The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I had started the same topic in "Life & Everything" forum. There, I am posting and discussing on this topic in detail. But, my intention to start the same topic here, is to post succinct, less detailed and to the point arguments, and at the same time have more feedback. If you like the matter here, you can read it all in detail in the "Life & Everything" forum.
Some years ago, Father William A. Williams ha written a book named "Evolution of Man Scientifically disproved". I'd try to discuss the follies of this book as epigrammatically as possible, and if you want to read every fact in detail with illustrations, you can always check out the above said forum.
Below is the summary of the summary of the introduction of this book I had made earlier
Succinct Summary of the introduction of Evo. Of Man disproved
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.
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.
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.
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.
Some years ago, Father William A. Williams ha written a book named "Evolution of Man Scientifically disproved". I'd try to discuss the follies of this book as epigrammatically as possible, and if you want to read every fact in detail with illustrations, you can always check out the above said forum.
Below is the summary of the summary of the introduction of this book I had made earlier
Succinct Summary of the introduction of Evo. Of Man disproved
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.
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.
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.
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.
Page:
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> ...
> duh
>
> When you first arrive, you ream off these extended articles
> disproving something trying to disprove something else, intending to
> spark some kind of intelligent discussion.
> And now you're spamming up the place with "three letter story!1
> omg!11' and "three fings about us!1" topics.
>
> Strike for the middle ground at least.
Hey take it easy man. The intelligent discussion is still alive well in the "Life" forum. And if you consider three letter word story a spam, i'll stop it. I never intended to do so...
I am just using the forums as they are used generally by others. If you say ElRobin spammed by posting his 5000+ replies thread, i'd stop posting all these funny (and a bit clumsy) games.
*Utters "work is work and play is play"*
*Hangs up*
> ...
> duh
>
> When you first arrive, you ream off these extended articles
> disproving something trying to disprove something else, intending to
> spark some kind of intelligent discussion.
> And now you're spamming up the place with "three letter story!1
> omg!11' and "three fings about us!1" topics.
>
> Strike for the middle ground at least.
Hey take it easy man. The intelligent discussion is still alive well in the "Life" forum. And if you consider three letter word story a spam, i'll stop it. I never intended to do so...
I am just using the forums as they are used generally by others. If you say ElRobin spammed by posting his 5000+ replies thread, i'd stop posting all these funny (and a bit clumsy) games.
*Utters "work is work and play is play"*
*Hangs up*
True. Next it'll be "Get naked with The Winster" or something.
...
duh
When you first arrive, you ream off these extended articles disproving something trying to disprove something else, intending to spark some kind of intelligent discussion.
And now you're spamming up the place with "three letter story!1 omg!11' and "three fings about us!1" topics.
Strike for the middle ground at least.
duh
When you first arrive, you ream off these extended articles disproving something trying to disprove something else, intending to spark some kind of intelligent discussion.
And now you're spamming up the place with "three letter story!1 omg!11' and "three fings about us!1" topics.
Strike for the middle ground at least.
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> What happned to you?
> First this ... now three letter stories?
what are you talking bout?
> What happned to you?
> First this ... now three letter stories?
what are you talking bout?
What happned to you?
First this ... now three letter stories?
First this ... now three letter stories?
ever thought this threa woul exist still?
The third arguement is being processed.
I'd post it soon.
I'd post it soon.
Mr Chawky wrote:
> All I can say bout this subject which is beyond my comprehension is
> this: If man evolved from monkeys or apes or whatever - why do we
> still have monkeys and apes or whatever? :)
That is because, man never evolve from the apes. They are not our forefathers but our cousins. We an the apes and the monkeys evolved from ancestors like Homo erectus or something like that. I'll come to that later when I have to prove one more arguement of Father wrong
> All I can say bout this subject which is beyond my comprehension is
> this: If man evolved from monkeys or apes or whatever - why do we
> still have monkeys and apes or whatever? :)
That is because, man never evolve from the apes. They are not our forefathers but our cousins. We an the apes and the monkeys evolved from ancestors like Homo erectus or something like that. I'll come to that later when I have to prove one more arguement of Father wrong
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)
-------------------------------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
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 and thus 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.
--------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------
> 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)
-------------------------------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
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 and thus 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.
--------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------
Man did not evolve from the Monkey -- we're still right where we started, as the kings of the jungles!
Page: