The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Well if he believes in what the Bible says, then it is his own mind, no?
On a lighter note, I spent about 5 minutes attempting to decipher what the title meant.
On a lighter note, I spent about 5 minutes attempting to decipher what the title meant.
The Confederate wrote:
> "And The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
> breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a
> living soul... And The Lord God said, It is not good that the man
> should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him ... And The
> Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and He
> took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And
> the rib, which The Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and
> brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my
> bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she
> was taken out of Man." (Genesis 2:7,18,21-23)
"And the Lord God said amoeba shall be multi-celled organism, and then a little worm, and then a mouse, until, LO! It wa a monkey, and then it was a human"
OR
"Then a monkey turned into a man"
OR
"Spaceships landed, and conspiracy theories were born"
OR
"I have my own mind, not a book in my head"
> "And The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
> breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a
> living soul... And The Lord God said, It is not good that the man
> should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him ... And The
> Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and He
> took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And
> the rib, which The Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and
> brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my
> bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she
> was taken out of Man." (Genesis 2:7,18,21-23)
"And the Lord God said amoeba shall be multi-celled organism, and then a little worm, and then a mouse, until, LO! It wa a monkey, and then it was a human"
OR
"Then a monkey turned into a man"
OR
"Spaceships landed, and conspiracy theories were born"
OR
"I have my own mind, not a book in my head"
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> But even if I do, I doubt I'll ditch everything in and stick 100% to
> the rules set down. More likely I'll just take what I like, add it to
> what I have, and leave the rest for whoever else wants it.
That's how Buddhism grows on you. :-)
The Winster wrote:
> An thanks fir thinking that it was a bit proffessional.
Hehe. :-)
But don't forget that I can make people think that I'm good at Tae Kwon Do, so don't make too much of it! :-D
> But even if I do, I doubt I'll ditch everything in and stick 100% to
> the rules set down. More likely I'll just take what I like, add it to
> what I have, and leave the rest for whoever else wants it.
That's how Buddhism grows on you. :-)
The Winster wrote:
> An thanks fir thinking that it was a bit proffessional.
Hehe. :-)
But don't forget that I can make people think that I'm good at Tae Kwon Do, so don't make too much of it! :-D
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> Yeah, there's the thing - this is all good stuff if you're having a
> proper debate about all this stuff with someone with views as
> strongly held as the guy who wrote the book.
Thats a bit encouraging man!
> Yeah, there's the thing - this is all good stuff if you're having a
> proper debate about all this stuff with someone with views as
> strongly held as the guy who wrote the book.
Thats a bit encouraging man!
Strafio wrote:
> The detail you go in to, necessary for making it a proper argument to
> be considered by professionals, but means nothing to us.
> I took one look at the numbers and thought "technicality".
>
> :-)
>
> Perhaps start with the basic argument, and then go into a bit more
> detail as people ask you to back it up...
Erm, thanks I'll follow yours an some other people's suggestion.
An thanks fir thinking that it was a bit proffessional.
I just wanted to make sure that my arguements properly convinced me, so that they were right.
Thanks f\every one for reading!
> The detail you go in to, necessary for making it a proper argument to
> be considered by professionals, but means nothing to us.
> I took one look at the numbers and thought "technicality".
>
> :-)
>
> Perhaps start with the basic argument, and then go into a bit more
> detail as people ask you to back it up...
Erm, thanks I'll follow yours an some other people's suggestion.
An thanks fir thinking that it was a bit proffessional.
I just wanted to make sure that my arguements properly convinced me, so that they were right.
Thanks f\every one for reading!
"And The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul... And The Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him ... And The Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which The Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." (Genesis 2:7,18,21-23)
Yeah, there's the thing - this is all good stuff if you're having a proper debate about all this stuff with someone with views as strongly held as the guy who wrote the book.
But this is a chat forum, most people are here to have a bit of fun, maybe dip in and out of these arguments to tease and test the old grey matter along with more spiritual stuff. This is a bit dense, and I doubt you'll find many people who'll argue against you in the same way.
To me, the theory of evolution makes enough sense, and has been accepted so fully, that this book is just another for the pile of them all - desperate to stick with 6000-year-old beliefs that are painfully outdated and generally disregarded. So there's not much need to look at it specifically.
Actually, I'll take back that statement about my beliefs not changing. Of course they will as I grow older - I was saying, however, that any books like this and pretty much anything from orgaised religions is very unlikely to chance any of my views.
And I haven't really looked deeper at any of the more unconventional religions to disregard them completely. Maybe I'll have a closer look at Buddhism or something and find it very much to my liking.
But even if I do, I doubt I'll ditch everything in and stick 100% to the rules set down. More likely I'll just take what I like, add it to what I have, and leave the rest for whoever else wants it.
Which, from what I can see, is what most other people do as well who aren't locked down to one set faith. Seems the natural thing to do - build up your own set of morals and beliefs as you grow up, and realise that everyone'll be doing the same and as such will be different to you.
And that's my main problem with orgainsed religion - saying that millions of people will have the same beliefs. It doesn't work like that, because we're all different.
But this is a chat forum, most people are here to have a bit of fun, maybe dip in and out of these arguments to tease and test the old grey matter along with more spiritual stuff. This is a bit dense, and I doubt you'll find many people who'll argue against you in the same way.
To me, the theory of evolution makes enough sense, and has been accepted so fully, that this book is just another for the pile of them all - desperate to stick with 6000-year-old beliefs that are painfully outdated and generally disregarded. So there's not much need to look at it specifically.
Actually, I'll take back that statement about my beliefs not changing. Of course they will as I grow older - I was saying, however, that any books like this and pretty much anything from orgaised religions is very unlikely to chance any of my views.
And I haven't really looked deeper at any of the more unconventional religions to disregard them completely. Maybe I'll have a closer look at Buddhism or something and find it very much to my liking.
But even if I do, I doubt I'll ditch everything in and stick 100% to the rules set down. More likely I'll just take what I like, add it to what I have, and leave the rest for whoever else wants it.
Which, from what I can see, is what most other people do as well who aren't locked down to one set faith. Seems the natural thing to do - build up your own set of morals and beliefs as you grow up, and realise that everyone'll be doing the same and as such will be different to you.
And that's my main problem with orgainsed religion - saying that millions of people will have the same beliefs. It doesn't work like that, because we're all different.
The detail you go in to, necessary for making it a proper argument to be considered by professionals, but means nothing to us.
I took one look at the numbers and thought "technicality".
:-)
Perhaps start with the basic argument, and then go into a bit more detail as people ask you to back it up...
I took one look at the numbers and thought "technicality".
:-)
Perhaps start with the basic argument, and then go into a bit more detail as people ask you to back it up...
> As such, any lengthy arguments between one group of people and other
> fail to interest me in the slightest. Because a) it's all been said
> before, in a much more succinct and enjoyable way, and b) I don't
> care.
Yeah, I Get you. I'd make it more enjoyable the next time, if I post it again.
The only reason why I'm writing this is, the arguements are laughable.
And if you are a person who believes what he believes, without disproving those who don't; I guess you are a stubborn person.
C'mon, there's a logic to everything.
Yeah, the next time, it'd be less than 200 words.
> fail to interest me in the slightest. Because a) it's all been said
> before, in a much more succinct and enjoyable way, and b) I don't
> care.
Yeah, I Get you. I'd make it more enjoyable the next time, if I post it again.
The only reason why I'm writing this is, the arguements are laughable.
And if you are a person who believes what he believes, without disproving those who don't; I guess you are a stubborn person.
C'mon, there's a logic to everything.
Yeah, the next time, it'd be less than 200 words.
Mythos is destructive without logos, logos is meaningless without mythos.
Live with it.
Unless of course, either side gets a little too virulent.
In which case, argue.
Live with it.
Unless of course, either side gets a little too virulent.
In which case, argue.
Page: