved by this acid test. Gravitation is proved a true theory by numerous calculations, some of them the most abstruse. The Copernican theory is proved true and the Ptolemaic theory false, by mathematical calculations. The evolution theory, especially as applied to man, likewise is disproved by mathematics. True theories, such as the gravitation and Copernican theories, harmonize with each other as every branch of mathematics harmonizes with every other.
One theory of evolution is held by many. It is called polyphyletic evolution, which means that God created numerous stocks, or beginnings of both plant and animal life, which were subject to change and growth, deterioration and development, according to his plan and purpose. So much of evolution in this sense as can be proved, is in harmony with the Bible account of the creation of plants, animals and man. The false theory of evolution is called the monophyletic, which teaches that all species of plants and animals including man, developed from one cell or germ which came by creation or spontaneous generation
Any scientific theory or hypothesis must be proved first possible, then probable, then certain. To be a possible theory, it must be reconcilable with many facts; to be a probable theory, it must be reconcilable with many more; to be a certain and proven theory, it must be reconcilable with all the facts. Every true theory passes through these three stages,--possibility, probability, and certainty.
We really have a right to demand the proof of a theory, and to refuse consent until proved. Even if it should ever be proved that all plant and animal life came by evolution from one primordial germ, it would not follow that either the body or the soul (note the usage of abstract term “Soul” in a scientific discussion” – entered by The Winster) of man came by evolution.
All the arguments against evolution in general are valid against the evolution of man. There are many other arguments, that prove the evolution of man impossible, even if the evolution of plants and animals can be proved possible.
Even if every argument in this book were invalid, save one, that one valid argument would overthrow evolution, since every true theory must be reconcilable with all the facts (Note how Father is reacting to the authenticity of his own facts. Guilty conscience – Added by The Winster). One irreconcilable fact is sufficient to overthrow evolution.
The evolution of man is not only a guess, but a very wild one; and it is totally unsupported by any convincing (!) arguments. It can be mathematically demonstrated to be an impossible theory. Every proof of the unity of the human race in the days of Adam or Noah shatters the theory of the evolution of man. If evolution were true, there would have been many billion times as many human beings as now exist, a great multitude of invented languages with little or no similarity, a vast number of invented religions with little, if anything, in common.
End of the summary
The first argument concerns the human population of earth, where the author has quite childishly used indexes (powers) of 2 to prove that the current population is insufficient if man existed since one million years.
I'll post two things: -
(1)a summary of whatever Rev. Father Williams has to say in his first argument
(2)and a logical proof (by me) that it is not a valid argument
in the next two or three days in this very thread.
I hope you would like this topic, and not make fun of it. After all we are in the "Life and all things serious" forum.
P.S. - Please bear with me the repetition of the word argument too often in this thread. If possible do post a good synonym to it with your replies, if any. Keep the synonym in P.S. Also, please don't start discussing the last 3 sentences in this thread. After all, the topic is evolution!
Every theory that the scientists of the world had put forward during the 15th to 19th century had witnessed a whirl wind of opposition from those who were conservatives. Most of these theories were proved right quite a long time before the 20th century. But, the theory of evolution was questioned by conservatives even in the 20th century.
Please note that we are talking here about the conservatives; those who want to say that evolution is impossible, or those who say that life originated in 4004 B.C.
One such person was REV. Father William A. Williams, D.D. (I’m quite unsure what does the D.D. here stands for). He had put forward 50 arguments against evolution of man in a systematic manner in his book "The evolution of man scientifically disproved in 50 arguments". (Yes, he accepts plants and animals might have evolved, but man did not)
I have started this thread for two reasons: -
A record attempt for the world's longest thread dealing with arguments (this one is not a much serious reason), and more importantly for counter-attacking some wild arguments as well as the savage use of scientific principles by the author and to share them with people on ukchatforums.com
Now, first off I am posting the summary of the introduction of this book. Please note that this book is now public domain, and no copyright law is being infringed by discussing or summarizing this book on ukchatforums. You can check out the details on www.gutenberg.org
The summary of this introduction can be used to prove the author wrong in his own tracks. After this, I would regularly post his summarized arguments and the contradictions that I find to them, as and when I get time. Do remember that the contradictions that I post here are my own and not borrowed. The things that I'll be using would be common logic and some basic principles, so that every body can argue and understand it. Also note that we are not proving the theory of evolution (most of it is universally accepted), but disproving the contents of Father’s book.
So here we commence-----
Summary of the introduction of Evo. Of Man disproved
(Here "we" means the readers of Father’s book. Treat the text as if you were reading Father Williams' book; and not his summary by me)
This book is designed,
(1) As an up-to-date text book, and a companion to all other text books on evolution; and
(2) As an antidote to books in libraries teaching evolution, infidelity and atheism; and
(3) As an aid to all students, parents, teachers, ministers, lawyers, doctors, and all other lovers of the truth.
Let it be understood, at the outset, that every proved theory of science is to be accepted. Only the most intense prejudice and the maddest folly would lead any one to reject the proved conclusions of science. Every theory to which mathematics can be applied will be proved or disproved by this acid test. Gravitation is proved a true theory by numerous calculations, some of them the most abstruse. The Copernican theory is proved true and the Ptolemaic theory false, by mathematical calculations. The evolution theory, especially as applied to man, likewise is disproved by mathematics. True theories, such as the gravitation and Copernican theories, harmonize with each other as every branch of mathematics harmonizes with every other.
One theory of evolution is held by many. It is called polyphyletic evolution, which means that God created numerous stocks, or beginnings of both plant and animal life, which were subject to change and growth, deterioration and development, according to his plan and purpose. So much of evolution in this sense as can be proved, is in harmony with the Bible account of the creation of plants, animals and man. The false theory of evolution is called the monophyletic, which teaches that all species of plants and animals including man, developed from one cell or germ which came by creation or spontaneous generation
Any scientific theory or hypothesis must be proved first possible, then probable, then certain. To be a possible theory, it must be reconcilable with many facts; to be a probable theory, it must be reconcilable with many more; to be a certain and proven theory, it must be reconcilable with all the facts. Every true theory passes through these three stages,--possibility, probability, and certainty.
We really have a right to demand the proof of a theory, and to refuse consent until proved. Even if it should ever be proved that all plant and animal life came by evolution from one primordial germ, it would not follow that either the body or the soul (note the usage of abstract term “Soul” in a scientific discussion” – entered by The Winster) of man came by evolution.
All the arguments against evolution in general are valid against the evolution of man. There are many other arguments, that prove the evolution of man impossible, even if the evolution of plants and animals can be proved possible.
Even if every argument in this book were invalid, save one, that one valid argument would overthrow evolution, since every true theory must be reconcilable with all the facts (Note how Father is reacting to the authenticity of his own facts. Guilty conscience – Added by The Winster). One irreconcilable fact is sufficient to overthrow evolution.
The evolution of man is not only a guess, but a very wild one; and it is totally unsupported by any convincing (!) arguments. It can be mathematically demonstrated to be an impossible theory. Every proof of the unity of the human race in the days of Adam or Noah shatters the theory of the evolution of man. If evolution were true, there would have been many billion times as many human beings as now exist, a great multitude of invented languages with little or no similarity, a vast number of invented religions with little, if anything, in common.
End of the summary
The first argument concerns the human population of earth, where the author has quite childishly used indexes (powers) of 2 to prove that the current population is insufficient if man existed since one million years.
I'll post two things: -
(1)a summary of whatever Rev. Father Williams has to say in his first argument
(2)and a logical proof (by me) that it is not a valid argument
in the next two or three days in this very thread.
I hope you would like this topic, and not make fun of it. After all we are in the "Life and all things serious" forum.
P.S. - Please bear with me the repetition of the word argument too often in this thread. If possible do post a good synonym to it with your replies, if any. Keep the synonym in P.S. Also, please don't start discussing the last 3 sentences in this thread. After all, the topic is evolution!
Page:
J Nash wrote:
> Shuuut uuuup.
Hey, I had actually closed this thread for once - but when I found out that Strafio & Gerrid are still reading it I thought it would be enought to heat up another arguement. If you don't want to read this, you can just overlook this thread; thats it. I am not trying to be arrogant or something; just telling you that you don't have to be arrogant for things that are not forced upon you.
> Shuuut uuuup.
Hey, I had actually closed this thread for once - but when I found out that Strafio & Gerrid are still reading it I thought it would be enought to heat up another arguement. If you don't want to read this, you can just overlook this thread; thats it. I am not trying to be arrogant or something; just telling you that you don't have to be arrogant for things that are not forced upon you.
J Nash wrote:
> Shuuut uuuup.
Hey, I had actually closed this thread for once - but when I found out that Strafio & Gerrid are still reading it I thought it would be enought to heat up another arguement. If you don't want to read this, you can just overlook this thread; thats it.
> Shuuut uuuup.
Hey, I had actually closed this thread for once - but when I found out that Strafio & Gerrid are still reading it I thought it would be enought to heat up another arguement. If you don't want to read this, you can just overlook this thread; thats it.
Shuuut uuuup.
I just went through all of the posts once again; and I found that I did not post my 4th arguement! Look back at that again!
I am just pasting it here -
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Argument Four : - Origin of Humans
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
---- ---- ---- ---- ----
The unity of the human race is further proved by the fact that it
originated in one locality and not in many. The locality is the
one described by Moses. And the fact that Moses correctly located
the beginning of the race, when he himself had no personal
knowledge, proves that he was inspired and taught of God. He never
could have guessed the spot to which history and the migration of
nations point, and which the evolutionists themselves are obliged
to concede.
The habitable countries of the world total 50,670,837 sq. mi. We
are making a generous estimate, when we suppose the garden of Eden
to have been 100 mi. wide and 125 mi. long,--12,500 sq. mi. There
are 4005 such areas in the habitable globe. It is located in
Mesopotamia on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.
Maps of ancient nations show that mankind radiated from this
centre. The great nations of antiquity were clustered about it.
The beginning of the race after the flood was in the same general
locality. Ridpath, in his great history of the world, graphically
shows the migrations of races and nations. With this, even
evolutionists agree. They draw a line "according to Giddings,"
running through western Asia, in the region of the Garden of Eden.
Since there are 4005 such areas in the habitable globe, Moses had
only one chance out of 4005 to guess the spot, if he had not been
inspired of God. Anyone guessing might have located the origin of
man in any of the countries of Europe, Asia or Africa. This
clearly demonstrates that God revealed the truth to Moses, and
that the story of creation is true and of evolution false.
If evolution were true, there must have been, 6,000 years ago,
many heads to the race, in many places. It is incredible that
there would be but one spot where brutes became humans. There
would be an innumerable host of anthropoid brutes, in many parts
of the world, in all gradations. Who can believe that one species
or one pair forged ahead so far as to become human?
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Proving "Argument Three : - Origin of Humans" Wrong
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
---- ---- ---- ---- ----
See, there is not much to be proved wrong in this argument. Every
fact is right, but its interpretation by Father is wrong. And
yeah, Moses was not guessing (and in my opinion, God did not
reveal anything to him); because he himself originated from the
place where he says human originated. It is natural that he wanted
to dignify that place. The whole thing is just a co-incidence (and
many incredible co-incidences have been recorded in the history.
How about "Carmenia" & "Cape Trafalgar", or how about the book
"Titan" & the actual "Titanic"?) Look for more on Moses in
argument no. 3.
There's one thing I need to say in favor of Father Williams. He
says that Moses had one chance out of 4500 to guess the right
spot. I say, he had lesser odds than that. Why? In an area of 100
sq.mt.; you may place 100 squares of 1 sq.mt. at a time. But there
are more than 100 locations within the 100 sq.mt. area where you
can place the smaller square. I hope I wrote simple enough words
so that you got the point.
The last statement by Father is also wrong. It was not one "human
pair" that was formed by evolution. It was a wholly different
species that was formed after transformations from various other
species like the Neanderthal etc. And certainly, there are various
sub-species of man too. For e.g. Red Indians, Pigmies, Whites,
Blacks, etc. etc. etc.
I am just pasting it here -
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Argument Four : - Origin of Humans
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
---- ---- ---- ---- ----
The unity of the human race is further proved by the fact that it
originated in one locality and not in many. The locality is the
one described by Moses. And the fact that Moses correctly located
the beginning of the race, when he himself had no personal
knowledge, proves that he was inspired and taught of God. He never
could have guessed the spot to which history and the migration of
nations point, and which the evolutionists themselves are obliged
to concede.
The habitable countries of the world total 50,670,837 sq. mi. We
are making a generous estimate, when we suppose the garden of Eden
to have been 100 mi. wide and 125 mi. long,--12,500 sq. mi. There
are 4005 such areas in the habitable globe. It is located in
Mesopotamia on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.
Maps of ancient nations show that mankind radiated from this
centre. The great nations of antiquity were clustered about it.
The beginning of the race after the flood was in the same general
locality. Ridpath, in his great history of the world, graphically
shows the migrations of races and nations. With this, even
evolutionists agree. They draw a line "according to Giddings,"
running through western Asia, in the region of the Garden of Eden.
Since there are 4005 such areas in the habitable globe, Moses had
only one chance out of 4005 to guess the spot, if he had not been
inspired of God. Anyone guessing might have located the origin of
man in any of the countries of Europe, Asia or Africa. This
clearly demonstrates that God revealed the truth to Moses, and
that the story of creation is true and of evolution false.
If evolution were true, there must have been, 6,000 years ago,
many heads to the race, in many places. It is incredible that
there would be but one spot where brutes became humans. There
would be an innumerable host of anthropoid brutes, in many parts
of the world, in all gradations. Who can believe that one species
or one pair forged ahead so far as to become human?
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Proving "Argument Three : - Origin of Humans" Wrong
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
---- ---- ---- ---- ----
See, there is not much to be proved wrong in this argument. Every
fact is right, but its interpretation by Father is wrong. And
yeah, Moses was not guessing (and in my opinion, God did not
reveal anything to him); because he himself originated from the
place where he says human originated. It is natural that he wanted
to dignify that place. The whole thing is just a co-incidence (and
many incredible co-incidences have been recorded in the history.
How about "Carmenia" & "Cape Trafalgar", or how about the book
"Titan" & the actual "Titanic"?) Look for more on Moses in
argument no. 3.
There's one thing I need to say in favor of Father Williams. He
says that Moses had one chance out of 4500 to guess the right
spot. I say, he had lesser odds than that. Why? In an area of 100
sq.mt.; you may place 100 squares of 1 sq.mt. at a time. But there
are more than 100 locations within the 100 sq.mt. area where you
can place the smaller square. I hope I wrote simple enough words
so that you got the point.
The last statement by Father is also wrong. It was not one "human
pair" that was formed by evolution. It was a wholly different
species that was formed after transformations from various other
species like the Neanderthal etc. And certainly, there are various
sub-species of man too. For e.g. Red Indians, Pigmies, Whites,
Blacks, etc. etc. etc.
HI!
Thanks for your compliments. I never actually thought you guys would be reading this again.
Now that its back up again, I'll post some few more arguements after 20th Mar!
Thanks
Thanks for your compliments. I never actually thought you guys would be reading this again.
Now that its back up again, I'll post some few more arguements after 20th Mar!
Thanks
Gerrid beat me to that one. :-)
The guy does seem to be clutching and straws, and not really thinking things through. Reminds me of the Donut Boy that Forest Fan quoted, trying to disprove evolution with the second law of thermodynamics.
Oh, and saying how ridiculous evolution was using a ship "how do you think that ship was made? If someone told you that bits of metal had evolved and formed... That's because ships don't reproduce you mongtard!" as an example. :-)
The guy does seem to be clutching and straws, and not really thinking things through. Reminds me of the Donut Boy that Forest Fan quoted, trying to disprove evolution with the second law of thermodynamics.
Oh, and saying how ridiculous evolution was using a ship "how do you think that ship was made? If someone told you that bits of metal had evolved and formed... That's because ships don't reproduce you mongtard!" as an example. :-)
Good English for someone from Daman (yes I have no idea)
Anyway, the whole idea that civilisation must have been around forever because we don't have any records of uncivilised people is ridiculous. Of course uncivilised people won't keep records - only civilised ones, so obviously the only records we will have are of civilised people.
It's like saying, "because I didn't write about my day today, and there is no record of it, the day never happened", which is obvious lunacy.
Anyway, the whole idea that civilisation must have been around forever because we don't have any records of uncivilised people is ridiculous. Of course uncivilised people won't keep records - only civilised ones, so obviously the only records we will have are of civilised people.
It's like saying, "because I didn't write about my day today, and there is no record of it, the day never happened", which is obvious lunacy.
Where's Daman? Eastern Europe, or one of the former Soviet states?
Sorry guys to bring this up again.
Just to tell you that my Name is Dharav Solanki, from Daman.
Just to tell you that my Name is Dharav Solanki, from Daman.
Well, well, well. Father Williams has all tangled himself in this argument of his. His argument is just one sentence "The early civilization of man points to his creation and not his evolution. Evolution requires many centres of civilization; creation, only one". Then, later on, Father stretches his arguments so in such a way that we can't understand what message is he conveying. So, I'll just post an outline to his argument here.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
* * * * A R G U M E N T F I V E - C I V I L I Z A T I O N S * * * *
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
The early civilization of man points to his creation, not his evolution. Evolution requires many centers of civilization; creation, only one.
Of course, if man is descended from an ancient ape-like form, he must have been as uncivilized and brutish as any baboon or gorilla today. He must have worked his way up into civilization. The records, as far back as they go, prove that the original condition of man was a state of civilization, not savagery. Man fell down, not up.
(Now, Father Williams, writes a horrible synopsis of whatever records we have about civilization. He says that these civilizations were prosperous than us and we eventually degraded. He speaks about Egyptian civilization, Homer, Moses, Hammurabi and his laws in a staggering 2000 words - added by The Winster)
The recent explorations in Egyptian tombs show that a high degree of civilization prevailed from 2000 to 1300 B.C. They had a written language 300 years before Homer wrote his immortal Iliad. The laws of Hammurabi (who is identified as the Amraphel of Scripture, Gen. 14:1, and who was contemporary with Abraham) were in existence
many hundred years before Moses, and showed a high state of civilization, which began many hundred years before Abraham.
It is admitted that the earliest (Sumerian) civilization began on the Euphrates, near the garden of Eden. The first great empires clustered around the places where Adam and Noah lived. No other civilization recorded in any quarter reaches farther back.
We quote from the New International Encyclopedia: "The Sumerian language is probably the oldest known language in the world."
(I enjoyed ripping those 2000 words into 100 odd words. Well, continue on the summary)
The earliest records show man was civilized. He lived in houses, cities and towns, read and wrote, and engaged in commerce and industry. To be sure, he did not have the inventions of modern times.
If all these were necessary, then there was no civilization prior to the 20th century. Prof. J. Arthur Thompson, of Aberdeen says: "Modern research is leading us away from the picture of primitive man as brutish, dull, lascivious and bellicose. There is more justification for regarding primitive man as clever, kindly, adventurous and inventive."
It is admitted that cannibalism was not primordial. The two great revolting crimes of barbarism, cannibalism and human sacrifices, only prevailed when man had fallen to the lowest depths, not when he had risen out of savagery to the heights.
The assertion that man was originally a brute, savage and uncivilized is pure fiction, unsupported by the facts. The original civilization of mankind supports the Bible, and upsets evolution.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
* * * * P R O V I N G I T A L L W R O N G * * * *
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Father Williams wrote: -
> The records, as far back as they go, prove that the
> original condition of man was a state of civilization, not savagery
This is because you have just taken into consideration records that do not go beyond c. 4000 B.C. There are fossilized records of man that are dated way back into mya (million years ago).
But yes Father, if you tell that these fossils are false then there is no record showing the "brute origin of man". But then, it is better to believe a group of thousands of learned man than to believe a weirdo (because you do not deserve respect) like you who uses facts after twisting them for proving whatever you want to; for example, the first argument.
Note: - whatever else that Father has written in this argument just tells you that civilization existed since some thousand years B.C. Now, let's prove him wrong in his own tracks. According to his 1st argument, human population doubled its numbers in 160 years, right? Then by 2000 B.C. (2004 years after creation), the human population should not have been more than 8192 people! OK, father, your arguments do not harmonize with each other (see the original message), you are wrong, buzz off!
Father Williams wrote: -
> We quote from the New International Encyclopedia
> "The Sumerian language is probably the oldest known language in the world."
To say the truth, I've never heard of this encyclopedia. Anyways, we all know that Sanskrit & Latin are the two oldest languages.
Father Williams wrote: -
> There is more justification for regarding primitive man
> as clever, kindly, adventurous and inventive
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Well, that was the most humorous piece I ever read! If this would have been even somewhat true, they would have updated our textbooks by now, or at-least mentioned of this thing.
Conclusion for this argument.
Well, there is not much of a conclusion for this argument. I repeat again, Father says civilization existed even during 4000 B.C. but not before than that. There are no records of civilization before that. So, evolution is false. Well, I do not see any logical connection between them. Whatever that is written in this argument is just something twisted & churned to prove that evolution is no false. There is no logic involved here
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
* * * * A R G U M E N T F I V E - C I V I L I Z A T I O N S * * * *
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
The early civilization of man points to his creation, not his evolution. Evolution requires many centers of civilization; creation, only one.
Of course, if man is descended from an ancient ape-like form, he must have been as uncivilized and brutish as any baboon or gorilla today. He must have worked his way up into civilization. The records, as far back as they go, prove that the original condition of man was a state of civilization, not savagery. Man fell down, not up.
(Now, Father Williams, writes a horrible synopsis of whatever records we have about civilization. He says that these civilizations were prosperous than us and we eventually degraded. He speaks about Egyptian civilization, Homer, Moses, Hammurabi and his laws in a staggering 2000 words - added by The Winster)
The recent explorations in Egyptian tombs show that a high degree of civilization prevailed from 2000 to 1300 B.C. They had a written language 300 years before Homer wrote his immortal Iliad. The laws of Hammurabi (who is identified as the Amraphel of Scripture, Gen. 14:1, and who was contemporary with Abraham) were in existence
many hundred years before Moses, and showed a high state of civilization, which began many hundred years before Abraham.
It is admitted that the earliest (Sumerian) civilization began on the Euphrates, near the garden of Eden. The first great empires clustered around the places where Adam and Noah lived. No other civilization recorded in any quarter reaches farther back.
We quote from the New International Encyclopedia: "The Sumerian language is probably the oldest known language in the world."
(I enjoyed ripping those 2000 words into 100 odd words. Well, continue on the summary)
The earliest records show man was civilized. He lived in houses, cities and towns, read and wrote, and engaged in commerce and industry. To be sure, he did not have the inventions of modern times.
If all these were necessary, then there was no civilization prior to the 20th century. Prof. J. Arthur Thompson, of Aberdeen says: "Modern research is leading us away from the picture of primitive man as brutish, dull, lascivious and bellicose. There is more justification for regarding primitive man as clever, kindly, adventurous and inventive."
It is admitted that cannibalism was not primordial. The two great revolting crimes of barbarism, cannibalism and human sacrifices, only prevailed when man had fallen to the lowest depths, not when he had risen out of savagery to the heights.
The assertion that man was originally a brute, savage and uncivilized is pure fiction, unsupported by the facts. The original civilization of mankind supports the Bible, and upsets evolution.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
* * * * P R O V I N G I T A L L W R O N G * * * *
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Father Williams wrote: -
> The records, as far back as they go, prove that the
> original condition of man was a state of civilization, not savagery
This is because you have just taken into consideration records that do not go beyond c. 4000 B.C. There are fossilized records of man that are dated way back into mya (million years ago).
But yes Father, if you tell that these fossils are false then there is no record showing the "brute origin of man". But then, it is better to believe a group of thousands of learned man than to believe a weirdo (because you do not deserve respect) like you who uses facts after twisting them for proving whatever you want to; for example, the first argument.
Note: - whatever else that Father has written in this argument just tells you that civilization existed since some thousand years B.C. Now, let's prove him wrong in his own tracks. According to his 1st argument, human population doubled its numbers in 160 years, right? Then by 2000 B.C. (2004 years after creation), the human population should not have been more than 8192 people! OK, father, your arguments do not harmonize with each other (see the original message), you are wrong, buzz off!
Father Williams wrote: -
> We quote from the New International Encyclopedia
> "The Sumerian language is probably the oldest known language in the world."
To say the truth, I've never heard of this encyclopedia. Anyways, we all know that Sanskrit & Latin are the two oldest languages.
Father Williams wrote: -
> There is more justification for regarding primitive man
> as clever, kindly, adventurous and inventive
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Well, that was the most humorous piece I ever read! If this would have been even somewhat true, they would have updated our textbooks by now, or at-least mentioned of this thing.
Conclusion for this argument.
Well, there is not much of a conclusion for this argument. I repeat again, Father says civilization existed even during 4000 B.C. but not before than that. There are no records of civilization before that. So, evolution is false. Well, I do not see any logical connection between them. Whatever that is written in this argument is just something twisted & churned to prove that evolution is no false. There is no logic involved here
Page: