The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Heres the site which tries to explain the existance of a 4th dimension with knowledge of the current ones:
http://tetraspace.alkaline.org/
http://tetraspace.alkaline.org/
Lil Ginge wrote:
> Malaktix wrote:
> Lil Ginge wrote:
> i really dont think actual christians would say that the bible is
> ficticious at all..
>
> Proving my point exactly. That a lot of christians that believe the
> bible think that those that don't arent christians.
> I could believe in God, and live my life according to the bible and
> still not take it literally. So that means I'm not a real christian?
>
> If you were a christian living your life by the bible then you would
> be taking it rather literally wouldnt you
>
> Ficticious is another word for 'make believe'. People dont put their
> faith into something they feel is ficticious do they?
Predictable response.
To live your life by the bible you don't have to take it literally. Such as the tales which show how humans behave, you can apply this to your own life without taking it as fact right?
> Malaktix wrote:
> Lil Ginge wrote:
> i really dont think actual christians would say that the bible is
> ficticious at all..
>
> Proving my point exactly. That a lot of christians that believe the
> bible think that those that don't arent christians.
> I could believe in God, and live my life according to the bible and
> still not take it literally. So that means I'm not a real christian?
>
> If you were a christian living your life by the bible then you would
> be taking it rather literally wouldnt you
>
> Ficticious is another word for 'make believe'. People dont put their
> faith into something they feel is ficticious do they?
Predictable response.
To live your life by the bible you don't have to take it literally. Such as the tales which show how humans behave, you can apply this to your own life without taking it as fact right?
The spontaneous creation of life is passed off in the Bible as an act of God. I.e 'miracle'.
Rational...
Rational...
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.
> 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.
Malaktix wrote:
> Lil Ginge wrote:
> i really dont think actual christians would say that the bible is
> ficticious at all..
>
> Proving my point exactly. That a lot of christians that believe the
> bible think that those that don't arent christians.
> I could believe in God, and live my life according to the bible and
> still not take it literally. So that means I'm not a real christian?
If you were a christian living your life by the bible then you would be taking it rather literally wouldnt you
Ficticious is another word for 'make believe'. People dont put their faith into something they feel is ficticious do they?
> Lil Ginge wrote:
> i really dont think actual christians would say that the bible is
> ficticious at all..
>
> Proving my point exactly. That a lot of christians that believe the
> bible think that those that don't arent christians.
> I could believe in God, and live my life according to the bible and
> still not take it literally. So that means I'm not a real christian?
If you were a christian living your life by the bible then you would be taking it rather literally wouldnt you
Ficticious is another word for 'make believe'. People dont put their faith into something they feel is ficticious do they?
But, anyway, getting back to the evolution idea: the main reason that people disagree with evolution is because they say it requires "spontaneous creation of life", something which is apparently impossible. 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.
Lil Ginge wrote:
> i really dont think actual christians would say that the bible is
> ficticious at all..
Proving my point exactly. That a lot of christians that believe the bible think that those that don't arent christians.
I could believe in God, and live my life according to the bible and still not take it literally. So that means I'm not a real christian?
> i really dont think actual christians would say that the bible is
> ficticious at all..
Proving my point exactly. That a lot of christians that believe the bible think that those that don't arent christians.
I could believe in God, and live my life according to the bible and still not take it literally. So that means I'm not a real christian?
I'd say it was symbolic in places.
i really dont think actual christians would say that the bible is ficticious at all..
Lil Ginge wrote:
> Yes but I am saying there would be problems in believing both - If
> you dont take the bible literally and disregard parts as being old or
> something then your faith that it is the truth and word of god is
> going to be tested if secular ideas that oppose Gods creation
>
> I think it is very difficult for a christian to believe evolutionary
> theories with the many ways in which the bible or what i believe to
> be gods word shows as to be the way we came about.
>
> Yes I am sure you could take quotes from the bible and try see how
> evolution could fit in somehow to make both work.. but really they
> oppose each other
The bible opposes evolution, but it's not difficult for a christian to believe in the evolution theory. Let's face it, it's hard for people in this day and age to take a book word for word as fact, when it contains parts such as the talking snake.
So I see your going to try the "christians that don't take the bible literally are challenging their faith" approach.
The times when the bible was first created, poorly educated people could be better taught the workings of christianity by story, not as a set of long boring guides. So is it really that hard to believe that the bible could just be a work of fiction, which teaches the morals of christianity?
I don't think so, and many actual christians would agree that the bible is indeed fictitious.
> Yes but I am saying there would be problems in believing both - If
> you dont take the bible literally and disregard parts as being old or
> something then your faith that it is the truth and word of god is
> going to be tested if secular ideas that oppose Gods creation
>
> I think it is very difficult for a christian to believe evolutionary
> theories with the many ways in which the bible or what i believe to
> be gods word shows as to be the way we came about.
>
> Yes I am sure you could take quotes from the bible and try see how
> evolution could fit in somehow to make both work.. but really they
> oppose each other
The bible opposes evolution, but it's not difficult for a christian to believe in the evolution theory. Let's face it, it's hard for people in this day and age to take a book word for word as fact, when it contains parts such as the talking snake.
So I see your going to try the "christians that don't take the bible literally are challenging their faith" approach.
The times when the bible was first created, poorly educated people could be better taught the workings of christianity by story, not as a set of long boring guides. So is it really that hard to believe that the bible could just be a work of fiction, which teaches the morals of christianity?
I don't think so, and many actual christians would agree that the bible is indeed fictitious.
Page: