The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
The Winster wrote:
> Er, Nobody interested?
No, not really.
I believe what I believe, no-one's going to change that. I also don't feel the need to prove anyone else wrong in a series of ultimately pointless essays.
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.
Okay?
> Er, Nobody interested?
No, not really.
I believe what I believe, no-one's going to change that. I also don't feel the need to prove anyone else wrong in a series of ultimately pointless essays.
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.
Okay?
There's a lot to read.
Er, Nobody interested?
Postscript to the first reply: -
It has taken me about 3-4 brainstorming hours in writing this report. I hope you'll like it. I have put up a lot of hard work in preparing this topic and its material, and so I hope at least some of you would await the next argument. Yes, I would post it, but that would be only after the 20th of Jan. But, I promise I would complete the next ten arguments within 2 weeks from the said date. Considering my efforts on this topic, I've launched a shortcut to this forum: - www.dsevolution.cjb.net Till then, you can keep discussing all the arguments put forward until now. And I request again, please don't make fun of this topic, although you may criticize it or post humorous replies. The reason is that the topic intends to be serious, and it'll disappoint me if you laugh on it.
It has taken me about 3-4 brainstorming hours in writing this report. I hope you'll like it. I have put up a lot of hard work in preparing this topic and its material, and so I hope at least some of you would await the next argument. Yes, I would post it, but that would be only after the 20th of Jan. But, I promise I would complete the next ten arguments within 2 weeks from the said date. Considering my efforts on this topic, I've launched a shortcut to this forum: - www.dsevolution.cjb.net Till then, you can keep discussing all the arguments put forward until now. And I request again, please don't make fun of this topic, although you may criticize it or post humorous replies. The reason is that the topic intends to be serious, and it'll disappoint me if you laugh on it.
------------------------------------------------------------
Proving "Argument ONE – The Population of the world" wrong
------------------------------------------------------------
***** 168.3 years is a reasonably average length of time for the human race to double its numbers, in order to make the present population. *****
Take the example of any person now who is respectably a grandfather of some lovely tots (or mischievous teenagers, or vice versa). What do you guess might be his age? 60? 65? 55? If you observe people in your locality, you'll observe that people have kids when their age is normally around 22-28. The same kids, when they grow up to become 22-28 years old, have their own children. So, the first person is now a grandfather, and is seeing his third generation. If he lives for the next 30 odd years, he will see his fourth generation. In other words, his family is 8 times larger than when he married. That is, in just 90 years their population has become eight times more, or doubled thrice. There are some more factors that affect this change, and you'll need to understand them yourself. It is just to remind you that 161 years, are actually, quite a long time for the human population to double.
INTERRUPTION: -
The reason why human population has not reached the number what Father has suggested even though mankind is just about a million years old:
or
The reason why human population does not become staggeringly high even though families double their size every 22-28 years: -
Again take the example of your father and toffees. Your father gives you 2 toffees, and he puts forward a condition. Tomorrow, I'll give you the same number of toffees you have, so that the number becomes double. Note the word "have". So today you have 2, tomorrow you'll get 2, so you have 4. But, you eat 2. So, the next day you'll get 2 toffees more. That's a total of 4 toffees with you. But if you didn't eat 2 on the second day, then you'll get 2 more and your total would be 4 more, or 8. Now, the next day you'll get four more toffees (since you have 4). But, if you did not eat two toffees that day, you might have got 8 more, making your total 16. Now, someday you collect 277 toffees, but you and your friends eat away 197 of them. Now, count yourself what this difference means. Apply this same logic to mankind. Compare the instance when you ate 197 toffees to some major disaster that kills thousands of people. This affects the overall growth of "population".
***** Proof (and not reason) that population growth rate is not stable *****
In 1922, the global population was around 180 millions. Today it has crossed 600 millions. That is, it has more than trebled in just 80 years! According to Father Williams, this should have taken some 250 odd years. Again, according to some major encyclopedias, European population would double in around 5-6 centuries. At the same time, they say that Asian population should double in 35-40years!
***** The whole human race, therefore, on an average has doubled its numbers every 168.3 years; and the Jews, every 161.251 years. What a marvelous agreement! *****
Indeed you are true this time, provided that you mean "coincidence" by "agreement". And how is it just a mere coincidence? Simple, these figures were calculated some 80 years ago, before the Second World War. Didn't Hitler murder 6 million Jews during WWII? The said figures, now, would show more of disagreement and less of agreement. Although this was an artificial disaster for the Jews, keep in mind that nature must have slaughtered most of mankind many a times in History. The essence is that you just can't rely on such figures, since there is no guarantee of the time when they'll change.
***** These figures prove the Bible story, and scrap every guess of the great age and the brute origin of man. It will be observed that the above calculations point to the unity of the race in the days of Noah, 5177 years ago. *****
I am sorry to say Father, but these words quite about reveal your intention in writing this book. It was not because evolution might have seemed illogical to you, but perhaps because it opposes the Biblical theory. Do you need to be reminded about the atrocities that the Church had laid on Galileo and others? It is a real shame that many people still claim that the Earth is flat (and also that the journey to the moon never really took place). Ironically enough, they claim this on the internet. And what makes internet possible? The satellites that move round a spherical earth!
May I, in this regard, put forward a theological theory (other than the Bible) of the origin of man? Hinduism divides the age of mankind in four parts, according to the amount of evil spread in the society. They are Satyuga, Tretayuga, Dwaparyuga and Kaliyuga. Yuga means age; satya means truth and kali means black. So, the names say it all. Satyuga was the time when mankind originated. And when did Satyuga begin? Just around 1.2 million years ago! Pretty close to what evolution says, eh? Apart from that, ape-man help Ram (the eighth incarnation of Lord Vishnu) in the epic "Ramayana". Hanumana (if you've heard about him) was Shri Ram's servant and one of his closest friends. And who was he? An ape-man! So, Father Williams, if we had to believe every theology we laid our eyes on, we do not deserve the grandeur of science. And if that was so, one of the major religions has already approved evolution!
I am not an atheist, and I'm just a 15 year old teenager. Yet, I do believe that if you were to welcome religion in your life, welcome only the philosophy and the teachings. If you firmly start believing in everything what religion says, I guess you'll become too much rigid to welcome any changes. Sir, most of our religious scriptures were wrote at a time when man was ignorant about many a things. The author of these scriptures might have then tried to give an explanation of all the things that –according to them, required any explanation. However, God has given us the ability to reason and intelligence. Why don't we just use it?
------------------------------------------------------------
Proving "Argument ONE – The Population of the world" wrong
------------------------------------------------------------
Before dwelling onto the argument, I would like to relate a short story of a brilliant Indian mathematician here. Yes, it's a folk tale from India (My Granddad told me this story many a times; mostly when the subject of conversation was the practical usage of maths.), and so the time setting is medieval India.
Punditji was one of the best scholars in town. He had earned a lot of recognition for his brain. He, unlike other geniuses, was very proud of his knowledge and intelligence. As his profession, being the munim (accountant) of the biggest landlord of the nation, dealt with maths; he had almost developed a separate section in his brain that immediately multiplied, divided, added and subtracted two numbers as soon as he laid his eyes on them (even if those numbers were on an invitation card giving you the date and time of a particular party etc.).
Once he had to go to a distant town. But by an unusual mix of bad circumstances, he had to go there walking. Punditji might have been good at mathematics, but he certainly wasn't so in geography. If he had been, he would not lose the way to his destination and come across a river. Now he needed to cross the river. If he didn't want to cross the river, than perhaps he would have to walk some miles more to bypass it and find another way. He asked a passer by what the estimated maximum depth of that river was. He said he wasn't sure, but he knew that a four feet high idol of Shri Ganesh can sink in it completely. Then, punditji called another person. He said he had crossed the river by boat some miles from that spot, and it was not more than five feet, when he measured that using his bamboo. From the third person he caught hold of, he found out that at the centre of river on that spot, the depth was 20 feet! The next few people reported the depth at the same spot, but at varying distances from the bank were 2, 1, 1, 2, 4, 6, 1, 7 & 1 feet.
And the arithmetic & logical unit of punditji initiated its work. 12 observations and the total were 54. So the average depth of water there was just 4.5 feet! "Why, I'm 6'3" and my torso would be completely dry when I reach the opposite bank." So he bought a towel, wrapped himself in it, put his hands up which held his books and started crossing the river. It was indeed a great loss to his employer that his best employee was drowned by the depth and current of the river.
What were the mistakes that he had made?
(1) Did not ask the people whether he was going on the right way or ask them the way to the town he wanted to go.
(2) Did not take into account the current of the river
(3) Relied on average depth when he knew that somewhere the depth was 8 feet and somewhere it was 20 feet.
Yes, average can be misleading.
Now I dwell onto the subject of this reply, by quoting one by one father's words from his arguments.
***** If the human race would double its numbers 30.75 times, we would have the present population (1,804,187,000) of the globe. *****
The logic behind this argument is completely wrong, and does not directly involve evolution. It just tells you that the age of human race cannot be as old as evolutionists say it to be. And so, he takes it for granted that evolution is disproved. And is this mathematics?
Certainly not. When mathematics is used to prove a theory of physics or astronomy or something else, it's mostly equations or comparing previously proved results. F = M x A, E = MC2 etc. is the type of mathematics that is used to co-ordinate science with mathematics. And yes, do you recall any theory which was proved by conclusively taking averages? The averages taken here are for growth rate of human population which are never stable, not even for a time span covering 5 decades (I'll come to that later).
Father had calculated human population from the end to the beginning. Let us do that in reverse. Consider that only one couple exists. This couple gives birth to a boy and a girl. So, the number of couples has doubled. Now, in the next span of doubling, there would be four couples. Using figures, it means 1 couple become 2, 2 become 4, 4 become 8, and so on. But wait a minute! Reverent Father has taken it for granted that Adam & Eve (the first couple) will give birth to another couple during the second span and another one during the third span. In other words, he has postulated that the first couple is immortal (and so is another). He didn't subtract their number when they died. Only those of age 14-50 years are the humans who can reproduce. So, according to Father, a couple is reproducing even after 5000 years!
Didn't get the thing? Consider that your father gives you one toffee today. He promises that the he'll double the number of toffees he gives to you everyday. So, today you have 1, tomorrow you will get 2, the next day you'll get four, then on the fifth day you'll get 8. That is within five days, you must be having 15 toffees. But didn't you eat some of them? Yes, you probably have less than ten toffees.
Now, if Father said that "human population doubles", he should have meant something like this. Your father gives you 2 toffees, and he puts forward a condition. Tomorrow, I'll give you the same number of toffees you have, so that the number becomes double. Note the word "have". So today you have 2, tomorrow you'll get 2, so you have 4. But, you eat one. So, the next day you'll get 3 toffees more. That's a total of 6 toffees with you. This is what happens with human population growth, but it is an oversimplified explanation. Mainly because human population adds and subtracts, not multiplies and divides.
-------------------------------------------------------
Argument ONE – The Population of the world
-------------------------------------------------------
The following is what Father Williams had put forward as his first argument to prove that evolution of man is impossible. Anything in parenthesis which contains the words "added by The Winster" are comments by me, and do not form a part of the original text.
-----------------------------
The population of the world, based upon the Berlin census reports of 1922, was found to be 1,804,187,000. The human race must double itself 30.75 times to make this number.
This result may be approximately ascertained by the following computation:--
At the beginning of the first period of doubling there would just be two human beings; the second, 4; the third, 8; the fourth, 16; the tenth, 1024; the twentieth, 1,048,576, the thirtieth, 1,073,741,824; and the thirty-first, 2,147,483,648.
In other words, if we raise two to the thirtieth power, we have 1,073,741,824; or to the thirty-first power, 2,147,483,648. Therefore, it is evident that, to have the present population of the globe, the net population must be doubled more than thirty times and less than thirty-one times. By logarithms, we find it to be 30.75 times.
If the human race would double its numbers 30.75 times, we would have the present population of the globe.
Now, according to the chronology of Hales, based on the Septuagint text, 5077 years have elapsed since the flood, and 5177 years since the ancestors of mankind numbered only two, Noah and his wife. By dividing 5177 by 30.75, we find it requires an average of 168.3 years for the human race to double its numbers, in order to make the present population. This is a reasonable average length of time (!!!!!!!! - added by The Winster). Moreover, it is singularly confirmed by the number of Jews, or descendants of Jacob. According to Hales, 3850 years have passed since the marriage of Jacob. By the same method of calculation as above, the Jews must have doubled their numbers 23.8758 times, or once every 161.251 years.
The whole human race, therefore, on an average has doubled its numbers every 168.3 years; and the Jews, every 161.251 years. What a marvelous agreement! Their correspondence singularly corroborates the age of the human race and of the Jewish people, as gleaned from the word of God by the most proficient chronologists.
If the human race is 2,000,000 years old, as described by the evolutionists, the period of doubling would be 65,040 years. This is 402 times that of the Jews, which, of course, is unthinkable. While the period of doubling may vary slightly in different ages, yet there are few things so stable and certain as general average, where large numbers and many years are considered, as in the present case. The Jews and the whole human race have lived together the same thirty-eight centuries with very little intermarriage, and are affected by similar advantages and disadvantages, making the comparison remarkably fair. Also, the 25,000,000 descendants of Abraham must have doubled their numbers every 162.275 years, during the 3,988 years since the birth of his son Ishmael. These periods of doubling which tally so closely, 168.3 years for the whole race, 161.251 for the Jews, and 162.275 years for the descendants of Abraham, cannot be a mere coincidence, but are a demonstration against the great age of man required by evolution, and in favor of the 5,177 years since Noah.
The correspondence of these figures, 168.3, 161.251 and 162.275 is so remarkable that it must bring the conviction to every serious student that the flood destroyed mankind and Noah became the head of the race. Now the evolutionists claim that the human race is 2,000,000 years old. There is no good reason for believing that, during all these years the developing dominant species would not increase as rapidly as the Jews, or the human race in historic times, especially since the restraints of civilization and marriage did not exist.
But let us generously suppose that these remote ancestors, beginning with one pair, doubled their numbers in 1612.51 years, one-tenth as rapidly as the Jews, or 1240 times in 2,000,000 years. If we raise 2 to the 1240th power, the result is 18,932,139,737,991 with 360 figures following. The population of the world, therefore, would have been 18,932,139,737,991 decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion; or 18,932,139,737,991 vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion.
Or, let us suppose that man, the dominant species, originated from a single pair, only 100,000 years ago, the shortest period suggested by any evolutionist (and much too short for evolution – not added by The Winster) and that the population doubled in 1612.51 years, one-tenth the Jewish rate of net increase, a most generous estimate. The present population of the globe should be 4,660,210,253,138,204,300 or 2,527,570,733 greater than today (i.e. 1922 – added by The Winster) for every man, woman and child! In these calculations, we have made greater allowances than any self-respecting evolutionist could ask without blushing. And yet withal, it is as clear as the light of day that the ancestors of man could not possibly have lived 2,000,000 or 1,000,000 or 100,000 years ago, or even 10,000 years ago (We certainly know that man did exist 10,000 years ago - added by the Winster); for if the population had increased at the Jewish rate for 10,000 years, it would be more than two billion times as great as it is. No guess that ever was made, or ever can be made, much in excess of 5177 years, can possibly stand as the age of man. The evolutionist cannot sidestep this argument by a new guess.
Evolutionists keep on guessing wildly. That their guesses can not possibly be correct, is proven also by approaching the subject from another angle. If the human race is 2,000,000 years old, and must double its numbers 30.75 times to make the present population, it is plain that each period for doubling would be 65,040 years, since {2,000,000/30.75} = 65,040. At that rate, there would be fewer than four Jews! If we suppose the race to have sprung from one pair 100,000 years ago, it would take 3252 years to double the population. At this rate, there would be five Jews!
Do we need any other demonstration that the evolution of man is an absurdity and impossibility? If the evolutionists endeavor to show that man may have descended from the brute, the population of the world conclusively shows that MAN CERTAINLY DID NOT DESCEND FROM THE BRUTE. (Father Williams is criticizable here for using ALL CAPS. All of us know that it's the equivalent of shouting. There was no need of doing that, he can explain his point calmly if he is sure on his part. – Added by The Winster). If they ever succeed in showing that all species of animals may have been derived from one primordial germ, it is impossible that man so came. He was created as the Bible declares, by the Almighty Power of God.
The above mathematical calculations prove that the evolution of man was certainly not true. They fail to make their case even if we grant their claims. These figures prove the Bible story, and scrap every guess of the great age and the brute origin of man. It will be observed that the above calculations point to the unity of the race in the days of Noah, 5177 years ago, rather than in the days of Adam 7333 years ago, according to Hales' chronology. If the race increased at the Jewish rate, not over 16,384 perished by the Flood, fewer than by many a modern catastrophe. This most merciful providence of God started the race anew with a righteous head. Now, if there had been no flood to destroy the human race, then the descendants of Adam, in the 7333 years, would have been 16,384 times the 1,804,187,000, or 29,559,799,808,000; or computed at the Jewish rate of net increase for 7333 years since Adam, the population would have been still greater, or 35,184,372,088,832. These calculations are in perfect accord with the Scripture story of the special creation of man, and the destruction of the race by a flood. Had it not been for the flood, the earth could not have sustained the descendants of Adam. Is not this a demonstration, decisive and final?
No need to be so formal about things.
Intelligent discussions and droning lectures are not always the same thing.
Intelligent discussions and droning lectures are not always the same thing.
The guy who wrote the book doesnt seem that crazy to me. Fair enough if you dont want to believe him, but his points are valid.
There is no way of proving it either way. He's just offering some reasons why he doesnt believe in evolution.
The "standard" arguments for and against evolution are both logical and I can understand why people accept both of them.
The bottom line, however, is that it doesnt really matter. What difference does it make?
There is no way of proving it either way. He's just offering some reasons why he doesnt believe in evolution.
The "standard" arguments for and against evolution are both logical and I can understand why people accept both of them.
The bottom line, however, is that it doesnt really matter. What difference does it make?
Quarrel?
Dispute isn't bad.
Dispute isn't bad.
Page: