The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
People have asled me to make all my posts succinct.
You can rea the succint version at the following URL on ukchatforums.com
[URL]http://ukchatforums.reserve.co.uk/display_messages.php?threadid=116650&forumid=4006¤tsort=desc[/URL]
You can rea the succint version at the following URL on ukchatforums.com
[URL]http://ukchatforums.reserve.co.uk/display_messages.php?threadid=116650&forumid=4006¤tsort=desc[/URL]
Light wrote:
> No need for it? Well...probably not no. But there's rarely any need
> for any sort of aggression in debates. And yet there it is, in
> debates the world over. You might like to try getting used to that
> idea if you want to get involved in arguments and debates.
> As an allegory for the Big Bang, the opening lines of Genesis make
> perfect sense to me. Could you expand a little on why it doesn't for
> you?
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".
And yes, I've not read the genesis; can you please explain why is it an allegory for the Big Bang.
Also, sorry if my tone was a bit arrogant. I did not intend it to be though.
> No need for it? Well...probably not no. But there's rarely any need
> for any sort of aggression in debates. And yet there it is, in
> debates the world over. You might like to try getting used to that
> idea if you want to get involved in arguments and debates.
> As an allegory for the Big Bang, the opening lines of Genesis make
> perfect sense to me. Could you expand a little on why it doesn't for
> you?
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".
And yes, I've not read the genesis; can you please explain why is it an allegory for the Big Bang.
Also, sorry if my tone was a bit arrogant. I did not intend it to be though.
The Winster wrote:
> Theres no need for that. the Biblical story does not make any sense
> even if it was metaphorical. And even if it was intended to be so,
> Christianity during the dark ages and 'some' Orthodox Christians
> still beleive today that its the truth. The last part of my reply was
> intended for them.
No need for it? Well...probably not no. But there's rarely any need for any sort of aggression in debates. And yet there it is, in debates the world over. You might like to try getting used to that idea if you want to get involved in arguments and debates.
Anyway, back to the point; why doesn't it make sense as an allegory? The whole point of an allegorical story is that it doesn't have to make absolute realistic sense. That's why we have fairy tales and childrens rhymes; they all teach some basic moral or other, but they're not exactly rooted in realism. Is your complaint that the allegory isn't specific for you, or are you just annoyed at the headwrongs who continue to believe it is the literal truth?
As an allegory for the Big Bang, the opening lines of Genesis make perfect sense to me. Could you expand a little on why it doesn't for you?
> Theres no need for that. the Biblical story does not make any sense
> even if it was metaphorical. And even if it was intended to be so,
> Christianity during the dark ages and 'some' Orthodox Christians
> still beleive today that its the truth. The last part of my reply was
> intended for them.
No need for it? Well...probably not no. But there's rarely any need for any sort of aggression in debates. And yet there it is, in debates the world over. You might like to try getting used to that idea if you want to get involved in arguments and debates.
Anyway, back to the point; why doesn't it make sense as an allegory? The whole point of an allegorical story is that it doesn't have to make absolute realistic sense. That's why we have fairy tales and childrens rhymes; they all teach some basic moral or other, but they're not exactly rooted in realism. Is your complaint that the allegory isn't specific for you, or are you just annoyed at the headwrongs who continue to believe it is the literal truth?
As an allegory for the Big Bang, the opening lines of Genesis make perfect sense to me. Could you expand a little on why it doesn't for you?
Light wrote:
> Might I suggest you look up the meaning of the word
> "allegory"? And check up on the function of an
> "allegorical story"?
Theres no need for that. the Biblical story does not make any sense even if it was metaphorical. And even if it was intended to be so, Christianity during the dark ages and 'some' Orthodox Christians still beleive today that its the truth. The last part of my reply was intended for them.
> Might I suggest you look up the meaning of the word
> "allegory"? And check up on the function of an
> "allegorical story"?
Theres no need for that. the Biblical story does not make any sense even if it was metaphorical. And even if it was intended to be so, Christianity during the dark ages and 'some' Orthodox Christians still beleive today that its the truth. The last part of my reply was intended for them.
Might I suggest you look up the meaning of the word "allegory"? And check up on the function of an "allegorical story"?
Light wrote:
> Personally, I find the creation myth entirely compatible with
> evolution and Big Bang theory. The myth is just an allegory. Trouble
> only begins when idiots assume that if they can't understand it then
> it cannot possibly have happened.
Oh yeah? Then can you tell me why oes the creation math tell you that its one in 4004B.C. And just as Father says, we can demand a proof for anything to accept it.
So we ask just one thing, is there any source except the bible that says its 4004 B.C. ; and how can you be so exact?
> Personally, I find the creation myth entirely compatible with
> evolution and Big Bang theory. The myth is just an allegory. Trouble
> only begins when idiots assume that if they can't understand it then
> it cannot possibly have happened.
Oh yeah? Then can you tell me why oes the creation math tell you that its one in 4004B.C. And just as Father says, we can demand a proof for anything to accept it.
So we ask just one thing, is there any source except the bible that says its 4004 B.C. ; and how can you be so exact?
Ant wrote:
> Well if he believes in what the Bible says, then it is his own mind,
> no?
>
> On a lighter note, I spent about 5 minutes attempting to decipher
> what the title meant.
Yes.
But that doesn't mean it's the actual truth, whichever theory you believe in
> Well if he believes in what the Bible says, then it is his own mind,
> no?
>
> On a lighter note, I spent about 5 minutes attempting to decipher
> what the title meant.
Yes.
But that doesn't mean it's the actual truth, whichever theory you believe in
Heh. Believe it or not, this looks to be an anti-creationist thread. Maybe it's the flip-side of FF's personality. Or maybe scientifically minded people heard how apocalyptically dumb he was and wanted to come spank him.
So FF has run from the Rabbi and using a different name to continue his halfassed attempts at making a forum of teens give a damn?
Cool!
Cool!
Personally, I find the creation myth entirely compatible with evolution and Big Bang theory. The myth is just an allegory. Trouble only begins when idiots assume that if they can't understand it then it cannot possibly have happened.
Page: