Viewing Thread:
"Man did not evolve from monkeys!"

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.

http://www.myfortress.org/evolution.html

This explains my views MUCH better than myself

have a flick over

It seems that most people that actually know what they are talking about christian and non christian scientists have seen that the evolutionary theory is a theory that has turned more to a faith. There is strong evidences against it.

I am no scientist but I cannot understand how looking at the way we are and the world this is points to evolutionary theories. Evolution goes against the laws of thermodynamics (which i have been reading through) So many scientists have said how evolution has been proved wrong through fossils in which no change can be seen in the beginning of a species to when it died out.

Just have a look over that its easier to show my views

Often people who dispose of evolution as "Science making thngs up" are just afraid because they think it disproves God. It's perfectly clear that you can believe in both god and evolution without any problems at all.

The very fact that the cells of our body work much in the same way as bacteria at the bottom of the ocean has to suggest some sort of evolutionary link. SURELY. Even if God did create those first bacteria billions of years ago, evolution could still have occured.

I read the first one and disagreed. So he's guessing that the rate of human multiplication has always been the same? Perhaps humans were slower to start off, he needs to take into consideration things such as diseases, which we are now fairly capable of curing a lot of.

I think evolution makes perfect sense as a theory, and anyone that thinks it doesnt make sense should read up on it. The theory is perfectly logical, and far more believable than a "God" creating everything.

The whole one creator is just a lazy theory.

Lil Ginge wrote:
> I think Evolution is quite a mad idea and there is far
> too much evidence against it.

Like what?


> The design, the way this earth moves - the way the atmosphere is.
> Isnt it amazing how the earth manages to produce and stabalise just
> the right air - atmosphere - gravity so we all live?

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.

And anyway you can see natural selection at work in sub saharan africa, etc, where people with sickle cell anaemia, who are resistant to malaria, are more prevalent than anywhere else. If natural selection occurs, then surely evolution must also occur.

Having being baffled by reading all of that in its 'oxford student' lingo

I will say that I do not believe that we 'evolved' from another animal - apes. I think Evolution is quite a mad idea and there is far too much evidence against it. I do not completely understand it I am no scientist but I think that all evidence on this earth points to one creator.

The design, the way this earth moves - the way the atmosphere is. Isnt it amazing how the earth manages to produce and stabalise just the right air - atmosphere - gravity so we all live? The earth is living. It is an amazing thing

Look at our human bodies, how intricate we are and work. My intricate body all its flesh, the make up the way cells die and re produce EVERYTHING points me to believe i have been made by a genius architect. No Bang could make everything so exact for us to just 'be' as we are. Thats a start of what I believe, Being adapted from monkeys? Evolution points out that a dolphin may have evolved from a cow - um, if you take all the stages of how it would evolve even over thousands of years.. Uh it just doesnt rest right with me. if we evolve why are there still the creatures we evolved from.. I dont understand evolution fully, I havent studied it either but I sure do not hold it as fact.

The reason this earth is here, The reason the earth is created so perfectly that us lifeforms are living, The way that out of ALL animals humans are obviously running this earth and are significantly different from any other creature. The way we have been 'built' so to speak - ways we think and feel. All point to me to a Creator. Its all to 'coincidentally just right' to be anything else but to me.

Wow, there are alot of words on this page...

i believe that's a "no" :)

Shut up.

Errrrr, No body interested?

----------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------
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!