GetDotted Domains

Viewing Thread:
"Arguments proving "Evolution of Man disproved" wrong."

The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.

Thu 30/12/04 at 09:04
Regular
"Always the winner?"
Posts: 650
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!
Sun 16/01/05 at 06:23
Regular
"Always the winner?"
Posts: 650
Gerrid "No Tagline"

> See that's the stumbling block that I see.
> Evolution doesn't explain the origin of the first life,
> it is just a theory of progression, like a milometer
> in a car tells how how many miles you've travelled
> but not where you started from.

See, you've mistaken the arguements. What evolution says is that life has developed from a primordial germ. It has nothing to do with the origin of life. The reason why we mess it up with Creationism is that the theory of evolution defies the Biblical explanations that life appeared as it is.

> Also note that the mechanism for evolution is random mutation

Er, I am extremely confused at this point. The reason is that I've not come across any aricle or essay that says so. If only you could explain it here, or post a link (or something) to any article that says that...

(I am looking forward to one)
Sun 16/01/05 at 06:22
Regular
"Always the winner?"
Posts: 650
Mercutio "No Tagline" wrote,

> Truth is that, Anyone can do research on any
> given topic and string up an essay on stuff in hours.

Yes of course, I accept it is true. But then, if you consider one thing you'll soon find out that when you appreciate a person, you're not appreciating his achievements but his efforts.

See, anyone who takes a logical and arguementive approach to things can end up with a good "Pros & Cons" type of essay. But see the subordinate adjective clause object to the noun "anyone". It says anyone, who takes a logical and arguementive approach... I hope you understood what I meant to say.

And when it comes to writing an essay in hours, you are correct there. But the thing is that nobody takes hours in writing essays. When somebody does, its only because he wants convincing arguements and a total interpretation of his thoughts.

Anyways, I like anyone appreciating my work, and at the same time anyone who says where it lacks (not plain criticism though), since there is no commercial aspect in these essays. I may understand that you (Mercutio), are capable of doing the same work what I've dpne here and hence the remark.

I am saying this because I feel the same emotions when somebody appreciates a person for a work which I could have done in a much better way.
Sun 16/01/05 at 06:20
Regular
"Always the winner?"
Posts: 650
KamLee wrote,
> Winster, i first wanted to say your approach
> to the subject is very professional, very
> intelligent and very good to see from someone
> of your age. I hope you'll be going to university.

Hey thanks for your comments. I am also happy to know that my works are getting the same type of comments from everywhere. However I don't understand why you didn't suggested for it to be more succinct.

> I wouldnt mind having someone intelligent on msn to talk with.

Er, let me tell you, if you are reffering to me in the sentence above, that I o not log onto MSN or Yahoo Messenger so often. I would download Yahoo Messenger when I get permission from my parents to log onto the net for a long session.

Here is my email id though, [email protected]
Sun 16/01/05 at 06:18
Regular
"Always the winner?"
Posts: 650
For everyone who argue evolution is absurd, I want to summarize all my arguements into a few lines

Evolution may fail to explain certain things convincingly, but we have to accept that evolution is logical. After all, evolution is a long term name for adaptation. Now don't tell me that adaptation is impossible.
Sat 15/01/05 at 18:51
Regular
Posts: 9,848
gerrid wrote:
Some great stuff, including:

> Also note that the mechanism for evolution is random mutation, but
> "random" and "by chance" are not things we can
> measure.

I'm starting to think that it isn't random mutation, that living things have the capacity to intelligently change their own DNA.
Take people living in Africa.
I don't think some kid was randomly born black and survived. I think that skin gradually darkened or lightened through the years as each person's skin tried to find the best balance of sunlight for that climate and then "saved it to" the DNA.

Africans get a surplus of sunlight so their skin darkens to block most of it out. Kids who live inside a darkroom barely see the sun, so their skin pales so it can make the most of every bit of sunlight it can get it's hands on, and I think that adaptions like these do make their way into our genetics.


> As for the idea of original sin, and the creation stories, I take
> them as more symbolic, despite being a practising catholic myself.
> Had the Bible contained information about cells, about atoms and
> about microbiology, people throughout the ages, the peole who read
> the stories first, would never have understood them. Surely it is
> possible that the stories are simple representations of the truth,
> making them easily understandable and memorable forever.

Same here.
For me, Genesis represents when man develloped a conscience for right and wrong (symbolised by eating from the tree of knowledge) and once they knew right from wrong, they started having to take responsibility for their actions. From now on they could do wrong things ("sin").

I've said this before, haven't I... :-)
Sat 15/01/05 at 17:49
Regular
Posts: 863
gerrid wrote:
> like a milometer in a car tells how how many miles you've travelled
> but not where you started from.

Aha, nice.
Sat 15/01/05 at 17:37
Regular
Posts: 5
True "Anyone" can do it, but how many choose to? or rather students aside, how many choose of their own choice to do such a thing?

The sad truth is most of the public dont have a deep interest in Philosophy, Sociology, Pyschology, Theology or Politics. Or if they do have the interest, they rarely choose to pursue it.
Sat 15/01/05 at 13:38
Regular
Posts: 23
KamLee wrote:
> Winster, i first wanted to say your approach to the subject is very
> professional, very intelligent and very good to see from someone of
> your age. I hope you'll be going to university. I wouldnt mind having
> someone intelligent on msn to talk with.

Truth is though, ANYONE can do research on any given topic and string up an essay on stuff in hours. There's no "intellligence" about it. You read, you assimilate, you summarise to argue your point. I'm sure a 3 year degree in philosophy will do fine.
Sat 15/01/05 at 13:28
Regular
"bit of a brain"
Posts: 18,933
The Winster wrote:
> it has so
> happened with all of us that we have taken it for granted that only
> one of evolution and creationism is true. If evolution is true,
> creationism is false, and vice-versa.

See that's the stumbling block that I see. Evolution doesn't explain the origin of the first life, it is just a theory of progression, like a milometer in a car tells how how many miles you've travelled but not where you started from.

Natural Selection is a process that you can see at work for yourself with a simple monoculture of bacteria, or that you can see when you look at the resistance of most common viruses to Penicillins. This is pretty much evolution in action, and it's hard to dispute. Creationism maintains that God created life and everything has stayed the same since he did that, but we know it hasn't, we know things have changed. Evolution is the method of change, but it doesn't necessarily rule out the idea that God created the first life. Surely if he is all knowing, he would have known what would happen when he did it, knowing that it wold lead to man in his own image.

Also note that the mechanism for evolution is random mutation, but "random" and "by chance" are not things we can measure. They are just words that we use to quantify something that we cannot explain. It is perfectly valid to say that you believe that God initiates thse 'random' mutations, and so guiding evolution with his own will. You cannot prove that something has no causative agent, just that you can't detect one.

As for the idea of original sin, and the creation stories, I take them as more symbolic, despite being a practising catholic myself. Had the Bible contained information about cells, about atoms and about microbiology, people throughout the ages, the peole who read the stories first, would never have understood them. Surely it is possible that the stories are simple representations of the truth, making them easily understandable and memorable forever.
Fri 14/01/05 at 20:42
Regular
Posts: 5
Winster, i first wanted to say your approach to the subject is very professional, very intelligent and very good to see from someone of your age. I hope you'll be going to university. I wouldnt mind having someone intelligent on msn to talk with.

Anyway, onto the subject. I partially agree with the Father on one thing, science cant be 100% certain, nothing can be 100% certain. There are people who believe we live in a socially constructed world "The Matrix", in some ways i agree, think about the buddist monks who can train their mind to overcome pain, shown on film with them putting knives through their skin and no blood or pain. As a psychology student i have to be aware of that little is really so certain.

The father's comments about language just seemed ridiculous, in suggesting that if evolution were true that there would be thousands of languages. Apart from the geographical complications in that he also overlooks the way languages have developed, in example our current English language is different from Shakespeares time and that can be applied to basically all modern languages. His comment about vocabulary was absurd, every year words are added and taken from the dictionary.

The comments also about the human population numbers were also lacking. He did not take into account outside factors (variables) such as cultural expectaions on breeding, natural disasters, war or like china's currents stance in that they heavily fine anyone for having more than one child - how will that affect the world population figure in say 80 years?

It seems the Father is looking at Mathematics and historical developments as only moving forward, adding to what was there before, not considering that there are others considerations beyond maths. Anyway, i cant blame the Father too much, he is biased towards religion, i am probably towards anti-religion. Im not against the the idea of God, and i think the teaching of Jesus was good, but im against the ways of religious establishments. I only hope that between me and the Father i would be more open-minded and open towards scientific discovery.

Freeola & GetDotted are rated 5 Stars

Check out some of our customer reviews below:

Thank you very much for your help!
Top service for free - excellent - thank you very much for your help.
Thanks!
Thank you for dealing with this so promptly it's nice having a service provider that offers a good service, rare to find nowadays.

View More Reviews

Need some help? Give us a call on 01376 55 60 60

Go to Support Centre
Feedback Close Feedback

It appears you are using an old browser, as such, some parts of the Freeola and Getdotted site will not work as intended. Using the latest version of your browser, or another browser such as Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, or Opera will provide a better, safer browsing experience for you.