The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
ShortyUK wrote:
> I believe this is how we came to be, be random formation of amino
> acids etc
---
"I believe"
Do you see the point?
You believe one thing, a creationist believes another. You'll discount his evidence, he'll discount yours.
It's an endless bloody argument that crops up here every single month without fail and the same old rubbish is spouted from both side.
And, as per usual, I'll state that I don't know either way for sure so I'm not going to walk through either door. I know where I tend to believe, but that's just my personal belief.
You'll not suddenly go "My word, you're right! Creationism is correct" anymore than FF etc are going to cast aside their beliefs and go with science.
Religion wise, you burned people alive because they didn't agree with your version of events.
Science wise, we knew the earth was flat and the sun revolved around us a couple hundred years ago.
Neither is 100% right or wrong.
But what's the point, because this will crop up again in Feb. And March. And April. And so on so forth.
> I believe this is how we came to be, be random formation of amino
> acids etc
---
"I believe"
Do you see the point?
You believe one thing, a creationist believes another. You'll discount his evidence, he'll discount yours.
It's an endless bloody argument that crops up here every single month without fail and the same old rubbish is spouted from both side.
And, as per usual, I'll state that I don't know either way for sure so I'm not going to walk through either door. I know where I tend to believe, but that's just my personal belief.
You'll not suddenly go "My word, you're right! Creationism is correct" anymore than FF etc are going to cast aside their beliefs and go with science.
Religion wise, you burned people alive because they didn't agree with your version of events.
Science wise, we knew the earth was flat and the sun revolved around us a couple hundred years ago.
Neither is 100% right or wrong.
But what's the point, because this will crop up again in Feb. And March. And April. And so on so forth.
Strafio wrote:
> there's lots of
> evidence towards evolution and lots of evidence against creationism.
Did you know, that if you have a glass container (large), add the various gases that are present in our atmosphere and pass a large discharge through it (ie lightning) various amino acids form...
For those who dont know, amino acids are the building blocks for proteins, and everything that makes us us (physically).
I believe this is how we came to be, be random formation of amino acids etc Theres lightning striking somewhere in the world every second (fact), think how many aminos are formed, and the possibility for the creation of a new (but very simple) organism. Its not hard to picture single cell organisms coming from this process, or even simpler life forms consisting of a few amino acids. Give millions of years (evolution) and the result is us.
> there's lots of
> evidence towards evolution and lots of evidence against creationism.
Did you know, that if you have a glass container (large), add the various gases that are present in our atmosphere and pass a large discharge through it (ie lightning) various amino acids form...
For those who dont know, amino acids are the building blocks for proteins, and everything that makes us us (physically).
I believe this is how we came to be, be random formation of amino acids etc Theres lightning striking somewhere in the world every second (fact), think how many aminos are formed, and the possibility for the creation of a new (but very simple) organism. Its not hard to picture single cell organisms coming from this process, or even simpler life forms consisting of a few amino acids. Give millions of years (evolution) and the result is us.
I think that their argument that neither Creationism or Evolution are scientifically proven so both are equally plausable, which is pretty flawed because although there's no conclusive proof, there's lots of evidence towards evolution and lots of evidence against creationism.
If you belive God created the Earth and humans, your stupid, fullstop.
Honestly, trying to persuade people that we were created by something which isnt present, and cant be proven to exsist either! Why try to slate sciences theory on evolution which hasnt been proven, when you cant even prove that God exsists! Thats like trying to sue Microsoft, if you had 1$ to spend on a lawyer, its just plain stupid!
Im not saying its bad or wrong to believe in something, but to believe that someone created the Earth and humans because he felt like it is just illogical, and dont say "well alot of things are illogical".
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
I rest my case.
Honestly, trying to persuade people that we were created by something which isnt present, and cant be proven to exsist either! Why try to slate sciences theory on evolution which hasnt been proven, when you cant even prove that God exsists! Thats like trying to sue Microsoft, if you had 1$ to spend on a lawyer, its just plain stupid!
Im not saying its bad or wrong to believe in something, but to believe that someone created the Earth and humans because he felt like it is just illogical, and dont say "well alot of things are illogical".
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
I rest my case.
Perhaps, Winster, and although I currently lack omnipresence and as such am unable to verify - nobody cares enough to reply?
No offence, but offering comments on a dismantling of someones views is nowhere near as engaging as doing the actual dismantling.
OK! Thanks for your comments.
Well, I was a bit dissapointed even then, given the fact that nobody of you read the summary of what I said. Here it goes, and please, do comment on it; its one third of the oiriginal size
---------------------------------------------------
Argument ONE; The Population of the world
---------------------------------------------------
The following is what Father Williams had put forward as his first argument to prove that evolution of man is impossible. Anything in parenthesis which contains the words "added by The Winster" are comments by me, and do not form a part of the original text.
-----------------------------
The population of the world, based upon the Berlin census reports of 1922, was found to be 1,804,187,000. The human race must double itself 30.75 times to make this number.
This result may be approximately ascertained by using logarithms and the indexes of 2 (i.e. 23, 213, 230, etc etc.)
Now, according to the chronology of Hales, 5077 years have elapsed since the flood, and 5177 years since the ancestors of mankind numbered only two, Noah and his wife. By dividing 5177 by 30.75, we find it requires an average of 168.3 years for the human race to double its numbers, in order to make the present population. This is a reasonable average length of time (!!!!!!!! - added by The Winster).
According to Hales, 3850 years have passed since the marriage of Jacob, ancestor of the Jews. By the same method of calculation as above, the Jews must have doubled their numbers 23.8758 times, or once every 161.251 years.
The whole human race, therefore, on an average has doubled its numbers every 168.3 years; and the Jews, every 161.251 years. What a marvelous agreement! Their correspondence singularly corroborates the age of the human race and of the Jewish people, as gleaned from the word of God by the most proficient chronologists.
If the human race is 2,000,000 years old, as described by the evolutionists, the period of doubling would be 65,040 years. This is 402 times that of the Jews, which, of course, is unthinkable. While the period of doubling may vary slightly in different ages, yet there are few things so stable and certain as general average, where large numbers and many years are considered, as in the present case. But let us generously suppose that these remote ancestors, beginning with one pair, doubled their numbers in 1612.51 years, one-tenth as rapidly as the Jews, or 1240 times in 2,000,000 years. If we raise 2 to the 1240th power, the population of the world, therefore, would have been 18,932,139,737,991 vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion. Let us suppose that man originated from a single pair only 100,000 years ago, then at the same rate the present population of the globe should be 4,660,210,253,138,204,300 or 2,527,570,733 greater than today (i.e. 1922 – added by The Winster) for every man, woman and child!
No guess, much in excess of 5177 years, can possibly stand as the age of man. The evolutionist cannot sidestep this argument by a new guess.
Evolutionists keep on guessing wildly. Their guesses can not possibly be correct
If they ever succeed in showing that all species of animals may have been derived from one primordial germ, it is impossible that man so came. He was created as the Bible declares, by the Almighty Power of God.
The above mathematical calculations prove that the evolution of man was certainly not true and prove the Bible story, and scrap every guess of the great age and the brute origin of man.
---------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------
Proving "Argument ONE – The Population of the world" wrong
----------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------
***** If the human race would double its numbers 30.75 times, we would have the present population. *****
The logic behind this argument is completely wrong, and does not directly involve evolution. It just tells you that the age of human race cannot be as old as evolutionists say it to be. And so, he takes it for granted that evolution is disproved. And is this mathematics?
Certainly not. F = M x A, E = MC2 etc. is the type of mathematics that is used to co-ordinate science with mathematics. Do you recall any theory which was proved by conclusively taking averages? The averages taken here are for growth rate of human population which are never stable, not even for a time span covering 5 decades (I'll come to that later).
By saying that population will double from 2 to 4 to 8 all the way to 2 million, Reverent Father has taken it for granted that Adam & Eve (the first couple) will give birth to another couple during the second span and another one during the third span. In other words, he has postulated that the first couple is immortal (and so is every other). He didn't subtract their number when they died.
***** 168.3 years is a reasonably average length of time for the human race to double its numbers. *****
Not at all, Reverent Father. Many lucky men see their fourth generation while they are living. He might be a minimum 80 year old, but there would be at least 16 persons that are his children, grandchildren & their progeny. That is, that lucky men has doubled his progeny four times in 80 years!
INTERRUPTION: -
The reason why human population has not reached the number what Father has suggested even though mankind is just about a million years old:
or
The reason why human population does not become staggeringly high even though families double their size every 22-28 years: -
Take the example of your father and toffees. Your father gives you 2 toffees, and he puts forward a condition. Tomorrow, I'll give you the same number of toffees you have, so that the number becomes double. Note the word "have". So today you have 2, tomorrow you'll get 2, so you have 4. But, you eat 2. So, the next day you'll get 2 toffees more. That's a total of 4 toffees with you. But if you didn't eat 2 on the second day, then you'll get 2 more and your total would be 4 more, or 8. Now, someday you collect 277 toffees, but you and your friends eat away 197 of them. Now, count yourself what this difference means, you'll get 197 less toffees next day! Apply this same logic to mankind. Compare the instance when you ate 197 toffees to some major disaster that kills thousands of people. This affects the overall growth of "population". Now, if Father said that "human population doubles", he should have meant something like this.
***** Proof (and not reason) that population growth rate is not stable *****
In 1922, the global population was around 180 millions. Today it has crossed 600 millions. That is, it has more than trebled in just 80 years! According to Father Williams, this should have taken some 250 odd years.
***** The whole human race, therefore, on an average has doubled its numbers every 168.3 years; and the Jews, every 161.251 years. What a marvelous agreement! *****
Indeed you are true this time, provided that you mean "coincidence" by "agreement". And how is it just a mere coincidence? Simple, these figures were calculated some 80 years ago, before the Second World War. Didn't Hitler murder 6 million Jews during WWII? The said figures, now, would show more of disagreement and less of agreement. The essence is that you just can't rely on such figures, since there is no guarantee of the time when they'll change.
***** These figures prove the Bible story, and scrap every guess of the great age and the brute origin of man. It will be observed that the above calculations point to the unity of the race in the days of Noah, 5177 years ago. *****
I am sorry to say Father, but these words quite about reveal your intention in writing this book. It was not because evolution might have seemed illogical to you, but perhaps because it opposes the Biblical theory.
Hinduism divides the age of mankind in four parts, according to the amount of evil spread in the society. They are Satyuga, Tretayuga, Dwaparyuga and Kaliyuga.Satyuga was the time when mankind originated. And when did Satyuga begin? Just around 1.2 million years ago! Pretty close to what evolution says, eh? Apart from that, ape-men help Ram (the eighth incarnation of Lord Vishnu) in the epic "Ramayana". So, Father Williams, if we had to believe every theology we laid our eyes on, we do not deserve the grandeur of science. And if that was so, one of the major religions has already approved evolution!
Well, I was a bit dissapointed even then, given the fact that nobody of you read the summary of what I said. Here it goes, and please, do comment on it; its one third of the oiriginal size
---------------------------------------------------
Argument ONE; The Population of the world
---------------------------------------------------
The following is what Father Williams had put forward as his first argument to prove that evolution of man is impossible. Anything in parenthesis which contains the words "added by The Winster" are comments by me, and do not form a part of the original text.
-----------------------------
The population of the world, based upon the Berlin census reports of 1922, was found to be 1,804,187,000. The human race must double itself 30.75 times to make this number.
This result may be approximately ascertained by using logarithms and the indexes of 2 (i.e. 23, 213, 230, etc etc.)
Now, according to the chronology of Hales, 5077 years have elapsed since the flood, and 5177 years since the ancestors of mankind numbered only two, Noah and his wife. By dividing 5177 by 30.75, we find it requires an average of 168.3 years for the human race to double its numbers, in order to make the present population. This is a reasonable average length of time (!!!!!!!! - added by The Winster).
According to Hales, 3850 years have passed since the marriage of Jacob, ancestor of the Jews. By the same method of calculation as above, the Jews must have doubled their numbers 23.8758 times, or once every 161.251 years.
The whole human race, therefore, on an average has doubled its numbers every 168.3 years; and the Jews, every 161.251 years. What a marvelous agreement! Their correspondence singularly corroborates the age of the human race and of the Jewish people, as gleaned from the word of God by the most proficient chronologists.
If the human race is 2,000,000 years old, as described by the evolutionists, the period of doubling would be 65,040 years. This is 402 times that of the Jews, which, of course, is unthinkable. While the period of doubling may vary slightly in different ages, yet there are few things so stable and certain as general average, where large numbers and many years are considered, as in the present case. But let us generously suppose that these remote ancestors, beginning with one pair, doubled their numbers in 1612.51 years, one-tenth as rapidly as the Jews, or 1240 times in 2,000,000 years. If we raise 2 to the 1240th power, the population of the world, therefore, would have been 18,932,139,737,991 vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion. Let us suppose that man originated from a single pair only 100,000 years ago, then at the same rate the present population of the globe should be 4,660,210,253,138,204,300 or 2,527,570,733 greater than today (i.e. 1922 – added by The Winster) for every man, woman and child!
No guess, much in excess of 5177 years, can possibly stand as the age of man. The evolutionist cannot sidestep this argument by a new guess.
Evolutionists keep on guessing wildly. Their guesses can not possibly be correct
If they ever succeed in showing that all species of animals may have been derived from one primordial germ, it is impossible that man so came. He was created as the Bible declares, by the Almighty Power of God.
The above mathematical calculations prove that the evolution of man was certainly not true and prove the Bible story, and scrap every guess of the great age and the brute origin of man.
---------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------
Proving "Argument ONE – The Population of the world" wrong
----------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------
***** If the human race would double its numbers 30.75 times, we would have the present population. *****
The logic behind this argument is completely wrong, and does not directly involve evolution. It just tells you that the age of human race cannot be as old as evolutionists say it to be. And so, he takes it for granted that evolution is disproved. And is this mathematics?
Certainly not. F = M x A, E = MC2 etc. is the type of mathematics that is used to co-ordinate science with mathematics. Do you recall any theory which was proved by conclusively taking averages? The averages taken here are for growth rate of human population which are never stable, not even for a time span covering 5 decades (I'll come to that later).
By saying that population will double from 2 to 4 to 8 all the way to 2 million, Reverent Father has taken it for granted that Adam & Eve (the first couple) will give birth to another couple during the second span and another one during the third span. In other words, he has postulated that the first couple is immortal (and so is every other). He didn't subtract their number when they died.
***** 168.3 years is a reasonably average length of time for the human race to double its numbers. *****
Not at all, Reverent Father. Many lucky men see their fourth generation while they are living. He might be a minimum 80 year old, but there would be at least 16 persons that are his children, grandchildren & their progeny. That is, that lucky men has doubled his progeny four times in 80 years!
INTERRUPTION: -
The reason why human population has not reached the number what Father has suggested even though mankind is just about a million years old:
or
The reason why human population does not become staggeringly high even though families double their size every 22-28 years: -
Take the example of your father and toffees. Your father gives you 2 toffees, and he puts forward a condition. Tomorrow, I'll give you the same number of toffees you have, so that the number becomes double. Note the word "have". So today you have 2, tomorrow you'll get 2, so you have 4. But, you eat 2. So, the next day you'll get 2 toffees more. That's a total of 4 toffees with you. But if you didn't eat 2 on the second day, then you'll get 2 more and your total would be 4 more, or 8. Now, someday you collect 277 toffees, but you and your friends eat away 197 of them. Now, count yourself what this difference means, you'll get 197 less toffees next day! Apply this same logic to mankind. Compare the instance when you ate 197 toffees to some major disaster that kills thousands of people. This affects the overall growth of "population". Now, if Father said that "human population doubles", he should have meant something like this.
***** Proof (and not reason) that population growth rate is not stable *****
In 1922, the global population was around 180 millions. Today it has crossed 600 millions. That is, it has more than trebled in just 80 years! According to Father Williams, this should have taken some 250 odd years.
***** The whole human race, therefore, on an average has doubled its numbers every 168.3 years; and the Jews, every 161.251 years. What a marvelous agreement! *****
Indeed you are true this time, provided that you mean "coincidence" by "agreement". And how is it just a mere coincidence? Simple, these figures were calculated some 80 years ago, before the Second World War. Didn't Hitler murder 6 million Jews during WWII? The said figures, now, would show more of disagreement and less of agreement. The essence is that you just can't rely on such figures, since there is no guarantee of the time when they'll change.
***** These figures prove the Bible story, and scrap every guess of the great age and the brute origin of man. It will be observed that the above calculations point to the unity of the race in the days of Noah, 5177 years ago. *****
I am sorry to say Father, but these words quite about reveal your intention in writing this book. It was not because evolution might have seemed illogical to you, but perhaps because it opposes the Biblical theory.
Hinduism divides the age of mankind in four parts, according to the amount of evil spread in the society. They are Satyuga, Tretayuga, Dwaparyuga and Kaliyuga.Satyuga was the time when mankind originated. And when did Satyuga begin? Just around 1.2 million years ago! Pretty close to what evolution says, eh? Apart from that, ape-men help Ram (the eighth incarnation of Lord Vishnu) in the epic "Ramayana". So, Father Williams, if we had to believe every theology we laid our eyes on, we do not deserve the grandeur of science. And if that was so, one of the major religions has already approved evolution!
I like the interpretation of how the Garden of Eden story (when God created Adam and Eve who then went and ate from the tree of knowledge) represents that evolutionary stage when man became man and gained a conciousness, started to see a right from a wrong...
That's why "sin" started because now we knew what was right and what was wrong, we had no excuse for doing the wrong thing! :-)
That's why "sin" started because now we knew what was right and what was wrong, we had no excuse for doing the wrong thing! :-)
The Winster wrote:
> When I said "No Need for it", I meant that I didnt need to
> use the dictionary for knowing the meaning of the word
> "allegory".
Ah, I see.
>
> And yes, I've not read the genesis; can you please explain why is it
> an allegory for the Big Bang.
Well, the opening verses go;
001:001 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
001:002 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was
upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon
the face of the waters.
001:003 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
This is a story about creating something from nothing. So is the Big Bang theory. The former states God did it, the latter provides a theory as to what actually happened. The former doesn't preclude the latter from being true, neither does the latter; science cannot prove God didn't set up the universe by means of the Big Bang. And religion can't even come close to casting doubt on the Big Bang Theory.
>
> Also, sorry if my tone was a bit arrogant. I did not intend it to be
> though.
No problem. I'd be something of a hypocrite to dislike someone for being arrogant.
> When I said "No Need for it", I meant that I didnt need to
> use the dictionary for knowing the meaning of the word
> "allegory".
Ah, I see.
>
> And yes, I've not read the genesis; can you please explain why is it
> an allegory for the Big Bang.
Well, the opening verses go;
001:001 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
001:002 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was
upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon
the face of the waters.
001:003 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
This is a story about creating something from nothing. So is the Big Bang theory. The former states God did it, the latter provides a theory as to what actually happened. The former doesn't preclude the latter from being true, neither does the latter; science cannot prove God didn't set up the universe by means of the Big Bang. And religion can't even come close to casting doubt on the Big Bang Theory.
>
> Also, sorry if my tone was a bit arrogant. I did not intend it to be
> though.
No problem. I'd be something of a hypocrite to dislike someone for being arrogant.
People have asked me to make all of my posts succinct.
You can read the succinct version at the following URL on ukchatforums.com
[URL]http://ukchatforums.reserve.co.uk/display_messages.php?threadid=116650&forumid=4006¤tsort=desc[/URL]
EDITED
You can read the succinct version at the following URL on ukchatforums.com
[URL]http://ukchatforums.reserve.co.uk/display_messages.php?threadid=116650&forumid=4006¤tsort=desc[/URL]
EDITED
Page: