The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- ---- --- ----------------- ------------------------
Argument Two : - THE UNITY OF LANGUAGES
---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- ---- --- ----------------- ------------------------
Prof. Max Muller, and other renowned linguists, declared that all languages are derived from one.
This is abundantly proven by the similarity of roots and words, the grammatical construction and accidents, the correspondence in the order of their alphabets, etc.
The words for father and mother similar in form, for example, are found in many languages in all the five great groups, the Aryan, the Semitic, the Hamitic the Turanian and Chinese groups, showing a common original language and proving the early existence of the home and civilization.
The similarity of these and many other words in all of the great Aryan or Indo-European family of languages, spoken in all continents is common knowledge. Lord Avebury names 85 Hamitic languages in Africa in which the names of father and mother are similar; 29 non-Aryan languages in Asia and Europe, including Turkish, Thibetan, and many of the Turanian and Chinese groups; 5 in New Zealand and other Islands; 8 in Australia; and 20 spoken by American Indians.
The French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese are daughters of the Latin; Latin is a daughter of the Aryan; and the Aryan, together with the other sister languages is, no doubt, the daughter of the original language spoken by Noah and his immediate descendants. There can not well be more than 4 generations of languages, and the time since Noah is sufficient for the development of the 1000 languages and dialects.
The American Indians have developed about 200 in 3,000 or 4,000 years. The life of a language roughly speaking seems to range from 1000 to 3,000 years. The time since Noah is sufficient for the development of all the languages of the world. But if man has existed for 2,000,000 or 1,000,000 years, with a brain capacity ranging from 96% to normal, there would have been multiplied thousands of languages bearing little or no resemblance. There is not a trace of all these languages. They were never spoken because no one lived to speak them.
Many linguists insist that the original language of mankind consisted of a few short words, possibly not over 200, since many now use only about 300. The Hebrew has only about 500 root words of 3 letters; the stagnant Chinese, 450; the Sanscrit (see the spelling! - added by The Winster), about the same. All the Semitic languages have tri-literal roots. As the tendency of all languages is to grow in the number and length of words, these consisting of a few small words must have been close to the original mother tongue.
No language could have come down from the great antiquity required by evolution and have so few words. Johnson's Eng. Dictionary had 58,000 words; modern Dictionaries over 300,000. The evidence points to the origin and unity of languages in the days of Noah, and proves the great antiquity of man an impossibility and his evolution a pitiful absurdity.
---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- ---- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Proving Argument Two : - THE UNITY OF LANGUAGES Wrong
---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- ---- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Father Williams wrote
>It is abundantly proven by the similarity of roots and words,
>the grammatical construction and accidents,
>the correspondence in the order of their alphabets, etc. that
>all languages are derived from one.
Yes, all the living languages now are derived from one, Sanskrit (pronounced Sanskroot); but there are many languages that have no correspondence with each other. For example, there are those thousands of tribal languages that don’t have a script. Er, have you seen the Discovery channel interstitial in which a man flips through pages of a library which are all blank? This interstitial tells you that almost 95% of languages don’t have a script. They are never heard of, they are not the major languages, and so you never get to observe whether they are derived from any generation of Sanskrit or Latin or completely independent or not?
And then, compare the grammatical structure of Hindi & Indian languages with that of English & French. Hindi and other languages have a phonetic script; others don’t. Anyways, it doesn't have anything to do with the evolution of man yet.
Father Williams wrote
>...and 20 languages spoken by American Indians.
If you accept that Red Indians exist, then you'll have to accept that they migrated 12000 years ago from Russia to America when the Bering strait (I guess it’s the Bering strait, it might be some other strait also) disappeared and land appeared during the ice age. That automatically proves that man is more than 12000 years old. So, you can come to the conclusion that Creationism is not a literal truth.
There is not much more to be disproved in this argument. But the interpretation of the age of languages is wrong. Languages were not born with the birth of man. They took time to develop. The languages developed, and their rate of development also increased. I repeat, their rate of development also increased. This means, that the development of languages was not linear.
Father Williams wrote
>No language could have come down from the great antiquity required
>by evolution and have so few words.
>Johnson's Eng. Dictionary had 58,000 words; modern Dictionaries over 300,000.
In a nutshell, what Father means here is that languages develop over a time span and if languages were 2 million years old, we would had many a times stronger vocabulary than the current one.
But, as I said languages, didn't come along with humans. They developed.
Also, father believes that their growth is linear. No. Take the example of the maximum speed man could gain. When he ran right from the primitive ages, his speed could be 10-30 kmph, when he started using cycles, he could get a consistent speed of 30 kmph and then even more. Then came the vehicles that operated on Internal Combustion Engines, speed was about 200-300 kmph using airplanes (increased 10 times). Then jet engines and the speed reached supersonic level (increased six times more). Then with rockets, he reached speeds of 20000-30000 kmph (hundred times more). I know these figures are not accurate, but they give you an acute idea that the rate of development (repeat, rate of development) increased with the development of technology.
Same is with the number of words in a dictionary. There are thousands of words in a dictionary whose origins are in computers (like PC, internet, e-mail etc.) or in other languages (Sardar, Kismet) etc.
So, the essence of the whole post is, languages don’t go to prove whether man evolved or he was created. This is only regards to the arguments put forward by Father Williams. If you have more arguments regarding languages, you can post them here.
---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- ---- --- ----------------- ------------------------
Argument Two : - THE UNITY OF LANGUAGES
---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- ---- --- ----------------- ------------------------
Prof. Max Muller, and other renowned linguists, declared that all languages are derived from one.
This is abundantly proven by the similarity of roots and words, the grammatical construction and accidents, the correspondence in the order of their alphabets, etc.
The words for father and mother similar in form, for example, are found in many languages in all the five great groups, the Aryan, the Semitic, the Hamitic the Turanian and Chinese groups, showing a common original language and proving the early existence of the home and civilization.
The similarity of these and many other words in all of the great Aryan or Indo-European family of languages, spoken in all continents is common knowledge. Lord Avebury names 85 Hamitic languages in Africa in which the names of father and mother are similar; 29 non-Aryan languages in Asia and Europe, including Turkish, Thibetan, and many of the Turanian and Chinese groups; 5 in New Zealand and other Islands; 8 in Australia; and 20 spoken by American Indians.
The French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese are daughters of the Latin; Latin is a daughter of the Aryan; and the Aryan, together with the other sister languages is, no doubt, the daughter of the original language spoken by Noah and his immediate descendants. There can not well be more than 4 generations of languages, and the time since Noah is sufficient for the development of the 1000 languages and dialects.
The American Indians have developed about 200 in 3,000 or 4,000 years. The life of a language roughly speaking seems to range from 1000 to 3,000 years. The time since Noah is sufficient for the development of all the languages of the world. But if man has existed for 2,000,000 or 1,000,000 years, with a brain capacity ranging from 96% to normal, there would have been multiplied thousands of languages bearing little or no resemblance. There is not a trace of all these languages. They were never spoken because no one lived to speak them.
Many linguists insist that the original language of mankind consisted of a few short words, possibly not over 200, since many now use only about 300. The Hebrew has only about 500 root words of 3 letters; the stagnant Chinese, 450; the Sanscrit (see the spelling! - added by The Winster), about the same. All the Semitic languages have tri-literal roots. As the tendency of all languages is to grow in the number and length of words, these consisting of a few small words must have been close to the original mother tongue.
No language could have come down from the great antiquity required by evolution and have so few words. Johnson's Eng. Dictionary had 58,000 words; modern Dictionaries over 300,000. The evidence points to the origin and unity of languages in the days of Noah, and proves the great antiquity of man an impossibility and his evolution a pitiful absurdity.
---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- ---- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Proving Argument Two : - THE UNITY OF LANGUAGES Wrong
---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- ---- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Father Williams wrote
>It is abundantly proven by the similarity of roots and words,
>the grammatical construction and accidents,
>the correspondence in the order of their alphabets, etc. that
>all languages are derived from one.
Yes, all the living languages now are derived from one, Sanskrit (pronounced Sanskroot); but there are many languages that have no correspondence with each other. For example, there are those thousands of tribal languages that don’t have a script. Er, have you seen the Discovery channel interstitial in which a man flips through pages of a library which are all blank? This interstitial tells you that almost 95% of languages don’t have a script. They are never heard of, they are not the major languages, and so you never get to observe whether they are derived from any generation of Sanskrit or Latin or completely independent or not?
And then, compare the grammatical structure of Hindi & Indian languages with that of English & French. Hindi and other languages have a phonetic script; others don’t. Anyways, it doesn't have anything to do with the evolution of man yet.
Father Williams wrote
>...and 20 languages spoken by American Indians.
If you accept that Red Indians exist, then you'll have to accept that they migrated 12000 years ago from Russia to America when the Bering strait (I guess it’s the Bering strait, it might be some other strait also) disappeared and land appeared during the ice age. That automatically proves that man is more than 12000 years old. So, you can come to the conclusion that Creationism is not a literal truth.
There is not much more to be disproved in this argument. But the interpretation of the age of languages is wrong. Languages were not born with the birth of man. They took time to develop. The languages developed, and their rate of development also increased. I repeat, their rate of development also increased. This means, that the development of languages was not linear.
Father Williams wrote
>No language could have come down from the great antiquity required
>by evolution and have so few words.
>Johnson's Eng. Dictionary had 58,000 words; modern Dictionaries over 300,000.
In a nutshell, what Father means here is that languages develop over a time span and if languages were 2 million years old, we would had many a times stronger vocabulary than the current one.
But, as I said languages, didn't come along with humans. They developed.
Also, father believes that their growth is linear. No. Take the example of the maximum speed man could gain. When he ran right from the primitive ages, his speed could be 10-30 kmph, when he started using cycles, he could get a consistent speed of 30 kmph and then even more. Then came the vehicles that operated on Internal Combustion Engines, speed was about 200-300 kmph using airplanes (increased 10 times). Then jet engines and the speed reached supersonic level (increased six times more). Then with rockets, he reached speeds of 20000-30000 kmph (hundred times more). I know these figures are not accurate, but they give you an acute idea that the rate of development (repeat, rate of development) increased with the development of technology.
Same is with the number of words in a dictionary. There are thousands of words in a dictionary whose origins are in computers (like PC, internet, e-mail etc.) or in other languages (Sardar, Kismet) etc.
So, the essence of the whole post is, languages don’t go to prove whether man evolved or he was created. This is only regards to the arguments put forward by Father Williams. If you have more arguments regarding languages, you can post them here.
---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- ---- --- ----------------- ------------------------
Argument Two : - THE UNITY OF LANGUAGES
---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- ---- --- ----------------- ------------------------
Prof. Max Muller, and other renowned linguists, declared that all languages are derived from one.
This is abundantly proven by the similarity of roots and words, the grammatical construction and accidents, the correspondence in the order of their alphabets, etc.
The words for father and mother similar in form, for example, are found in many languages in all the five great groups, the Aryan, the Semitic, the Hamitic the Turanian and Chinese groups, showing a common original language and proving the early existence of the home and civilization.
The similarity of these and many other words in all of the great Aryan or Indo-European family of languages, spoken in all continents is common knowledge. Lord Avebury names 85 Hamitic languages in Africa in which the names of father and mother are similar; 29 non-Aryan languages in Asia and Europe, including Turkish, Thibetan, and many of the Turanian and Chinese groups; 5 in New Zealand and other Islands; 8 in Australia; and 20 spoken by American Indians.
The French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese are daughters of the Latin; Latin is a daughter of the Aryan; and the Aryan, together with the other sister languages is, no doubt, the daughter of the original language spoken by Noah and his immediate descendants. There can not well be more than 4 generations of languages, and the time since Noah is sufficient for the development of the 1000 languages and dialects.
The American Indians have developed about 200 in 3,000 or 4,000 years. The life of a language roughly speaking seems to range from 1000 to 3,000 years. The time since Noah is sufficient for the development of all the languages of the world. But if man has existed for 2,000,000 or 1,000,000 years, with a brain capacity ranging from 96% to normal, there would have been multiplied thousands of languages bearing little or no resemblance. There is not a trace of all these languages. They were never spoken because no one lived to speak them.
Many linguists insist that the original language of mankind consisted of a few short words, possibly not over 200, since many now use only about 300. The Hebrew has only about 500 root words of 3 letters; the stagnant Chinese, 450; the Sanscrit (see the spelling! - added by The Winster), about the same. All the Semitic languages have tri-literal roots. As the tendency of all languages is to grow in the number and length of words, these consisting of a few small words must have been close to the original mother tongue.
No language could have come down from the great antiquity required by evolution and have so few words. Johnson's Eng. Dictionary had 58,000 words; modern Dictionaries over 300,000. The evidence points to the origin and unity of languages in the days of Noah, and proves the great antiquity of man an impossibility and his evolution a pitiful absurdity.
---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- ---- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Proving Argument Two : - THE UNITY OF LANGUAGES Wrong
---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- ---- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Father Williams wrote
>It is abundantly proven by the similarity of roots and words,
>the grammatical construction and accidents,
>the correspondence in the order of their alphabets, etc. that
>all languages are derived from one.
Yes, all the living languages now are derived from one, Sanskrit (pronounced Sanskroot); but there are many languages that have no correspondence with each other. For example, there are those thousands of tribal languages that don’t have a script. Er, have you seen the Discovery channel interstitial in which a man flips through pages of a library which are all blank? This interstitial tells you that almost 95% of languages don’t have a script. They are never heard of, they are not the major languages, and so you never get to observe whether they are derived from any generation of Sanskrit or Latin or completely independent or not?
And then, compare the grammatical structure of Hindi & Indian languages with that of English & French. Hindi and other languages have a phonetic script; others don’t. Anyways, it doesn't have anything to do with the evolution of man yet.
Father Williams wrote
>...and 20 languages spoken by American Indians.
If you accept that Red Indians exist, then you'll have to accept that they migrated 12000 years ago from Russia to America when the Bering strait (I guess it’s the Bering strait, it might be some other strait also) disappeared and land appeared during the ice age. That automatically proves that man is more than 12000 years old. So, you can come to the conclusion that Creationism is not a literal truth.
There is not much more to be disproved in this argument. But the interpretation of the age of languages is wrong. Languages were not born with the birth of man. They took time to develop. The languages developed, and their rate of development also increased. I repeat, their rate of development also increased. This means, that the development of languages was not linear.
Father Williams wrote
>No language could have come down from the great antiquity required
>by evolution and have so few words.
>Johnson's Eng. Dictionary had 58,000 words; modern Dictionaries over 300,000.
In a nutshell, what Father means here is that languages develop over a time span and if languages were 2 million years old, we would had many a times stronger vocabulary than the current one.
But, as I said languages, didn't come along with humans. They developed.
Also, father believes that their growth is linear. No. Take the example of the maximum speed man could gain. When he ran right from the primitive ages, his speed could be 10-30 kmph, when he started using cycles, he could get a consistent speed of 30 kmph and then even more. Then came the vehicles that operated on Internal Combustion Engines, speed was about 200-300 kmph using airplanes (increased 10 times). Then jet engines and the speed reached supersonic level (increased six times more). Then with rockets, he reached speeds of 20000-30000 kmph (hundred times more). I know these figures are not accurate, but they give you an acute idea that the rate of development (repeat, rate of development) increased with the development of technology.
Same is with the number of words in a dictionary. There are thousands of words in a dictionary whose origins are in computers (like PC, internet, e-mail etc.) or in other languages (Sardar, Kismet) etc.
So, the essence of the whole post is, languages don’t go to prove whether man evolved or he was created. This is only regards to the arguments put forward by Father Williams. If you have more arguments regarding languages, you can post them here.
---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- ---- --- ----------------- ------------------------
Argument Two : - THE UNITY OF LANGUAGES
---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- ---- --- ----------------- ------------------------
Prof. Max Muller, and other renowned linguists, declared that all languages are derived from one.
This is abundantly proven by the similarity of roots and words, the grammatical construction and accidents, the correspondence in the order of their alphabets, etc.
The words for father and mother similar in form, for example, are found in many languages in all the five great groups, the Aryan, the Semitic, the Hamitic the Turanian and Chinese groups, showing a common original language and proving the early existence of the home and civilization.
The similarity of these and many other words in all of the great Aryan or Indo-European family of languages, spoken in all continents is common knowledge. Lord Avebury names 85 Hamitic languages in Africa in which the names of father and mother are similar; 29 non-Aryan languages in Asia and Europe, including Turkish, Thibetan, and many of the Turanian and Chinese groups; 5 in New Zealand and other Islands; 8 in Australia; and 20 spoken by American Indians.
The French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese are daughters of the Latin; Latin is a daughter of the Aryan; and the Aryan, together with the other sister languages is, no doubt, the daughter of the original language spoken by Noah and his immediate descendants. There can not well be more than 4 generations of languages, and the time since Noah is sufficient for the development of the 1000 languages and dialects.
The American Indians have developed about 200 in 3,000 or 4,000 years. The life of a language roughly speaking seems to range from 1000 to 3,000 years. The time since Noah is sufficient for the development of all the languages of the world. But if man has existed for 2,000,000 or 1,000,000 years, with a brain capacity ranging from 96% to normal, there would have been multiplied thousands of languages bearing little or no resemblance. There is not a trace of all these languages. They were never spoken because no one lived to speak them.
Many linguists insist that the original language of mankind consisted of a few short words, possibly not over 200, since many now use only about 300. The Hebrew has only about 500 root words of 3 letters; the stagnant Chinese, 450; the Sanscrit (see the spelling! - added by The Winster), about the same. All the Semitic languages have tri-literal roots. As the tendency of all languages is to grow in the number and length of words, these consisting of a few small words must have been close to the original mother tongue.
No language could have come down from the great antiquity required by evolution and have so few words. Johnson's Eng. Dictionary had 58,000 words; modern Dictionaries over 300,000. The evidence points to the origin and unity of languages in the days of Noah, and proves the great antiquity of man an impossibility and his evolution a pitiful absurdity.
---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- ---- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Proving Argument Two : - THE UNITY OF LANGUAGES Wrong
---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- ---- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Father Williams wrote
>It is abundantly proven by the similarity of roots and words,
>the grammatical construction and accidents,
>the correspondence in the order of their alphabets, etc. that
>all languages are derived from one.
Yes, all the living languages now are derived from one, Sanskrit (pronounced Sanskroot); but there are many languages that have no correspondence with each other. For example, there are those thousands of tribal languages that don’t have a script. Er, have you seen the Discovery channel interstitial in which a man flips through pages of a library which are all blank? This interstitial tells you that almost 95% of languages don’t have a script. They are never heard of, they are not the major languages, and so you never get to observe whether they are derived from any generation of Sanskrit or Latin or completely independent or not?
And then, compare the grammatical structure of Hindi & Indian languages with that of English & French. Hindi and other languages have a phonetic script; others don’t. Anyways, it doesn't have anything to do with the evolution of man yet.
Father Williams wrote
>...and 20 languages spoken by American Indians.
If you accept that Red Indians exist, then you'll have to accept that they migrated 12000 years ago from Russia to America when the Bering strait (I guess it’s the Bering strait, it might be some other strait also) disappeared and land appeared during the ice age. That automatically proves that man is more than 12000 years old. So, you can come to the conclusion that Creationism is not a literal truth.
There is not much more to be disproved in this argument. But the interpretation of the age of languages is wrong. Languages were not born with the birth of man. They took time to develop. The languages developed, and their rate of development also increased. I repeat, their rate of development also increased. This means, that the development of languages was not linear.
Father Williams wrote
>No language could have come down from the great antiquity required
>by evolution and have so few words.
>Johnson's Eng. Dictionary had 58,000 words; modern Dictionaries over 300,000.
In a nutshell, what Father means here is that languages develop over a time span and if languages were 2 million years old, we would had many a times stronger vocabulary than the current one.
But, as I said languages, didn't come along with humans. They developed.
Also, father believes that their growth is linear. No. Take the example of the maximum speed man could gain. When he ran right from the primitive ages, his speed could be 10-30 kmph, when he started using cycles, he could get a consistent speed of 30 kmph and then even more. Then came the vehicles that operated on Internal Combustion Engines, speed was about 200-300 kmph using airplanes (increased 10 times). Then jet engines and the speed reached supersonic level (increased six times more). Then with rockets, he reached speeds of 20000-30000 kmph (hundred times more). I know these figures are not accurate, but they give you an acute idea that the rate of development (repeat, rate of development) increased with the development of technology.
Same is with the number of words in a dictionary. There are thousands of words in a dictionary whose origins are in computers (like PC, internet, e-mail etc.) or in other languages (Sardar, Kismet) etc.
So, the essence of the whole post is, languages don’t go to prove whether man evolved or he was created. This is only regards to the arguments put forward by Father Williams. If you have more arguments regarding languages, you can post them here.
Dunno if anyone mentioned this cause I cba to read it all, but humans did not evolve from apes. Humans and Apes both evolved from a common ancestor, they are different branches of the same 'family tree'.
Hmm, this is all too deep for a Monday lunchtime. hink I'll pop my head back in when I'm more awake.
gerrid wrote:
> It's not really amazing. If the earth was different then we would be
> different, or not here at all. If the air was 80% carbon dioxide and
> we were all green and photosynthesised, you'd say "isn't it
> amazing how the earth produces just the right gas for us to
> breath!". It's a bit backwards.
Dude, thats a fairly strong arguement in a equally routine lingo!
Anyways, theres that famous case of that colored Indian family settled in Britain whose 3rd generation was white.
> It's not really amazing. If the earth was different then we would be
> different, or not here at all. If the air was 80% carbon dioxide and
> we were all green and photosynthesised, you'd say "isn't it
> amazing how the earth produces just the right gas for us to
> breath!". It's a bit backwards.
Dude, thats a fairly strong arguement in a equally routine lingo!
Anyways, theres that famous case of that colored Indian family settled in Britain whose 3rd generation was white.
This is a little off topic.
But I feel that this page does a great job of showing how the 4th dimension exists.
It has 3 characters, all in different dimensions and shows how they can interact with each others worlds.
http://tetraspace.alkaline.org/page4.htm
By the way, Bob is in the 3rd dimension, with a sheet of paper on his wall which then has Fred in his 2nd dimension.
Emily is the character in the 4th dimension.
But I feel that this page does a great job of showing how the 4th dimension exists.
It has 3 characters, all in different dimensions and shows how they can interact with each others worlds.
http://tetraspace.alkaline.org/page4.htm
By the way, Bob is in the 3rd dimension, with a sheet of paper on his wall which then has Fred in his 2nd dimension.
Emily is the character in the 4th dimension.
well surely the first life could have come from this other dimension without time where God exists. All I'm saying is that many of the arguments put forward by evolutionary sceptics are ridiculous.
The way we imagine God is restricted to our own experiences, so naturally any theories we have about evolution will suffer the same restrictions. I myself believe that GOd created the first life, and that the Genesis stories are more symbolic than actually factual.
It is difficult, however, to answer how exactly the Genesis story so accurately depicts the evolution of the world, seeing as, without God, it would have been written by someone with no knowledge of the millions of years before they were alive. So God would have told them in simplified form how everything came to pass, and they would have written it down so that everyone could understand it.
Christians who get caught up on the actual details of the Bible always seem to miss out what is important - the actual messages of the story.
The way we imagine God is restricted to our own experiences, so naturally any theories we have about evolution will suffer the same restrictions. I myself believe that GOd created the first life, and that the Genesis stories are more symbolic than actually factual.
It is difficult, however, to answer how exactly the Genesis story so accurately depicts the evolution of the world, seeing as, without God, it would have been written by someone with no knowledge of the millions of years before they were alive. So God would have told them in simplified form how everything came to pass, and they would have written it down so that everyone could understand it.
Christians who get caught up on the actual details of the Bible always seem to miss out what is important - the actual messages of the story.
Malaktix wrote:
> gerrid wrote:
> If it's impossible then where did God come
> from? Surely if God could come from nothing, or be around forever,
> then the first living being could come from nothing, or have been
> around forever.
>
> But remember we are restricted to rules such as time, in our own
> dimensions.
> If there was to be a God, he would probably exist in a dimension we
> are not aware of. A dimension where time doesnt exist, or doesnt
> exist in the same way.
>
> A dimension that exists parallel to the ones we are aware of.
>
> I'm kinda going above my depth now, I'll find a site I saw a while
> ago, on the theories of the 4th dimension, and why it should exist.
God is out of time
because we are created and have a beginning and very obviously and rightly we are going to assume that God must have one
> gerrid wrote:
> If it's impossible then where did God come
> from? Surely if God could come from nothing, or be around forever,
> then the first living being could come from nothing, or have been
> around forever.
>
> But remember we are restricted to rules such as time, in our own
> dimensions.
> If there was to be a God, he would probably exist in a dimension we
> are not aware of. A dimension where time doesnt exist, or doesnt
> exist in the same way.
>
> A dimension that exists parallel to the ones we are aware of.
>
> I'm kinda going above my depth now, I'll find a site I saw a while
> ago, on the theories of the 4th dimension, and why it should exist.
God is out of time
because we are created and have a beginning and very obviously and rightly we are going to assume that God must have one
Page: