The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Hey Gerrid that is real smart!
I think that the Father is a very mixed up man. He has just penned the name "Evolution" to the actual practise of atheism. Why, I do not know.
And immortality of a soul is also a logical conclusion of any human. The way that our mids work we cannot imagine not being alive. It is incomprehensible, as it something that we have never experienced. It is impossible to comprehend things that you have never experienced in some way. This leads humans to a belief that they will live forever, because it is almost impossible to imagine anything else. Try imagine being dead - it's actually impossible. However you do it, you always come to seeing the world that you left without you. So logically, people believe in a soul, or immoirtality of their minds. Religion would only strengthen this belief. That many religions believe in the soul does not prove that all religions hark from one religion. I feel that to understand why people have religion it is necessary to have an understanding of psychology, something which the Father clearly did not have.
On this point it is fair enough to say that religion and belief in a higher order is a psychological need of human beings, and that is how it arose. But if this is true, it does not necessarily follow that God is a figment of our imagintation. Surely it is possible that people need religion, and God came and showed himself and satisfied this need.
And immortality of a soul is also a logical conclusion of any human. The way that our mids work we cannot imagine not being alive. It is incomprehensible, as it something that we have never experienced. It is impossible to comprehend things that you have never experienced in some way. This leads humans to a belief that they will live forever, because it is almost impossible to imagine anything else. Try imagine being dead - it's actually impossible. However you do it, you always come to seeing the world that you left without you. So logically, people believe in a soul, or immoirtality of their minds. Religion would only strengthen this belief. That many religions believe in the soul does not prove that all religions hark from one religion. I feel that to understand why people have religion it is necessary to have an understanding of psychology, something which the Father clearly did not have.
On this point it is fair enough to say that religion and belief in a higher order is a psychological need of human beings, and that is how it arose. But if this is true, it does not necessarily follow that God is a figment of our imagintation. Surely it is possible that people need religion, and God came and showed himself and satisfied this need.
Strafio (and others like Final Fantasy Fanatic) had advised me to make the arguments a little bit simpler, and post entertaining arguments. Well, since the next arguments of Father Williams are very simple, I don’t need to go in detail. The posts have been written in a lighter mood. Father's language has been made simple by me, so that it's easy on our brains. For doing so, I have just deleted useless adverb & adjective clauses.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Argument Three: - RELIGIONS
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
The unity of ancient religions proves the creation of man who received a divine revelation. According to evolution, all religions were evolved or invented by humanoids. In that case, we would expect them to be widely divergent; and we would be surprised, if they agreed on great and important points, and especially on points which could not be clearly arrived at by reason. (It means, if all religions were invented, they would not have been so similar, especially on "illogical points like sacrifice to the god" - added by The Winster, the meaning has not been changed)
For instance, what in reason teaches us that an animal sacrifice is a proper way to worship God? How could unassisted reason ever arrive at the conclusion that God is properly worshipped by sacrificing a sheep or an ox? If we grant that one section of the anthropoid host might have stumbled on the idea, how can we account for its prevalence or its universality?
A very high authority says, "Sacrifices were common to all nations of antiquity, and therefore, traced by some (note the word "some" and not all; - added by The Winster) to a personal revelation." By revelation, we learn that the animal sacrifice prefigured the Lamb slain on Calvary. It was revealed. No race of monkey-men could ever have invented the idea.
(In the next paragraph, Father Williams just mentions some old civilizations with proofs that they practiced sacrifice. Hence, I've summarize it. - added by The Winster)
The most ancient nations worshipped God by sacrifices. Homer's Iliad (1000 B. C.) and other works of Grecian poets are full of it. All the classics, Greek and Latin, are crowded with accounts of offerings. The earliest records of the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Hindus and Chinese speak of sacrifices long in vogue. This unity of religions on the point of animal sacrifices bespeaks revelation and not evolution.
The division of time into weeks of 7 days, prevalent among the ancients, suggests an ancient revelation in honor of creation. The following statements from Dr. J. R. Dummelow, an eminent commentator, show that the Babylonians both divided time into weeks and offered sacrifices, pointing to the unity of religions. "The Babylonians observed the 7th, 14th, 21st and 28th of each lunar month as days when men were subjected to certain restrictions; the king was not to eat food prepared by fire, nor offer sacrifice, nor consult an oracle, nor invoke curses on his enemies."
It was customary, therefore, in the days of Abraham, for the Babylonians to offer sacrifices and to observe the 7th day as especially sacred. This can only be accounted for upon the assumption that God had revealed to the human race that creation occupied 6 days or periods, and the 7th was to be observed,--all of which was doubtless handed down by tradition. There were priests and temples in the most ancient empire known.
Dr. Dummelow says: "It is now widely admitted that the Genesis account of creation contains elements of belief which existed perhaps thousands of years before the book of Genesis was written, among the peoples of Babylonia and Assyria." Many of the primeval revelations were handed down by tradition. God communed with Adam.
(And father thinks that this proves evolution is false. He he he - added by The Winster)
There are many relics of the original religion: the division of time into weeks, and the institution of the Sabbath day; the sacrifices so common in the ancient religions; the general existence of priests and temples in all ages, and among all nations; marriage, the divinely authorized pillar of society; the early institution of the family, and the use of the root words for father and mother, in all the most ancient languages, and families of languages, as well as in the scattered languages of the earth spoken by the most savage.
The belief in the immortality of the soul is well nigh universal, even among tribes, who, unlike Plato, possess no power to reason it from the light of nature. In contrast, we behold the sorry spectacle of the anthropoid evolutionists of our day trying to drive from the hearts of men the hope of immortality by their "science falsely so-called." The burial of the dead is, no doubt, a relic, since animals, even of the monkey tribe, do not bury their dead.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Proving "Argument Three: - RELIGIONS" Wrong
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Father Williams wrote: -
> According to evolution, all religions were evolved or invented by humanoids
Nope. Evolution has never said that. It is just a conclusion you arrive at, once you accept that man evolved and was not created.
------
Father Williams wrote: -
> For instance, what in reason teaches us that an
> animal sacrifice is a proper way to worship God?
That is a simple logic - God has given us this world, in return we should give him something.
------
Father Williams wrote: -
> If we grant that one section of the anthropoid host might have stumbled
> on the idea, how can we account for its prevalence or its universality?
As said, the idea of sacrifice is simple logic. So, there is no need to prove its universality. The reason why I made "universality" italics is that; this idea is not universal in the first place.
The Red Indians don't offer sacrifice. Do they? First of all, they practice no religion (to the best of my knowledge). As for those religions that do have the ritual of offering a sacrifice, I would like to say that they do not have the same ideas about Sacrifice. Father has said that people offer sacrifices with sheep & oxen. The Muslims offer sacrifices with goats. The Hindus offer sacrifice in the form of leaves, fruits, and other edibles. When the ritual is over, they distribute it among themselves and eat it considering it prasad, a gift of the God. The Zoroastrians, on the other hand, offer no sacrifices.
------
Father Williams wrote: -
> The division of time into weeks of 7 days,
> prevalent among the ancients, suggests an ancient
> revelation in honor of creation.
> This can only be accounted for upon the assumption that
> God had revealed to the human race that creation
> occupied 6 days or periods, and the 7th was to be observed.
Not really. As in the case of sacrifices, even this is not a universal idea. Certainly, there are tribes (which have not come in contact with the rest of the world) that do not divide time into weeks.
It is certainly logical that people started practicing the tradition of "a week of 7 days" according to whatever has been written in Genesis. Similarly, it is not the only thing that can be accounted for this practice. Either the Europeans or Babylonians (or the Sumerians) started this belief, and it spread then. In my opinion, it was the Babylonians who believed so, and then the Genesis was wrote by Moses and the belief spread thereafter. Neither the Red Indians, nor the Asians divided time into a period of seven days.
As for Asia, the following was the pattern in which they divided time. It was developed by the ancient Aryans (I'm not Nazi, okay?) who settled near the Indus or might have been developed once these settlements gained expertise in astronomy.
One year is the time which the earth takes to rotate round the sun. In one year, 12 Lunar Months can be observed. During each lunar month, the sun sits in a different Nakshatra (or a constellation). Each month consists of two parts - Shukla Paksha & Krishna Paksha or Sud & Vada. During the first part, the amount of light reflected by the moon increases, while during the second part the amount of light decreases. A day is dated in the format: - Name of Month, Name of Fortnight, Linear number of the day in the fortnight. Since the lunar month & the solar year is not in accordance, a leap month is observed in certain number of years. There is no scope for a week here.
------
Father Williams wrote: -
> It is now widely admitted that the Genesis account of creation
> contains elements of belief which existed perhaps thousands of years
> before the book of Genesis was written, among the peoples of Babylonia and Assyria.
Well, well, well. Father Williams wants to say that Babylonians and the Assyrians believed what the Genesis said, even before the Genesis was actually written. So, he says, that this is another similarity among religions, and so man was created. I'll just elaborate here.
Around 1000 BC, The Israelites started practicing monotheism, and worshipped Yahweh. Both "Yahweh" and the earlier Mesopotamian tradition depicted Man's origins in a watery chaos. According to Genesis; 'the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep'. For the Mesopotamian, though, matter of some sort had always been there; the gods only rearranged it. It was different for the Hebrew; Yahweh had already created chaos itself. He was for Israel what was later described in the Christian creed, 'maker of all things, by whom all things are made'. Later Jewish tradition placed great emphasis on the miraculous exodus from Egypt, a story dominated by Moses. Moses is an Egyptian name, and it is likely that there was a historical original the great leader in the story of exodus. And if it so that Moses was a historical figure, it is likely that he passed off the believes of his civilization. So, what I had to say in this paragraph was (1)The elements of Genesis which the others believe was not quite similar & (2)Since, Moses was perhaps a person from those "others"; he might have just penned the believes of those "others".
------
Father Williams wrote: -
> The general existence of priests and temples in all ages, and among all nations
> proves the existence of the one original religion.
No. The reason is simple, the needs of a temple are logical. A place where people can worship God is certainly a basic necessity when you consider that this practice started at a time when religion bore major importance in human life. Anyways, the temples and the duties of the priests have never been the same in all nations. This just tells you that "worshipping" (a simple enough idea to arise in the minds of different civilizations) was an idea that developed among the different nations in different ways. Again, there were no temples, and definitely no priests in America before its discovery by the Europeans.
------
Father Williams wrote: -
> The proof that all civilizations have "marriage" as the pillar of the society
> proves that there was one common religion which then proves creationism.
Do you remember the last argument where Father Williams had said that "the similar words for father and mother in every language prove that there was one common language"? Well, why are there no similar words for marriage? Again, marriage is logical; since during the step in evolution when Man developed ethics, morals an consciousness; he realized two things: - (1) The need of division of labor in agriculture which led to families an marriage, and (2) The need of giving some dignity to reproduction which led to "marriages". Again, the words for Father and Mother might be similar among a group of languages, but they are not similar among all the groups.
------
Father Williams wrote: -
> The belief in the immortality of the soul is another proof.
Well, I can't find any succinct logic to counter this statement. Anyways, if you scroll to the top of the page, you'll find that Father has written "Any scientific theory or hypothesis, to be a certain and proven theory, it must be reconcilable with all of the facts". Ok, take it as an acid for Father's arguments. All of his arguments have been proved wrong earlier; and the fact about soul might be considered as an exception which I have failed in proving wrong. Maybe some one other may prove it wrong. Whatever it may be, Father's argument about soul is not valid because of his own statement.
------
Father Williams Wrote: -
> The burial of the dead is, no doubt, a relic.
Again Father, again you've just considered Christianity and Islam. Zoroastrians (Parsi people) do not bury the dead. They leave him/her naked in natural environment so that they may be eaten up by vultures and decomposed naturally. The Hindus (1/8th of the world's population) burn the dead. Again, the burial of the dead can be explained logically.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Argument Three: - RELIGIONS
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
The unity of ancient religions proves the creation of man who received a divine revelation. According to evolution, all religions were evolved or invented by humanoids. In that case, we would expect them to be widely divergent; and we would be surprised, if they agreed on great and important points, and especially on points which could not be clearly arrived at by reason. (It means, if all religions were invented, they would not have been so similar, especially on "illogical points like sacrifice to the god" - added by The Winster, the meaning has not been changed)
For instance, what in reason teaches us that an animal sacrifice is a proper way to worship God? How could unassisted reason ever arrive at the conclusion that God is properly worshipped by sacrificing a sheep or an ox? If we grant that one section of the anthropoid host might have stumbled on the idea, how can we account for its prevalence or its universality?
A very high authority says, "Sacrifices were common to all nations of antiquity, and therefore, traced by some (note the word "some" and not all; - added by The Winster) to a personal revelation." By revelation, we learn that the animal sacrifice prefigured the Lamb slain on Calvary. It was revealed. No race of monkey-men could ever have invented the idea.
(In the next paragraph, Father Williams just mentions some old civilizations with proofs that they practiced sacrifice. Hence, I've summarize it. - added by The Winster)
The most ancient nations worshipped God by sacrifices. Homer's Iliad (1000 B. C.) and other works of Grecian poets are full of it. All the classics, Greek and Latin, are crowded with accounts of offerings. The earliest records of the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Hindus and Chinese speak of sacrifices long in vogue. This unity of religions on the point of animal sacrifices bespeaks revelation and not evolution.
The division of time into weeks of 7 days, prevalent among the ancients, suggests an ancient revelation in honor of creation. The following statements from Dr. J. R. Dummelow, an eminent commentator, show that the Babylonians both divided time into weeks and offered sacrifices, pointing to the unity of religions. "The Babylonians observed the 7th, 14th, 21st and 28th of each lunar month as days when men were subjected to certain restrictions; the king was not to eat food prepared by fire, nor offer sacrifice, nor consult an oracle, nor invoke curses on his enemies."
It was customary, therefore, in the days of Abraham, for the Babylonians to offer sacrifices and to observe the 7th day as especially sacred. This can only be accounted for upon the assumption that God had revealed to the human race that creation occupied 6 days or periods, and the 7th was to be observed,--all of which was doubtless handed down by tradition. There were priests and temples in the most ancient empire known.
Dr. Dummelow says: "It is now widely admitted that the Genesis account of creation contains elements of belief which existed perhaps thousands of years before the book of Genesis was written, among the peoples of Babylonia and Assyria." Many of the primeval revelations were handed down by tradition. God communed with Adam.
(And father thinks that this proves evolution is false. He he he - added by The Winster)
There are many relics of the original religion: the division of time into weeks, and the institution of the Sabbath day; the sacrifices so common in the ancient religions; the general existence of priests and temples in all ages, and among all nations; marriage, the divinely authorized pillar of society; the early institution of the family, and the use of the root words for father and mother, in all the most ancient languages, and families of languages, as well as in the scattered languages of the earth spoken by the most savage.
The belief in the immortality of the soul is well nigh universal, even among tribes, who, unlike Plato, possess no power to reason it from the light of nature. In contrast, we behold the sorry spectacle of the anthropoid evolutionists of our day trying to drive from the hearts of men the hope of immortality by their "science falsely so-called." The burial of the dead is, no doubt, a relic, since animals, even of the monkey tribe, do not bury their dead.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Proving "Argument Three: - RELIGIONS" Wrong
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Father Williams wrote: -
> According to evolution, all religions were evolved or invented by humanoids
Nope. Evolution has never said that. It is just a conclusion you arrive at, once you accept that man evolved and was not created.
------
Father Williams wrote: -
> For instance, what in reason teaches us that an
> animal sacrifice is a proper way to worship God?
That is a simple logic - God has given us this world, in return we should give him something.
------
Father Williams wrote: -
> If we grant that one section of the anthropoid host might have stumbled
> on the idea, how can we account for its prevalence or its universality?
As said, the idea of sacrifice is simple logic. So, there is no need to prove its universality. The reason why I made "universality" italics is that; this idea is not universal in the first place.
The Red Indians don't offer sacrifice. Do they? First of all, they practice no religion (to the best of my knowledge). As for those religions that do have the ritual of offering a sacrifice, I would like to say that they do not have the same ideas about Sacrifice. Father has said that people offer sacrifices with sheep & oxen. The Muslims offer sacrifices with goats. The Hindus offer sacrifice in the form of leaves, fruits, and other edibles. When the ritual is over, they distribute it among themselves and eat it considering it prasad, a gift of the God. The Zoroastrians, on the other hand, offer no sacrifices.
------
Father Williams wrote: -
> The division of time into weeks of 7 days,
> prevalent among the ancients, suggests an ancient
> revelation in honor of creation.
> This can only be accounted for upon the assumption that
> God had revealed to the human race that creation
> occupied 6 days or periods, and the 7th was to be observed.
Not really. As in the case of sacrifices, even this is not a universal idea. Certainly, there are tribes (which have not come in contact with the rest of the world) that do not divide time into weeks.
It is certainly logical that people started practicing the tradition of "a week of 7 days" according to whatever has been written in Genesis. Similarly, it is not the only thing that can be accounted for this practice. Either the Europeans or Babylonians (or the Sumerians) started this belief, and it spread then. In my opinion, it was the Babylonians who believed so, and then the Genesis was wrote by Moses and the belief spread thereafter. Neither the Red Indians, nor the Asians divided time into a period of seven days.
As for Asia, the following was the pattern in which they divided time. It was developed by the ancient Aryans (I'm not Nazi, okay?) who settled near the Indus or might have been developed once these settlements gained expertise in astronomy.
One year is the time which the earth takes to rotate round the sun. In one year, 12 Lunar Months can be observed. During each lunar month, the sun sits in a different Nakshatra (or a constellation). Each month consists of two parts - Shukla Paksha & Krishna Paksha or Sud & Vada. During the first part, the amount of light reflected by the moon increases, while during the second part the amount of light decreases. A day is dated in the format: - Name of Month, Name of Fortnight, Linear number of the day in the fortnight. Since the lunar month & the solar year is not in accordance, a leap month is observed in certain number of years. There is no scope for a week here.
------
Father Williams wrote: -
> It is now widely admitted that the Genesis account of creation
> contains elements of belief which existed perhaps thousands of years
> before the book of Genesis was written, among the peoples of Babylonia and Assyria.
Well, well, well. Father Williams wants to say that Babylonians and the Assyrians believed what the Genesis said, even before the Genesis was actually written. So, he says, that this is another similarity among religions, and so man was created. I'll just elaborate here.
Around 1000 BC, The Israelites started practicing monotheism, and worshipped Yahweh. Both "Yahweh" and the earlier Mesopotamian tradition depicted Man's origins in a watery chaos. According to Genesis; 'the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep'. For the Mesopotamian, though, matter of some sort had always been there; the gods only rearranged it. It was different for the Hebrew; Yahweh had already created chaos itself. He was for Israel what was later described in the Christian creed, 'maker of all things, by whom all things are made'. Later Jewish tradition placed great emphasis on the miraculous exodus from Egypt, a story dominated by Moses. Moses is an Egyptian name, and it is likely that there was a historical original the great leader in the story of exodus. And if it so that Moses was a historical figure, it is likely that he passed off the believes of his civilization. So, what I had to say in this paragraph was (1)The elements of Genesis which the others believe was not quite similar & (2)Since, Moses was perhaps a person from those "others"; he might have just penned the believes of those "others".
------
Father Williams wrote: -
> The general existence of priests and temples in all ages, and among all nations
> proves the existence of the one original religion.
No. The reason is simple, the needs of a temple are logical. A place where people can worship God is certainly a basic necessity when you consider that this practice started at a time when religion bore major importance in human life. Anyways, the temples and the duties of the priests have never been the same in all nations. This just tells you that "worshipping" (a simple enough idea to arise in the minds of different civilizations) was an idea that developed among the different nations in different ways. Again, there were no temples, and definitely no priests in America before its discovery by the Europeans.
------
Father Williams wrote: -
> The proof that all civilizations have "marriage" as the pillar of the society
> proves that there was one common religion which then proves creationism.
Do you remember the last argument where Father Williams had said that "the similar words for father and mother in every language prove that there was one common language"? Well, why are there no similar words for marriage? Again, marriage is logical; since during the step in evolution when Man developed ethics, morals an consciousness; he realized two things: - (1) The need of division of labor in agriculture which led to families an marriage, and (2) The need of giving some dignity to reproduction which led to "marriages". Again, the words for Father and Mother might be similar among a group of languages, but they are not similar among all the groups.
------
Father Williams wrote: -
> The belief in the immortality of the soul is another proof.
Well, I can't find any succinct logic to counter this statement. Anyways, if you scroll to the top of the page, you'll find that Father has written "Any scientific theory or hypothesis, to be a certain and proven theory, it must be reconcilable with all of the facts". Ok, take it as an acid for Father's arguments. All of his arguments have been proved wrong earlier; and the fact about soul might be considered as an exception which I have failed in proving wrong. Maybe some one other may prove it wrong. Whatever it may be, Father's argument about soul is not valid because of his own statement.
------
Father Williams Wrote: -
> The burial of the dead is, no doubt, a relic.
Again Father, again you've just considered Christianity and Islam. Zoroastrians (Parsi people) do not bury the dead. They leave him/her naked in natural environment so that they may be eaten up by vultures and decomposed naturally. The Hindus (1/8th of the world's population) burn the dead. Again, the burial of the dead can be explained logically.
Those who tell me to go away, can read my other interesting humorous post in the creative writing forum.
[URL]http://ukchatforums.reserve.co.uk/display_messages.php?threadid=118427&forumid=4011[/URL]
[URL]http://ukchatforums.reserve.co.uk/display_messages.php?threadid=118427&forumid=4011[/URL]
Oh go away
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Argument Four : - RELIGIONS
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
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 : - RELIGIONS" 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.
You.
Suck.
Suck.
That was terrible Icarus. TERRIBLE!
I hope YOU get hot and melt your wings again! :-P
Winster, this topic was reasonably successful because we had an evangelical muppet stir up all our thoughts of religion, which was pretty good actually. Evolution was a hot topic back then so this followed fairly naturally.
Nobodies heard of this mahajaja thingamy you're talking about in the other one so it might not be as sucessful, but keep it up all the same.
And remember what I said about bitesize?
Basically, you tend to write your arguments as a book author would, to try and imagine all possible questions of the work and answer them in advance, because the reader could not personally reply.
Here it's different. More interactive, if you will.
So you write your point or opinion or tibit or whatever, and then when people question you, you answer those questions. Different writing styles suit different medias and the like.
Keep it up! ;-)
I hope YOU get hot and melt your wings again! :-P
Winster, this topic was reasonably successful because we had an evangelical muppet stir up all our thoughts of religion, which was pretty good actually. Evolution was a hot topic back then so this followed fairly naturally.
Nobodies heard of this mahajaja thingamy you're talking about in the other one so it might not be as sucessful, but keep it up all the same.
And remember what I said about bitesize?
Basically, you tend to write your arguments as a book author would, to try and imagine all possible questions of the work and answer them in advance, because the reader could not personally reply.
Here it's different. More interactive, if you will.
So you write your point or opinion or tibit or whatever, and then when people question you, you answer those questions. Different writing styles suit different medias and the like.
Keep it up! ;-)
Given the location of the topic, I think it'd be even hotter.
Hey, I thought this thread would be hot for a long time. Anyways, I would complete the rest arguements only after some weeks.
I am posting a new topic, one about "Taj Mahal" check it out.
I am posting a new topic, one about "Taj Mahal" check it out.
Page: