The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
gerrid is smart.
Aye, that was hilarious.
As were his claims of not being religious
Different words for the same things, like I kept saying.
As were his claims of not being religious
Different words for the same things, like I kept saying.
Yeah. This adaption thing does sound suspiciously like the way Forest Fan tried to get around evolution! ;-D
Strafio wrote:
> stuff
Aha. I didn't realise that's what you were getting at (i.e. not a random mutation). My fault for not reading correctly. :D
> stuff
Aha. I didn't realise that's what you were getting at (i.e. not a random mutation). My fault for not reading correctly. :D
Doesn't mean we mutated randomly.
Perhaps in the darker climate, our skin paled a bit so that it could absorb more of the little sunlight available.
After all, if you don't see the light for a while, you do get very pale.
So the less light we saw, the paler our skin got to make more of what light we got. And after a long stretch of time, our skin registered the climate as "normal" and set the skin colour that suited this climate as permanent to the DNA.
And so Whitey was born. :-)
Perhaps in the darker climate, our skin paled a bit so that it could absorb more of the little sunlight available.
After all, if you don't see the light for a while, you do get very pale.
So the less light we saw, the paler our skin got to make more of what light we got. And after a long stretch of time, our skin registered the climate as "normal" and set the skin colour that suited this climate as permanent to the DNA.
And so Whitey was born. :-)
Strafio wrote:
> Perhaps that's because you tan for 2/3 months of the year at the
> MOST.
> Perhaps if you lived in a "tannable" environment for say,
> 10 years?, perhaps then your body would start to register the climate
> as permanent and then change your DNA to make that your
> "normal" skin colour?
>
> It's still rare that it'll happen, but I think it's less rare than a
> random mutation actually being helpful! :-)
It's not rare. Africa is the seat of humanity, and us pale skins are mutations.
> Perhaps that's because you tan for 2/3 months of the year at the
> MOST.
> Perhaps if you lived in a "tannable" environment for say,
> 10 years?, perhaps then your body would start to register the climate
> as permanent and then change your DNA to make that your
> "normal" skin colour?
>
> It's still rare that it'll happen, but I think it's less rare than a
> random mutation actually being helpful! :-)
It's not rare. Africa is the seat of humanity, and us pale skins are mutations.
gerrid wrote:
> A simple example is if I have a really dark suntan when I impregnate
> my partner, my baby isn't born with a dark suntan, but if I had a
> gene for dark skin in my DNA then my baby would have dark skin.
Perhaps that's because you tan for 2/3 months of the year at the MOST.
Perhaps if you lived in a "tannable" environment for say, 10 years?, perhaps then your body would start to register the climate as permanent and then change your DNA to make that your "normal" skin colour?
It's still rare that it'll happen, but I think it's less rare than a random mutation actually being helpful! :-)
> A simple example is if I have a really dark suntan when I impregnate
> my partner, my baby isn't born with a dark suntan, but if I had a
> gene for dark skin in my DNA then my baby would have dark skin.
Perhaps that's because you tan for 2/3 months of the year at the MOST.
Perhaps if you lived in a "tannable" environment for say, 10 years?, perhaps then your body would start to register the climate as permanent and then change your DNA to make that your "normal" skin colour?
It's still rare that it'll happen, but I think it's less rare than a random mutation actually being helpful! :-)
I am thinking over the "Random" thing. I'll get back to it as soon as possible.
Well evolution occurs via random genetic mutations in the DNA of an organism. This mutation may confer some advantage to the organism and therefore better equip it to survive and reproduce where others wouldnt, passing on this genetic advantage to its offspring. An example is that one bacteria developed an immunity to an antibiotic by random mutation of their genes. When this antibiotic is applied to the culture of bacteria, only this one would survive to pass on its genes to the next generation. That's evolution occuring by natural selection.
I said that Evolution is a mechanism for change - it tracks the progress of life from the first life. Evolution doesn't explain the generation of life, indeed that is a different theory all together that scientists couple with evolution because it's conveniant.
What I'm saying is that you can have evolution without spontaneous generation of life. It's simple enough.
Perhaps you refer to Lamarkian evolution, where organisms adapt to their surroundings and then pass on this adaptation to their progeny. This has been proven to be a very rare occurance, however, and it is only mutation of the gametes that lead to the passing on of a mutation.
A simple example is if I have a really dark suntan when I impregnate my partner, my baby isn't born with a dark suntan, but if I had a gene for dark skin in my DNA then my baby would have dark skin.
Evolution is simply the name for the progression of species by natural selection, and doesn't in itself disprove the existence of God or the creation of life by God.
I said that Evolution is a mechanism for change - it tracks the progress of life from the first life. Evolution doesn't explain the generation of life, indeed that is a different theory all together that scientists couple with evolution because it's conveniant.
What I'm saying is that you can have evolution without spontaneous generation of life. It's simple enough.
Perhaps you refer to Lamarkian evolution, where organisms adapt to their surroundings and then pass on this adaptation to their progeny. This has been proven to be a very rare occurance, however, and it is only mutation of the gametes that lead to the passing on of a mutation.
A simple example is if I have a really dark suntan when I impregnate my partner, my baby isn't born with a dark suntan, but if I had a gene for dark skin in my DNA then my baby would have dark skin.
Evolution is simply the name for the progression of species by natural selection, and doesn't in itself disprove the existence of God or the creation of life by God.
I think you've missed his point.
Evolution doesn't NECESSARILY defy the Bible.
The evolution we have strong evidence for doesn't stretch quite as far as a complete change in species. Some people could argue that evolution happened but started from the point of "creation".
I think that this small scale evolution over a larger timescale could lead to bigger changes, and in a lot of ways it makes a lot of sense.
But the more change you try to credit evolution, the harder it gets to back up.
For instance, I think we're still short of a lot of missing links we need to make it conclusive.
Evolution doesn't NECESSARILY defy the Bible.
The evolution we have strong evidence for doesn't stretch quite as far as a complete change in species. Some people could argue that evolution happened but started from the point of "creation".
I think that this small scale evolution over a larger timescale could lead to bigger changes, and in a lot of ways it makes a lot of sense.
But the more change you try to credit evolution, the harder it gets to back up.
For instance, I think we're still short of a lot of missing links we need to make it conclusive.
Page: