The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
I finish between 10 & 11am each day whilst everybody else is just starting. It's worth it.
Aha, true I suppose.
I suppose being finished while everyone else is at their desk watching the clock gives him a warm feeling inside.
Doesn't the constant getting up helluva early annoy you at all? Is it worth it?
Alas I shall be at work around 4am tomorrow morning, so an evening inside for moi with bed around 10pm.
Woohoo
Woohoo
Goatboy wrote:
> I'll be on about 8 for a bit.
Damn. Fancy a game tonight too, but I'm out on the lash with Light. Well, I'm on the lash, Light'll probably be drinking tomato juice due to his detox. The girl. I'm planning on having a fourpack before I even get to the pub.............
> I'll be on about 8 for a bit.
Damn. Fancy a game tonight too, but I'm out on the lash with Light. Well, I'm on the lash, Light'll probably be drinking tomato juice due to his detox. The girl. I'm planning on having a fourpack before I even get to the pub.............
I'll be on about 8 for a bit.
Goatboy wrote:
> [URL]http://www.violentnation.com/visuals/blackbook/shut_up.jpg[/URL]
Ahhh, grafitti stencils. Love 'em. I've made four new ones for CS source sprays (bored at lunchtime, sue me ;) ).
One of Bush, "Warcriminal", one of blair and bush "Their war was based on lies" and a couple misc ones. Gonna do a Jeremy Beadle one tonight. Bwhahahahaha.
> [URL]http://www.violentnation.com/visuals/blackbook/shut_up.jpg[/URL]
Ahhh, grafitti stencils. Love 'em. I've made four new ones for CS source sprays (bored at lunchtime, sue me ;) ).
One of Bush, "Warcriminal", one of blair and bush "Their war was based on lies" and a couple misc ones. Gonna do a Jeremy Beadle one tonight. Bwhahahahaha.
[URL]http://www.violentnation.com/visuals/blackbook/shut_up.jpg[/URL]
ShortyUK "Slice N Dice baby" wrote: -
> What has religion done for us in the last
> one hundred years (or ever)?...
> IT HAS DONE NOTHING BUT INSTIGATE VIOLENCE AND WAR.
> Most people with two brain cells can see that, and why.
> When two beliefs (religions) clash, violence usually results.
> What has science done for us in the last one hundred years?
> Well apart from providing the weapons to accomdate the violence,
> which is done out of fear of death and for the
> protection of the users (which has failed miserably),
> science has saved lifes, openned up new horizons with space,
> solved many riddles of the past, brought us luxuries we could
> only have dreamt of 100 years ago...the list is endless
It seems that you have too much of dislike towards religion, Ain't it? Its true that religion has only induced hatred when it comes to contributions on a mass scale (and not the inividual level). But just like Science is said to be both a curse and a boon, religion is also the same thing. I have always defended science by saying that, Science, by itself, can never do anything bad. It depends only on the way we use it. Whatever science does is for some good. Whatever destructive things are used by us, have been derived from some other benevolent scientific theory.
Apply the same logic to religion, and you'll see that the truth is clear. Remember that communal riots are somewhat more in the hands of religious leaders an politicians; that is what I have observed in the communal riots of Gujarat in 2002.
Anyways, have your say on evolution, especially on Father Williams' arguements
> What has religion done for us in the last
> one hundred years (or ever)?...
> IT HAS DONE NOTHING BUT INSTIGATE VIOLENCE AND WAR.
> Most people with two brain cells can see that, and why.
> When two beliefs (religions) clash, violence usually results.
> What has science done for us in the last one hundred years?
> Well apart from providing the weapons to accomdate the violence,
> which is done out of fear of death and for the
> protection of the users (which has failed miserably),
> science has saved lifes, openned up new horizons with space,
> solved many riddles of the past, brought us luxuries we could
> only have dreamt of 100 years ago...the list is endless
It seems that you have too much of dislike towards religion, Ain't it? Its true that religion has only induced hatred when it comes to contributions on a mass scale (and not the inividual level). But just like Science is said to be both a curse and a boon, religion is also the same thing. I have always defended science by saying that, Science, by itself, can never do anything bad. It depends only on the way we use it. Whatever science does is for some good. Whatever destructive things are used by us, have been derived from some other benevolent scientific theory.
Apply the same logic to religion, and you'll see that the truth is clear. Remember that communal riots are somewhat more in the hands of religious leaders an politicians; that is what I have observed in the communal riots of Gujarat in 2002.
Anyways, have your say on evolution, especially on Father Williams' arguements
Page: