NationStates Jolt Archive

www.ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html

does this site disprove evolution? if not, how do you disprove the site?

The Evolution of Man
Scientifically Disproved
in 50 Arguments

By REV. WILLIAM A. WILLIAMS, New Jersey, USA


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 hirers of the truth.

Second Edition of 20,000 Copies, Corrected and Revised to Date. Copyright, 1928 REPUBLISHED 1928.
By REV. WILLIAM A. WILLIAMS, New Jersey, USA

Third Printing 2,000 International Press, Dallas, Texas
Fourth Printing 2,000 Leroy Jenkins, Tampa, Fla.
Fifth Printing 2,000 Josephine Kaye Williams, Waxahachie, Texas.
Keep this book in circulation to refute the teaching of evolution.

REV. WILLIAM A. WILLIAMS, DD
Ex-president of Franklin College, Ohio
Author of "Early American Families," etc.

JOSEPHINE KAYE WILLIAMS, MD
1000 SYCAMORE
WAXAHACHIE, TEXAS (1928)



See bold.

I wonder what his motivation is?

www.ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html

does this site disprove evoltuion? if not, how do you disprove the site?

You expect people to read and refute an entire book, written over eighty years ago (and thus over a decade before the Modern Synthesis of Neo-Darwinian Evolution)? Do you think it refutes Evolution?

Uh, no. Also I'm not reading all that bullshit. Jesus you don't have to get past point one to see it's a load.

See bold.

I wonder what his motovation is?

There's only one part of that text you need to bold:

The Evolution of Man
Scientifically Disproved
in 50 Arguments

By REV. WILLIAM A. WILLIAMS, New Jersey, USA


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 hirers of the truth.

Second Edition of 20,000 Copies, Corrected and Revised to Date. Copyright, 1928 REPUBLISHED 1928.
By REV. WILLIAM A. WILLIAMS, New Jersey, USA

Third Printing 2,000 International Press, Dallas, Texas
Fourth Printing 2,000 Leroy Jenkins, Tampa, Fla.
Fifth Printing 2,000 Josephine Kaye Williams, Waxahachie, Texas.
Keep this book in circulation to refute the teaching of evolution.

REV. WILLIAM A. WILLIAMS, DD
Ex-president of Franklin College, Ohio
Author of "Early American Families," etc.

JOSEPHINE KAYE WILLIAMS, MD
1000 SYCAMORE
WAXAHACHIE, TEXAS (1928)

It was written before Evolution incorporated Mendel's findings on genetics! Anything it has to say will be hopelessly outdated, even if it was valid at the time.

I undertand why you dont want to read it.
You have to have motivation to do virtually anything.
So what if its written over eighty years ago?
The Bible "...it is written"
The Evolutionary Textbook, it is rewritten, rewritten, rewritten, etc.

No.

I'm not going to read that whole site, or even close, but the arguments I saw had nothing whatsoever to do with disproving evolution. (I do like the bits where he complains that Piltdown man doesn't make much sense, though. Tee hee.)

You have get into it to understand.

Too long. I skipped the whole thing. Cause I'm a lazy bum like that.;)

i can connect to that in many situations

Too long. I skipped the whole thing. Cause I'm a lazy bum like that.;)

I am really tired of the amount of science bashing on NSG. :p

its not science bashing, its using science itself

I undertand why you dont want to read it.
You have to have motivation to do virtually anything.
So what if its written over eighty years ago?

Because it was written before Genetics were incorporated into Evolutionary theory! I've already suggested that you select a part you particularly like, paste it and explain why you agree with it. Why not try that?

The Bible "...it is written"
The Evolutionary Textbook, it is rewritten, rewritten, rewritten, etc.

In other words, Science gets closer to the truth while religion revels in ignorance...

That someone could screw up biology this bady a hundred years ago is funny. That someone could cite this argument sersiously today is just sad.

The Evolution of Man Mathematically Disproved

INTRODUCTION

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. Moreover, we should examine any new hypothesis with open minds, to see if it has in it anything truthful, helpful or advantageous. It should neither be accepted nor rejected simply because it is new. But if a theory is evidently or probably untrue, or pernicious, or at all harmful, it is to be rejected and condemned.

www.ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html

does this site disprove evoltuion? if not, how do you disprove the site?

No, it doesn't disprove anything. For one thing, it was written in 1928, when a lot of biological science hadn't been around. Carbon-dating, for one thing.

For another, it's a load of tripe put forth by luddite pseudo-scientists jealously guarding the myth of the reality of fundamentalism. Hence the claimed scientific rigor (it goes so far as to apply "mathematics" as the "acid test", oh my!) is clouded by nonsensical references to Biblical 'facts' and half-assed assumptions anyone with an education could point out as bullshit.

Like.

The population of the world, based upon the Berlin census reports of 1922, was found to be 1,804,187,000. The human race must double itself 30.75 times to make this number. This result may be approximately ascertained by the following computations:

At the beginning of the first period of doubling there would just be two human beings; the second, 4; the third, 8; the fourth, 16; the tenth, 1024; the twentieth 1,048,576, the thirtieth, 1,073,741,824; and the thirty-first, 2,147,483,648. In other words, if we raise two to the thirtieth power, we have 1,073,741,824; or to the thirty-first power, 2,147,483,648 Therefore, it is evident even to the school boy, that, to have the present population of the globe, the net population must be doubled more than thirty times and less than thirty-one times. By logarithms, we find it to be 30.75 times. After all allowances are made for natural deaths, wars, catastrophes, and losses of all kinds, if the human race would double its numbers 30.75 times, we would have the present population of the globe.

Now, according to the chronology of Hales, based on the Septuagint text, 5077 years have elapsed since the flood, and 5177 years since the ancestors of mankind numbered only two, Noah and his wife. By dividing 5177 by 30.75, we find it requires an average of 168.3 years for the human race to double its numbers, in order to make the present population. This is a reasonable average length of time.

Moreover, it is singularly confirmed by the number of Jews, or descendants of Jacob. According to Hales, 3850 years have passed since the marriage of Jacob. By the same method of calculation as above, the Jews, who, according to the Jewish yearbook for 1922, number 15,393, 815, must have doubled their numbers 23.8758 times, or once every 161.251 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! We would not expect the figure to be exactly the same nor be greatly surprised if one period were twice the other. But their correspondence singularly corroborates the age of the human race and of the Jewish people, as gleaned from the word of God by the most proficient chronologists. If the human race is 2,000,000 years old, the period of doubling would be 65,040 years, or 402 times that of the Jews, which, of course, is unthinkable.

While the period of doubling may vary slightly in different ages, yet there are few things so stable and certain as general average, where large numbers and many years are considered, as in the present case. No life insurance company, acting on general average statistics, ever failed on that account. The Jews and the whole human race have lived together the same thirty-eight centuries with very little intermarriage, and are affected by similar advantages and disadvantages, making the comparison remarkably fair.

Also, the 25,000,000 descendants of Abraham must have doubled their numbers every 162.275 years, during the 3,988 years since the birth of his son Ishmael. These periods of doubling which tally so closely, 168.3 years for the whole race, 161.251 for the Jews, and 162.275 years for the descendants of Abraham, cannot be a mere coincidence, but are a demonstration against the great age of man required by evolution, and in favor of the 5,177 years since Noah. None of the other various chronologies would make any material difference in these calculations. The correspondence of these figures, 168.3, 161.251 and 162.275 is so remarkable that it must bring the conviction to every serious student that the flood destroyed mankind and Noah became the head of the race.

Now the evolutionists claim that the human race is 2,000,000 years old. There is no good reason for believing that, during all these years the developing dominant species would not increase as rapidly as the Jews, or the human race in historic times, especially since the restraints of civilization and marriage did not exist. But let us generously suppose that these remote ancestors, beginning with one pair, doubled their numbers in 1612.51 years one-tenth as rapidly as the Jews, or 1240 times in 2,000,000 years. If we raise 2 to the 1240th power, the result is 18,932,139,737,991 with 360 figures following. The population of the world, therefore, would have been 18,932,139,737,991 decillion, decillion, decillion. decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion; or 18,932,139,737,991 vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion.

lol

Seriously, did he just assume that population growth worldwide is a constant based on nothing more than "doubling" from Adam and fucking Eve?

Yes. He did.

He goes on to deliver what is supposed to be some sort of kick-ass argument which is really just ranting nonsense:

Or, let us suppose that man, the dominant species, originated from a single pair, only 100,000 years ago, the shortest period suggested by any evolutionist (and much too short for evolution) and that the population doubled in 1612.51 years, one-tenth the Jewish rate of net increase, a most generous estimate. The present population of the globe should be 4,660,210,253,138,204,300 or 2,527,570,733 for every man, woman and child! In these calculations, we have made greater allowances than any self-respecting evolutionist could ask without blushing. And yet withal, it is as clear as the light of day that the ancestors of man could not possibly have lived 2,000,000 or 1,000,000 or 100,000 years ago, or even 10,000 years ago; for if the population had increased at the Jewish rate for 10,000 years, it would be more than two billion times as great as it is. No guess that ever was made, or ever can be made, much in excess of 5177 years, can possibly stand as the age of man. The evolutionist cannot sidestep this argument by a new guess. Q. E. D.

All these computations have been made upon the supposition that the human race sprang from one pair. If from many in the distant past, as the evolutionists assert, these bewildering figures must be enormously increased.

Yet we are gravely told that evolution is "science". It is the wildest guess ever made to support an impossible theory.

That their guesses can not possibly be correct, is proven also by approaching the subject from another angle. If the human race is 2,000,000 years old, and must double its numbers 30.75 times to make the present population, it is plain that each period for doubling would be 65,040 years, since 2,000,000 divided by 30.75 is equals 65,040. At that rate, there would be fewer than four Jews! If we suppose the race to have sprung from one pair 100,000 years ago, it would take 3252 years to double the population. At this rate, there would be five Jews!

Do we need any other demonstration that the evolution of man is an absurdity and an impossibility? If the evolutionists endeavor to show that man may have descended from the brute, the population of the world conclusively shows that MAN CERTAINLY DID NOT DESCEND FROM THE BRUTE. If they ever succeed in

TYPING IN ALL CAPS MAKES UP FOR THE STUPID!

Well. Population growth isn't a constant. It's not based on Adam and Eve. Population growth spiked heavily with the advent of agriculture, which allowed 1 farmer to provide food for 2 or 3 (or 10, or of course now well above that) non-farmers. Agriculture however developed at around the neolithic period, which is not when anyone claims humanity itself developed. His "doubling rate" nonsense is pure nonsense, especially considering how much his 'argument' that supposedly shows how 'unscientific' evolution is relies heavily on it.

And his shit about the Jews? Yeah, well the Holocaust kinda fucked up the validity of his "let's count the Jews, then apply my MATHEMATICS ACID TEST LOLZOR!" 'argument.' It demonstrated that there's more to population levels than a fucking logarithm, at any rate.

One really doesn't need to "disprove" that shit. It's been disproven by its own silliness, and largely forgotten by anyone with half a brain.

I couldn't take the time to read the whole thing, maybe partly because I'm kinda prejudiced against such things.
Disproving evolution is quite a hard thing to do and I doubt whoever wrote it will achieve it.
Today even religious representatives accept evolutionary theory and turn to God as the one who created the universe not specifically.In the other hand, even life is proven to be "creatable"(not yet by human though)

lol

Seriously, did he just assume that population growth worldwide is a constant based on nothing more than "doubling" from Adam and fucking Eve?

It's sad that Creationism hasn't advanced at all in over eighty years: they're still parroting the same old garbage.

Why is everyone bashing scientists and atheists? Can't we just be let alone and teach those smart enough to understand?

its not science bashing, its using science itself

Science does not set out to prove a point, it seeks the truth. This is not science.

I undertand why you dont want to read it.
You have to have motivation to do virtually anything.
So what if its written over eighty years ago?
The Bible "...it is written"
The Evolutionary Textbook, it is rewritten, rewritten, rewritten, etc.

Yes. Science texts are rewritten constantly as new information, data, evidence, etc. are discovered and explored. Hence why a text from 1928 is horribly out of date. Hell, the first real evidence that DNA might carry genetic information didn't arise in 1943, with confirmation in 1952.

Skimming through, pointing out things that are wrong as I go.

Let it be understood, at the outset, that every proved theory of science is to be accepted.
Science does not prove anything, stfu.

The atheists believe that there is no God. Hence, matter was not created
Wrong. It is possible, though unlikely, that one could be an atheist creationist.

The existence of a Creator, is doubted or denied by extreme atheistic evolutionists, who would dethrone God, "exalt the monkey, and degrade man."
And lots of other people. But why let facts get in the way of propaganda?
2. The first of modern scientific men to adopt the theory that all plants and animals, including man, are developed from certain original simple germs, was Lamarck a French naturalist, in 1809. He conceded that God created matter--nothing more. He believed in spontaneous generation, which scientific investigation has utterly disproved.
Attempt at 'guilt by association' failed.
None of these three hypotheses[some stuff about what Darwin thought] can admit the creation of man.
Evolution does not deal with the origin of life.

Might read more later, foodz nao.

So what if its written over eighty years ago?


*blink*

This can't be a serious question, right?

I mean...we didn't even know what DNA was eighty years ago. Radiometric dating was science fiction. We hadn't even developed antibiotics yet, for heaven's sake. I just...I don't even know where to begin if you honestly think "What difference does eighty years make in science?" is a sensible question.

I undertand why you dont want to read it.
You have to have motivation to do virtually anything.
So what if its written over eighty years ago?
The Bible "...it is written"
The Evolutionary Textbook, it is rewritten, rewritten, rewritten, etc.

It is obviously tendentious, obviously anachronistic and obviously bollocks.

Go back to the countryside and sow the fields, hick that you are.

It is obviously tendentious, obviously anachronistic and obviously bollocks.

Go back to the countryside and sow the fields, hick that you are.

Please don't feed the trolls, they die off if they don't get a steady stream of flames...

You have get into it to understand.

Something tells me that getting into it and understanding are mutually exclusive conditions.

:)

The Bible "...it is written"
The Evolutionary Textbook, it is rewritten, rewritten, rewritten, etc.


Yes, this is the fundamental difference between religion and science. Nice of you to notice it.

It's also the fundamental reason why religion is not science.

www.ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html

does this site disprove evolution? if not, how do you disprove the site?

Wait...is this a joke or not? o.O

And his shit about the Jews? Yeah, well the Holocaust kinda fucked up the validity of his "let's count the Jews, then apply my MATHEMATICS ACID TEST LOLZOR!" 'argument.'
Er, the book was written in 1928, twelve years before the Holocaust.;)

To disprove evilution
http://freehovind.com/watch-4308235066145651150

i love the geometric population growth argument. greatest argument ever.

so, using his numbers, the population started doubling from 2 with noah and his wife (this is complicated by the fact that he had three sons, who each brought wives with them on the boat) 5177 years ago (circa 1928ish), and abraham started having kids 3988 years ago. subtracting gives us 1189 years between, which is time enough for 7 of his 168.3 year doublings. and therefore there were approximately 250 people on the entire planet by the time abraham got to egypt.

small problem - we are told that abraham had 318 trained fighting men in his household around that time. hmmm....

i love the geometric population growth argument. greatest argument ever.

so, using his numbers, the population started doubling from 2 with noah and his wife (this is complicated by the fact that he had three sons, who each brought wives with them on the boat) 5177 years ago (circa 1928ish), and abraham started having kids 3988 years ago. subtracting gives us 1189 years between, which is time enough for 7 of his 168.3 year doublings. and therefore there were approximately 200 people on the entire planet by the time abraham got to egypt.

small problem - we are told that abraham had 318 trained fighting men in his household around that time. hmmm....

Isn't it obvious? God created those extra 118. that's why it's called creationism, right?;) the logic is infallible.

Isn't it obvious? God created those extra 118. that's why it's called creationism, right?;) the logic is infallible.

well sure. but he'll have to do a bit more creating than that to account for the various kingdoms - each with their own armies - mentioned at the same time, and all the women and children and whatnot.

God created all of existence 5 minutes ago. All evidence to the contrary was placed there to test your faith!

To quote Toshiro Hitsugaya...

"Oh, it began... The bickering of the stupid old men and their baseless arguments."

Come the hell ON. Get the fuck REAL. America is the only mildly first-world country where Evolution is even an ISSUE! And that's because of sites and people that spout this kind of crap year in and year out. The kind of idiocy fundies spout does not deserve the dignifying of an answer.

God created all of existence 5 minutes ago. All evidence to the contrary was placed there to test your faith!

I see your five minutes and raise you three years. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haruhi_suzumiya)

Maybe if the "reverend" actually understood scientific process/theory he would be able to make an argument that makes sense. Oh wait-he wouldn't, because Creationism has absolutely no scientific value. But isn't trying to prove faith bad, anyway? Faith isn't supposed to have scientific basis. It wouldn't be faith, then.

Look, if God had wanted us to question his creation he would have made scientists.

To disprove evilution
http://freehovind.com/watch-4308235066145651150

Nobody wants to sit for an hour watching retardation.

To disprove evilution
http://freehovind.com/watch-4308235066145651150

A quick retort:

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/Hubble_ultra_deep_field.jpg

To quote Toshiro Hitsugaya...

"Oh, it began... The bickering of the stupid old men and their baseless arguments."

Come the hell ON. Get the fuck REAL. America is the only mildly first-world country where Evolution is even an ISSUE! And that's because of sites and people that spout this kind of crap year in and year out. The kind of idiocy fundies spout does not deserve the dignifying of an answer.

I, too, long for the day when religion is outlawed. But until then, this is exactly the kind of thing sensible people have to put up with.

Though I think you'll find it's actually a bit of an issue in the UK as well. It's just ignored by the british media.

Seriously, did he just assume that population growth worldwide is a constant based on nothing more than "doubling" from Adam and fucking Eve?

Yes. He did.




Exactly. Hows r wez @ sicks bilyon?!? :confused: U cnt dubel 2 dat!
Population doesn't always double.

He compares the doubling of the world to the doubling of the Jews, basicilly taking the population count of BC times from the Bible vs. counting backwards from 1922 and pretending to count in wars and natural disasters. Of course it was still off by like 10 doublings which is millions upon millions of people.

Stupidity?Totally.

"What difference does eighty years make in science?" is a sensible question.

What? You mean Freud isn't a valid theory of psychology any more? Or Newtonian physics isn't universally true? And truly the atom is an indivisible unit! And what is this idea of instant communication around the globe, impossible I tell you!

Yeah, 80 years is a long time in science. Hell, think about the advances we've made in science in the last 10 or 20 years, let alone 80.

Wait...is this a joke or not? o.O

Hard to tell, ain't it?

1928. The Golden Age of Wacky-Ass Pamphleteers. All kinds of nutty shit got published in the 1920s. Not sure why -- whether social changes at the time provoked the nuts, or whether getting published somehow got cheaper and easier at that time. Whatever, "books" like this were tout le rage back then. My grandfather, who grew up at that time, was into this kind of thing. Used to write reams and reams of similar crap, pulled entirely out of his ass, which he thought was going to be soooo enlightening to humanity. Sometimes, my commitment to universal literacy gets tested...

What? You mean Freud isn't a valid theory of psychology any more? Or Newtonian physics isn't universally true? And truly the atom is an indivisible unit! And what is this idea of instant communication around the globe, impossible I tell you!

Yeah, 80 years is a long time in science. Hell, think about the advances we've made in science in the last 10 or 20 years, let along 80.

I mean, geez, next we'll be suggesting that people from all over the globe could someday talk to each other about social and political issues in real time by typing on really small typewriters set up in front of glowing screens, or even on little tiny telephones that aren't even attached to any wires! Craziness!

I, too, long for the day when religion is outlawed. But until then, this is exactly the kind of thing sensible people have to put up with.

Though I think you'll find it's actually a bit of an issue in the UK as well. It's just ignored by the british media.

I don't long for the outlawing of religion, mainly because it's NOT about religion. Brazil is a very religious country and we don't have that crap. So is India, neither do they. And so on.

A quick retort:

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/Hubble_ultra_deep_field.jpg

Is that the constellation of..... Andy the Cowboy?

No, no... wait..... Dave the Cowboy. That's it. *nods* :)

Is that the constellation of..... Andy the Cowboy?

No, no... wait..... Dave the Cowboy. That's it. *nods* :)

Gay cowboys eating pudding. *nod*

I just did a paper on how ID is teh gaiz. Make your arguments, line em up single file. Beginnen Sie Einsatzgruppen in drei, zwei, Ein...Feuer Frei!

I think this thread is dead. the article been disproved, so it's dead.
:mp5:

Ah, thanks for notifying...I must be off to be of service elsewhere!!

THis is the only book needed to disprove evolution:

http://brendoman.com/media/users/dan/bible2.jpg

:p

Wow, I didn't know there was a book called "Stop hotlinking"

THE UNITY OF THE HUMAN RACE

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 the evolution of the human race be true, there must have been, hundreds of thousands of years ago, a great multitude of heads of the race, in many parts of the earth, without one common language or religion. The present population of the globe proves that mankind must have descended from one pair who lived not earlier than the time of Noah. The unity of languages also proves one common head about the same time. Certain beliefs and customs, common to various religions, point to one original God-given religion in historic time, in contrast to the evolution idea of many religions invented by ape-men in millions of years. The history of the world and the migration of nations point to one locality where the human race began in times not more remote, and show that man was created in a civilized state, and, therefore, never was a brute. 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. Even the sciences invented and exploited by evolutionists, the Mendelian Inheritance Law and Biometry, also prove evolution impossible.

The unity of mankind is also conclusively shown by the fact that all races interbreed, the most certain test of every species.

All these facts pointing to the unity of the race in the days of Noah and of Adam are irreconcilable with the theory of evolution which denies that unity within the last two million years

That's as far as I got before the disgust for this pseudo-science became too much to bear. You can't look up a bunch of scientific-sounding words, toss them about any way you like, and call a rigorously studied and tested theory disproven. Even 80+ years ago you can't do that.

www.ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html

does this site disprove evolution? if not, how do you disprove the site?
No, the pamphlet does not disprove evolution, no more than me saying "God was a homosexual who took it up the arse from Satan" would prove anything either.

It's just casual bullshitting.

What? You mean Freud isn't a valid theory of psychology any more? Or Newtonian physics isn't universally true? And truly the atom is an indivisible unit! And what is this idea of instant communication around the globe, impossible I tell you!

Yeah, 80 years is a long time in science. Hell, think about the advances we've made in science in the last 10 or 20 years, let alone 80.

Ugh, don't bring up Freud. My mother is a psychotherapist and tells me (to our mutual horror) that Freudian psychoanalysis is currently en vogue again. :(

I undertand why you dont want to read it.
You have to have motivation to do virtually anything.
So what if its written over eighty years ago?
The Bible "...it is written"
The Evolutionary Textbook, it is rewritten, rewritten, rewritten, etc.

It was written before the synthesis of genetics and the theory of evolution. Therefore, it is too outdated to bother with.

definately does not disprove anything, all the most important arguments are based on religious text, which cannot be thought of as reliable considering it has been re-written perhaps hundreds of times.

Listen, I am not devout, but I do respect religions, but science and religion can't mix if people don't do their own research based on what THEY know and what They beleive.

That is why this entire erm... factual... book is an opinion, not scientific evidence, hardly even religious evidence.

Er, the book was written in 1928, twelve years before the Holocaust.;)

Yep, that's right. The population growth 'theory' pushed forth in this tripe couldn't even hold water for 12 miserable years. Yet we're supposed to accept it as valid for the entire course of humanity...

This quote appears in one of the posts on the first page. I trust that it is legitimate:

But if a theory is evidently or probably untrue, or pernicious, or at all harmful, it is to be rejected and condemned.

Whether a theory is pernicious or harmful is irrelevant. The only question, in a scientific sense, is whether it stands up to rigourous testing?

I think this betrays the writer's bias.

To disprove evilution
http://freehovind.com/watch-4308235066145651150

That's a pretty good point. If evolution via natural selection happened, there's no way in fuck someone as completely brain-dead as Hovind could possibly survive.

Hard to tell, ain't it?

1928. The Golden Age of Wacky-Ass Pamphleteers. All kinds of nutty shit got published in the 1920s. Not sure why -- whether social changes at the time provoked the nuts, or whether getting published somehow got cheaper and easier at that time. Whatever, "books" like this were tout le rage back then. My grandfather, who grew up at that time, was into this kind of thing. Used to write reams and reams of similar crap, pulled entirely out of his ass, which he thought was going to be soooo enlightening to humanity. Sometimes, my commitment to universal literacy gets tested...

Fuck, Jocko Homo was the '20s, wasn't it?

(The pamphlet, not the song.)

Bookmark'd for the lolz.

That's a pretty good point. If evolution via natural selection happened, there's no way in fuck someone as completely brain-dead as Hovind could possibly survive.

Yay! :)

I undertand why you dont want to read it.
You have to have motivation to do virtually anything.
So what if its written over eighty years ago?
The Bible "...it is written"
The Evolutionary Textbook, it is rewritten, rewritten, rewritten, etc.

Well, I started reading his first "proof" that humans couldn't have evolved because he thinks that if every generation is twice the size of the one that came before it then working backwards the human population was two people 6 thousand years ago.

That would be like me saying "I've lived in NYC for 20 years. NYC receives an average of 42" of rainfall per year. Therefore, since I've arrived, the streets of NYC have been submerged under 70 feet of water."

Here's a fun fact: Kent Hovind is in prison for tax evasion. :)

Here's a fun fact: Kent Hovind is in prison for tax evasion. :)

And long may he stay there.

And long may he stay there.

I watched a depressingly large chunk of the first of his seminars and after reading the tale of his legal woes on Wikipedia, it sounds like he approached the tax code with the same arrogant self-delusion with which he approached his young earth creation theories. Even other Young Earth Creationists wished he'd shut the hell up and get off their side. :p

Here's a fun fact: Kent Hovind is in prison for tax evasion. :)

He only got a couple years though. I was holding out for the 200+ sentence he could have gotten.

You have get into it to understand.
Sounds like the same bullshit people give to lend credence to their screwy religions ... the screwy ones, mind you, not the perfectly sane ones ... that other people somehow don't understand it ... when the problem really isn't that so much as just not buying into nonsense.

I watched a depressingly large chunk of the first of his seminars and after reading the tale of his legal woes on Wikipedia, it sounds like he approached the tax code with the same arrogant self-delusion with which he approached his young earth creation theories.

In summary, he was Ron L Hubbard lite.

This quite conclusively disproves evolution.

Lawl.

Ugh, don't bring up Freud. My mother is a psychotherapist and tells me (to our mutual horror) that Freudian psychoanalysis is currently en vogue again. :(

Tell me about it, I'm an academic psychologist and as far as I'm concerned the only thing Freud is good for is comedy. The idea that people could be applying his ideas in a therapeutic context, in any sort of seriousness, horrifies me. Modern psychoanalysis may have evolved a lot from his ideas, but it's still terribly unscientific.

Freud is to psychologists what Intelligent Design is to biologists.

I am so keeping that just so that when ever I get a bad mark in science I can just read through that and laugh at the guy who says God exists because he gave us oil. Only humans use oil hence someone put it there for us.
@the op
Thank you so much for bringing this gem to my attention.

i love the geometric population growth argument. greatest argument ever.

so, using his numbers, the population started doubling from 2 with noah and his wife (this is complicated by the fact that he had three sons, who each brought wives with them on the boat) 5177 years ago (circa 1928ish), and abraham started having kids 3988 years ago. subtracting gives us 1189 years between, which is time enough for 7 of his 168.3 year doublings. and therefore there were approximately 250 people on the entire planet by the time abraham got to egypt.

small problem - we are told that abraham had 318 trained fighting men in his household around that time. hmmm....

Can't you recognize a Miracle when you see one?
;)

I watched a depressingly large chunk of the first of his seminars and after reading the tale of his legal woes on Wikipedia, it sounds like he approached the tax code with the same arrogant self-delusion with which he approached his young earth creation theories. Even other Young Earth Creationists wished he'd shut the hell up and get off their side. :p

Hey, he's not on my side ... whatever that is ... so ... bring it on!

Tax code you say? But churches are exempt from tax ... it's the dark side of "separation of Church and State."

"We won't try to regulate Churches, nor let them regulate Government. But ... they can have a tax break."

It's fucking wrong, always was ... but in an age when the market rules, it's giving unto God what is Mamon's.

Can't you recognize a Miracle when you see one?
;)

I can. When the miracles stop happening, I find another dealer.

You have get into it to understand.

Then paraphrase for us any bits you may think are salient.

Browsing a little i found by accident this:

Arguments we think creationists should NOT use (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp)

Notice that this is a creationist web site.

Relevant for disproving the OP article is this part:
“Darwin mentioned the absurdity of eye evolution in The Origin of Species.”
Citing his statement at face value is subtly out of context. Darwin was talking about its seeming absurdity but then said that after all it was quite easy to imagine that the eye could be built step-by-step (in his opinion, with which AiG obviously disagrees—see Darwin vs. The Eye and An eye for creation).

www.ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html

does this site disprove evolution? if not, how do you disprove the site?

This is a hard read to be sure but it does nothing to disprove evolution. The mathematics section is of particular interest since all the calculations are based on the assumption that the human race sprang from a singular pair of humans as well as the "fact" of an all-consuming flood. That is applying Biblical concepts to evolution. The invocation of God within a supposedly scientific paper was a factor in making me uninterested in reading further.

Evolution is fact. We know, as fact, that a steady progression of animals and plants have evolved from earlier forms. What is the issue is the mechanisms and mechanics of evolution. The dated nature of this paper fails to take into account over 80+ years of research and fails even by the standards of its time.

Here's a fun fact: Kent Hovind is in prison for tax evasion. :)

There is a God after all.

Here's a fun fact: Kent Hovind is in prison for tax evasion. :)

Creationist accounting doesn't work either.

Creationism is a load of shit.

Creationism is a load of shit.

I am stunned by your masterful display of oratorical eloquence.

I only learn theory of evolution three years ago and even I see article is bullsh*t. Americans are such morons.

I only learn theory of evolution three years ago and even I see article is bullsh*t. Americans are such morons.

Wow, you're seriously going to generalise against the whole population of America, based on one article. Not even taking into account the fact that people all over the world do not believe in evolution.

I am stunned by your masterful display of oratorical eloquence.
Why say in twelve words what you can say in six?

Why say in twelve words what you can say in six?

Doesn't hold out much hope for the future of debate on NSG

Israel is shit
no Iran is shit
Republicans are shit
no Democrats are shit
Christians are shit
no atheists are shit...

There are as many theories about evolution and creation as there are people. If anyone wants to have their theory “proven” they can write anything they want.

Just like people who are sure the moon landings were faked and the holocaust did not happen, they cling to a thin shred of possible proof as to their beliefs.

Did humans evolve? Did all life start out as a microscopic organism billions of years ago? Think of this, why are more and more people being born that never have wisdom teeth? Why are humans growing taller? Why is it that female humans larger busted now than 100 years ago? (Don’t be a smart ass and say implants) Why do humans have an appendix, which is not needed in our bodies? Why do humans need body hair since we do not need it to stay worm?

www.ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html

does this site disprove evolution? if not, how do you disprove the site?

Simple to disprove, really. The author is wrong about his theory of the Human population doubling in numbers over fixed intervals. The known record shows that over many times, and in many places, populations were stable, and even declined. The world population fell in the time of the Black Plague, for example, the European population fell after the Roman Empire collapsed, and the North American population fell with the introduction of smallpox.

Between the fall of the Roman Empire and the dawn of the "High" middle ages in the 11th century, (Five centuries later!) the world population is believed to have added only 10%! So much for the doubling every generation nonsense.

Studies of pre-technological cultures show that their populations are stable over the long term, because they have both a high birth rate and a high death rate. Population booms in human history occurred with sudden expansions of agriculture, and subsequent technological achievements. Over a hundred thousand years, these episodes are the exception, not the norm.

Since the author is utterly clueless about such a basic historical information, despite being such a pompous ass about how perfectly logical and irrefutable his argument is, it makes little sense to waste time on the rest of his arguments.

Look, if God had wanted us to question his creation he would have made scientists.

fgahjohteqha /\
fgahjohteqha l l
fgahjohteqha Win

Wow, you're seriously going to generalise against the whole population of America, based on one article. Not even taking into account the fact that people all over the world do not believe in evolution.

Sometimes whole populations are bad. We know this where I live.

Doesn't hold out much hope for the future of debate on NSG

Israel is shit
no Iran is shit
Republicans are shit
no Democrats are shit
Christians are shit
no atheists are shit...


Well, over the long run, and from the point of view of a Mushroom, this may be somewhat accurate.

Sometimes whole populations are bad. We know this where I live.

Yeah and sometimes a giant block of cheese attacks children at midnight for consuming to much dairy products.

You see that statement and your statement are pretty much as meaningful as each other right now.

Well, over the long run, and from the point of view of a Mushroom, this may be somewhat accurate.

You are genius.

Yeah and sometimes a giant block of cheese attacks children at midnight for consuming to much dairy products.

You see that statement and your statement are pretty much as meaningful as each other right now.

Some populations are more infected than others with bad ideas. Their culture becomes bad, aggressive. They seek to take things that do not belong to them. My statement is most meaningful, sir.

Some populations are more infected than others with bad ideas. Their culture becomes bad, aggressive. They seek to take things that do not belong to them. My statement is most meaningful, sir.

And how does one certain culture equate to an entire population, especially considering that America is multi-cultural.

Well, over the long run, and from the point of view of a Mushroom, this may be somewhat accurate.

It's a shame there is not 'mushroom' for reasoned debate....:p:

You are genius.

I am also American. How does that square with your "Americans are Morons" observation?

Unless of course, this means that in such a large and diverse population it is possible to have both? Could that possibly be true?

Yes and no. You see, in the US, miraculous place that it is, you can find both even in a small population.

Frequently, even in the same person.

It's something we learn to live with.

I am also American. How does that square with your "Americans are Morons" observation?

Simple! You're not really American! You're only pretending to be because you... you're bored! :D ;)

It's a shame there is not 'mushroom' for reasoned debate....:p:


Owwwww.... Mushroom puns!

You must be a real Fun Guy!

And how does one certain culture equate to an entire population, especially considering that America is multi-cultural.

We on semantics now! I like semantics! Hooray! American media creates political mono-culture in any case. I not doubt many opinions or many cultures in America, you are not termites, you think as many entities. I have cousin who is American citizen, and his views not that of Bush, a million miles away! But I talk of general American climate, culture, culture of aggression, belief of superiority, literal belief in Bible much like South African president Thabo Mbeki. It is "entrenched", and very dangerous.

how do you disprove the site?

From 1925

Any other pressing matters you'd like me to assist with?

just go to talk.origins.faq - it disproves almost every argument against you can think of, without having to rehash it all here

Sometimes whole populations are bad. We know this where I live.

Then you're a genocidal murderer?

Then you're a genocidal murderer?

I do not feel such a question is relevant to our discussion. More semantics.

its not science bashing, its using science itself
Only if you consider the Bible to be a work of science, but that would say more about your own deranged view of reality.

Well, over the long run, and from the point of view of a Mushroom, this may be somewhat accurate.

lol actually I think that would be food . . . .rather than shit

Go here http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

Then you're a genocidal murderer?

I was wondering that myself considering those comments and the poster's name. This statement is quite telling:

Some populations are more infected than others with bad ideas. Their culture becomes bad, aggressive. They seek to take things that do not belong to them.

I am assuming the Tutsi population fell into this category?

I only learn theory of evolution three years ago and even I see article is bullsh*t. Americans are such morons.

Don't you think this statement somewhat devalues the work done by American scientists towards our greater understanding of evoultionary theory?

Sometimes whole populations are bad. We know this where I live.

Like the Tutsis?

does this site disprove evolution?

No.

I was wondering that myself considering those comments and the poster's name. This statement is quite telling:



I am assuming the Tutsi population fell into this category?

I think this statement is a little more telling.

Tutsi do this to me I machete he, land is free, you should take woman, all land belong to Hutu.

I sense fun times ahead with this troll.

Ah, obvious troll was not quite obvious enough for me.

Edit: Oh lawd, I just read his profile page. What happened to the days when trolls would at least try to pretend to be genuine?

http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php

Ah, obvious troll was not quite obvious enough for me.

Edit: Oh lawd, I just read his profile page. What happened to the days when trolls would at least try to pretend to be genuine?

That is racist black men are not "trolls"!

Whatever you may think of my "authenticity", old boy, I aim principally to contribute to debate, not troll.

That is racist black men are not "trolls"!

Whatever you may think of my "authenticity", old boy, I aim principally to contribute to debate, not troll.

While you get low marks for authenticity, you score high on lulz. Congratulations.

I think you are forgetting the argument (ie wat is on the first page!!:)

Ah, obvious troll was not quite obvious enough for me.

Edit: Oh lawd, I just read his profile page. What happened to the days when trolls would at least try to pretend to be genuine?His profile page... wow. I doubted him based on his name/location, but the profile page just seals the deal.

ok i agree i mean does he really do recruting:confused: "recruiting children for fight in liberty"

His profile page... wow. I doubted him based on his name/location, but the profile page just seals the deal.


And the Hollywood accent "Me from tribe no use pronouns or articles but have otherwise extensive command of English language and vocabulary in American style" doesn't help his case either.

ok i agree i mean does he really do recruting:confused: "recruiting children for fight in liberty"

Of course! And when he has a little downtime he logs onto NationStates like most Hutus do.

In Hutu's defense:

-- At least he doesn't just jump in immediately with flames and insults like some other trolls around here.

-- If we ignore the offensive nonsense of his NSG persona, and take at least half of what he says as a joke, then he can be a decent conversationalist. Maybe that makes him a bad troll...

-- I enjoy his "me heap big good intellectual" writing style. Shit, if I can gloss over some the barely literate crap that gets posted on NSG, I can surely deal with a little playacting.

In Hutu's defense:

-- At least he doesn't just jump in immediately with flames and insults like some other trolls around here.

-- If we ignore the offensive nonsense of his NSG persona, and take at least half of what he says as a joke, then he can be a decent conversationalist. Maybe that makes him a bad troll...

-- I enjoy his "me heap big good intellectual" writing style. Shit, if I can gloss over some the barely literate crap that gets posted on NSG, I can surely deal with a little playacting.

Upon hearing his name, I was going to make a Tutsi joke, but then I went back a page and saw that everyone else already beat me to it.

I don't long for the outlawing of religion, mainly because it's NOT about religion. Brazil is a very religious country and we don't have that crap. So is India, neither do they. And so on.

Didn't you hear about the fuss in India not that long ago when the government proposed the building of a new canal? From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6994415.stm).

The Indian government has withdrawn a controversial report submitted in court earlier this week which questioned the existence of the Hindu god Ram.

...

Hindu hardliners say the project will destroy what they say is a bridge built by Ram and his army of monkeys.

Scientists and archaeologists say the Ram Setu (Lord Ram's bridge) - or Adam's Bridge as it is sometimes called - is a natural formation of sand and stones.

...

On Wednesday, Hindu hard-line organisations blocked roads across India to protest against the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project.

Commuters in the capital, Delhi, were stuck in traffic jams for hours as Vishwa Hindu Parishad (World Hindu Council) and Bajrang Dal blocked roads at various places.

Road blocks were also held in Bhopal, the capital of the central state of Madhya Pradesh, on the Delhi-Agra highway and on the Jaipur-Agra highway.

Train services were disrupted in many places across northern India.

i love the geometric population growth argument. greatest argument ever.

so, using his numbers, the population started doubling from 2 with noah and his wife (this is complicated by the fact that he had three sons, who each brought wives with them on the boat) 5177 years ago (circa 1928ish), and abraham started having kids 3988 years ago. subtracting gives us 1189 years between, which is time enough for 7 of his 168.3 year doublings. and therefore there were approximately 250 people on the entire planet by the time abraham got to egypt.

small problem - we are told that abraham had 318 trained fighting men in his household around that time. hmmm....

It gets even funnier when you calculate how many people were available on the entire planet to help build the pyramids. :D You can also use E. Coli reproduction rates to prove that the Universe is less than a year old IIRC.

I do not feel such a question is relevant to our discussion. More semantics.

It's relevant to your practice of generalizing characteristics on an entire population.

Ugh, don't bring up Freud. My mother is a psychotherapist and tells me (to our mutual horror) that Freudian psychoanalysis is currently en vogue again. :(

So you are very close to your mother, yes?[/freud voice]




Also, I approve of our new troll. Considerable points for originality.

So you are very close to your mother, yes?[/freud voice]
Also, I approve of our new troll. Considerable points for originality.

**hands over troll crown**

**hands over troll crown**

Sadly, "Hutu Supremacy has not made any friends yet "

Attempt at 'guilt by association' failed.

It's especially amusing when Lamarck's theories of evolution had no merit.

www.ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html

does this site disprove evolution? if not, how do you disprove the site?

Disprove evolution? A used car, let alone the site, disproves evolution.

LMAO

Disprove evolution? A used car, let alone the site, disproves evolution.

LMAO

....buh?

www.ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html

does this site disprove evolution? if not, how do you disprove the site?

No, it disproves keeping up with scientific discoveries, education, and the rest of the 21st century.

My math sucks too badly to prove or disprove crap. But sounds like bullshit to me. All reputable scientist say the Theory of evelution holds. And creationism ain't remotely science. In this case I'll back mainstream science.

No, it disproves keeping up with scientific discoveries, education, and the rest of the 21st century.
Pretty much set that in the date, didn't it? :)

God created all of existence 5 minutes ago. All evidence to the contrary was placed there to test your faith!


Last Thursdayism

....buh?Check his/her sig.

This absolutely does not disprove evolution. It is simply a bunch of faulty facts thrown together by a Reverend. All this die-hard Christians think everybody gonna stop believing in evolution if they make it seem like they disproved it, but, of course, it doesn't.

This absolutely does not disprove evolution. It is simply a bunch of faulty facts thrown together by a Reverend. All this die-hard Christians think everybody gonna stop believing in evolution if they make it seem like they disproved it, but, of course, it doesn't.They're only working with the premise they trust, faith. Erm, hope. Well, some kind of premise that requires fault in the first place, and then intent to perpetuate.

They're only working with the premise they trust, faith. Erm, hope. Well, some kind of premise that requires fault in the first place, and then intent to perpetuate.

Precisely.

In closing, at the bitter end of this thread... a man in a mask comes to make his final respects...

An 80 year old paper with numerous inconsistencies and flaws cannot disprove something that has been repeatedly proven to exist *through bacterial cultures* and something that it is extremely likely existed before humans thought that evolution might occur... (the difference between science and religion: when science realises that one of its theories does not concur with reality, it changes, as opposed to trying to change reality... hence the 'likely')

so rest in peace little thread... and know that you should never have existed...

ps, i swear this is another troll thread, he really should have known better than to think that the paper proved anything... irritating trolls...

-look up 'pan-dimensional trolling' and 'www.xkcd.com' for hillarious details-

(please let this be the bitter end of the thread? come on! you know you wanna let it die! i mean really... with the trolls... and the... and... never mind... its going to go on for pages and pages, but a guy can dream can't he? ... a guy can dream :P)

(please let this be the bitter end of the thread? come on! you know you wanna let it die! i mean really... with the trolls... and the... and... never mind... its going to go on for pages and pages, but a guy can dream can't he? ... a guy can dream :P)

You want the thread to die, and it was... until you posted again. Hippocratic moron.

You want the thread to die, and it was... until you posted again. Hippocratic moron.Hippocratic, as in, he resuscitated it?

Hippocratic, as in, he resuscitated it?

*lol*

How to disprove a site claiming to disprove Evolution: An instructional pamphlet from your friends at the Head in the Sand Institute.

Step 1: If you can find a religious connection-any connection-You're off the hook! Search for religious stuff. Look for religious titles among the people who wrote it. Look for the name of a church in the publishing information. Anything will do. This will allow you to accuse the site of a lack of objectivity and voila'! Site disproven to the satisfaction of anybody who might otherwise be tempted to read it! As we all know, religious people can't POSSIBLY be objective nor can they POSSIBLY know enough about science to make a point!

Remember, only Atheists can write about Evolution.

Step 2: Look for some of the standard ID or Creationist arguments. Even a passing reference to one will do. As soon as you find one, you can dismiss the whole site as being backward.

Step 3: Search the web for responses to it from other Evolutionists. If you find one, give it more credibility than the one in question. No matter who wrote it. Remember, if they believe in Evolution they MUST know what they're talking about, right?

Remember, the goal here is to remain as dogmatic and closed off as possible. People who think too much and too openly about Evolution tend to find flaws and this MUST not happen. The goal here is to find a meta-reason to not even read the site, because even if it contains only one single good point it can have devastating effects on your worldview, and we all know what THAT can lead to!

NSG Xmas list:

#1 People with posts that have not reached triple digits are banned from posting anything to do with religion.

Barringtonia can't be bothered, which I can understand, but I have 5 minutes to spare whilst waiting for my coffee to cool a little, so here goes...

If you can find a religious connection-any connection-You're off the hook! Search for religious stuff. Look for religious titles among the people who wrote it. Look for the name of a church in the publishing information. Anything will do. This will allow you to accuse the site of a lack of objectivity and voila'! Site disproven to the satisfaction of anybody who might otherwise be tempted to read it! As we all know, religious people can't POSSIBLY be objective nor can they POSSIBLY know enough about science to make a point!
Religious connections are irrelevant only so long as the argument against evolution does not postulate religious/supernatural entities as causes for what has been observed. Once an argument does, it's fair game.

Remember, only Atheists can write about Evolution.
Rubbish. I've read many insightful texts about evolution that were produced by people of faith.

Search the web for responses to it from other Evolutionists. If you find one, give it more credibility than the one in question. No matter who wrote it. Remember, if they believe in Evolution they MUST know what they're talking about, right?
Ahh, "search the web for responses that mirror your own views", eh? I wonder, do you truly not see this practice and the practice of citing other Biblical scholars or religious texts to buttress your own arguments as the same thing?

Remember, the goal here is to remain as dogmatic and closed off as possible. People who think too much and too openly about Evolution tend to find flaws and this MUST not happen. The goal here is to find a meta-reason to not even read the site, because even if it contains only one single good point it can have devastating effects on your worldview, and we all know what THAT can lead to!
Sorry to have to burst your bubble, but dogma and closed-mindedness are the very antithesis of scientific investigation. People do think deeply about evolutionary theory and, yes, flaws have been found over the years. This is a good thing, and "what THAT can lead to!" is a refinement of the theories and improved understanding of the subject. It's precisely this willingness to accept new worldviews in light of new evidence that sets it apart from dogma.

Your post is an example of the sort of blinkered, conservative religious mindset that people who are prepared to examine the natural world objectively find so exasperating. I've seen more sense in a Chick tract.

I've seen more sense in a Chick tract.
Ouch.

People who think too much and too openly about Evolution tend to find flaws

haha
meanwhile, back in non-crazy land...

Step 2: Look for some of the standard ID or Creationist arguments. Even a passing reference to one will do. As soon as you find one, you can dismiss the whole site as being backward.

Well... in this case that is quite valid. The main argument here after all is that if one attacks something that is NOT the current theory of evolution, one has succesfully attacked the current theory of evolution.

Do you agree that such an argument can be dismissed (and perhaps even mocked) ?

On the plus side: one gets kudos for referring to older versions of the actual theory instead of just making something up (evillution anyone ?)

How to disprove a site claiming to disprove Evolution: http://talkorigins.org/

Fixed.

How to disprove a site claiming to disprove Evolution: An instructional pamphlet from your friends at the Head in the Sand Institute.

Step 1: If you can find a religious connection-any connection-You're off the hook!

I stopped reading at this point, I admit.

If the aim is to dismiss evolution - you have two fair approaches. The non-scientific one, where you simply cite some faith reason, and that's that. Or - you can (pretend to?) be scientific about it. If you are going to claim to combat evolution on such grounds, invoking a non-verifiable, non-measurable, unfalsifiable element (god, or any other) really does pretty much kill your argument where it stands.

These aren't arbitrary rules we've made up to prove your religion wrong... that's just how science is done. If you aren't doing that, you aren't doing science. And - to be honest - science doesn't care about any of the gods or other little gremlins some people use to solve difficult questions.

I stopped reading at this point, I admit.

If the aim is to dismiss evolution - you have two fair approaches. The non-scientific one, where you simply cite some faith reason, and that's that. Or - you can (pretend to?) be scientific about it. If you are going to claim to combat evolution on such grounds, invoking a non-verifiable, non-measurable, unfalsifiable element (god, or any other) really does pretty much kill your argument where it stands.

These aren't arbitrary rules we've made up to prove your religion wrong... that's just how science is done. If you aren't doing that, you aren't doing science. And - to be honest - science doesn't care about any of the gods or other little gremlins some people use to solve difficult questions.

My feelings exactly. It's not that proposing a Creator is an invalid theory, it's just a dead-end if you want to have a scientific discussion. Arguing over religious tenets is like proposing that aliens built the Pyramids and then arguing over whether the aliens were green or blue. Sure, you can argue about until you're blue, but it's pretty much a "I think" "So-and-so thinks" based discussion. Which isn't that useful to those of us who want to use facts to try and draw a picture and not the other way around.

How to disprove a site claiming to disprove Evolution: An instructional pamphlet from your friends at the Head in the Sand Institute.

Step 1: If you can find a religious connection-any connection-You're off the hook! Search for religious stuff. Look for religious titles among the people who wrote it. Look for the name of a church in the publishing information. Anything will do. This will allow you to accuse the site of a lack of objectivity and voila'! Site disproven to the satisfaction of anybody who might otherwise be tempted to read it! As we all know, religious people can't POSSIBLY be objective nor can they POSSIBLY know enough about science to make a point!

Remember, only Atheists can write about Evolution.

Step 2: Look for some of the standard ID or Creationist arguments. Even a passing reference to one will do. As soon as you find one, you can dismiss the whole site as being backward.

Step 3: Search the web for responses to it from other Evolutionists. If you find one, give it more credibility than the one in question. No matter who wrote it. Remember, if they believe in Evolution they MUST know what they're talking about, right?

Remember, the goal here is to remain as dogmatic and closed off as possible. People who think too much and too openly about Evolution tend to find flaws and this MUST not happen. The goal here is to find a meta-reason to not even read the site, because even if it contains only one single good point it can have devastating effects on your worldview, and we all know what THAT can lead to!

It's nice to see you're cutting right to the heart of the matter and not bothering to address any of the points people who actually READ some of the site brought up.

I'll give you a pass here just because it was so mind-numbingly ridiculous that I think I actually got dumber reading it.

haha
meanwhile, back in non-crazy land...
I hate to tell you this, but the real world is crazy.

Ouch.
Awfuckyeah, seconded.

Bitch, please.

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 Hirers Of The Truth.

Second Edition Of 20,000 Copies, Corrected And Revised To Date. Copyright, 1928 Republished 1928.
By Rev. William A. Williams, New Jersey, Usa

Third Printing 2,000 International Press, Dallas, Texas
Fourth Printing 2,000 Leroy Jenkins, Tampa, Fla.
Fifth Printing 2,000 Josephine Kaye Williams, Waxahachie, Texas.
Keep This Book In Circulation To Refute The Teaching Of Evolution.

Rev. William A. Williams, Dd
Ex-president Of Franklin College, Ohio
Author Of "early American Families," Etc.

Josephine Kaye Williams, Md
1000 Sycamore
Waxahachie, Texas (1928)



third Printing 2,000 International Press, Dallas, Texas
Fourth Printing 2,000 Leroy Jenkins, Tampa, Fla.
Fifth Printing 2,000 Josephine Kaye Williams, Waxahachie, Texas.
Keep This Book In Circulation To Refute The Teaching Of Evolution.


fourth Printing 2,000 Leroy Jenkins, Tampa, Fla.


Leroy Jenkins

Leroy Jenkins

Leeroooooooy Jenkinnnnns!!!!!1!1!!!!!11!

Of course the site disproves evolution. The whole Internet disproves evolution: If Web 2.0 came from Web 1.0, why is there still Web 1.0? :rolleyes:

Leeroooooooy Jenkinnnnns!!!!!1!1!!!!!11!
Well spotted.

Of course the site disproves evolution. The whole Internet disproves evolution: If Web 2.0 came from Web 1.0, why is there still Web 1.0? :rolleyes:

Because the Web2.0ists haven't DDoSd the website yet. I'll get on that.

If anything, that piece of tripe proves that sometimes, evolution runs backwards.

I think there are a few nasty problems with this.

1. It is by a Christian
2. It uses biblical data (which is illegitimate in such debates)
3. It does not take into account variables in the math very well such as widespread diseases and such
4. There are bones of earlier humans
5. It has been shown that evolution was most likely caused by a disease that caused our jaws to weaken
6. The unity of languages is actually untrue: during the beginnings of man scientists suspect that there were 2 branches a. those that used sign-language b. those that used language unity of language was caused because man originated in one place and then groups spread throughout the globe for survival
this would support the disease theory
7. There is psychology behind religion, the want for something more important and the need for something to look up to and hope for also death scares people


please reply to each of these points

I think there are a few nasty problems with this.

1. It is by a Christian
2. It uses biblical data (which is illegitimate in such debates)
3. It does not take into account variables in the math very well such as widespread diseases and such
4. There are bones of earlier humans
5. It has been shown that evolution was most likely caused by a disease that caused our jaws to weaken
6. The unity of languages is actually untrue: during the beginnings of man scientists suspect that there were 2 branches a. those that used sign-language b. those that used language unity of language was caused because man originated in one place and then groups spread throughout the globe for survival
this would support the disease theory
7. There is psychology behind religion, the want for something more important and the need for something to look up to and hope for also death scares people


please reply to each of these points

1. is irrelevant. The religious beliefs of the author are never an issue in any academic work unless there is a clear indication of bias. There are many, many respectable, dedicated scientists who are Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, etc.
2. is a valid point.
3. is a valid point.
4. is a valid point, though that leads into a discussion of dating techniques (albeit, a discussion science invariably wins)
5. you'll have to clarify. The phrasing may just be awkward, as I doubt you're really trying to say that evolution was caused by a disease, unless you mean that one SPECIFIC evolutionary trait.
6. is a valid point, I think.
7. is somewhat relevant.

Now note that I'm not a creationist, but I really don't think your first point (and to an extent, your last point) need to be there.

1. is irrelevant. The religious beliefs of the author are never an issue in any academic work unless there is a clear indication of bias. There are many, many respectable, dedicated scientists who are Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, etc.
2. is a valid point.
3. is a valid point.
4. is a valid point, though that leads into a discussion of dating techniques (albeit, a discussion science invariably wins)
5. you'll have to clarify. The phrasing may just be awkward, as I doubt you're really trying to say that evolution was caused by a disease, unless you mean that one SPECIFIC evolutionary trait.
6. is a valid point, I think.
7. is somewhat relevant.

Now note that I'm not a creationist, but I really don't think your first point (and to an extent, your last point) need to be there.

Thank You for responding to each

5. There is a theory that our evolution was due to a disease actually. The muscles in our jaws became weaker, allowing our skulls to expand. The reason gorillas and other primates do not have our brain capacity is because their jaw muscles take up the space.

7. is irrelevant as far as evolution goes, but the page in which evolution was supposedly disproved had unity of religion as proof. Psychology proves why people need and create religion.

Thank You for responding to each

5. There is a theory that our evolution was due to a disease actually. The muscles in our jaws became weaker, allowing our skulls to expand. The reason gorillas and other primates do not have our brain capacity is because their jaw muscles take up the space.

7. is irrelevant as far as evolution goes, but the page in which evolution was supposedly disproved had unity of religion as proof. Psychology proves why people need and create religion.

5. Ah, ok. Thanks for clarifying. Now that makes sense. I hadn't heard about this theory before, could you post a link if you have one?

7. I see what you mean, but still don't think it necessarily has that much to do with whether or not the rest of the site has any merit.

5. Ah, ok. Thanks for clarifying. Now that makes sense. I hadn't heard about this theory before, could you post a link if you have one?

7. I see what you mean, but still don't think it necessarily has that much to do with whether or not the rest of the site has any merit.

In point 1 you mention biased work, I mention that author was christian because he tried to use bible as evidence. I think that the bible can be used objectively in rare cases, but a Christian is obviously biased when using it.

http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=887 (best i think)

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C04E7D81530F936A15750C0A9629C8B63

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040322/full/news040322-9.html

Personally, I believe that evolution practically disproves the majority of the bible. So even if god is real, the bible is pretty false. I am surprised that the bible did not die out when it was shown that the Sun is the center of our solar system, and that the Earth is not the centre of the universe. I guess Christians will tailor the bible to modern science as they go along, though.

Personally, I believe that evolution practically disproves the majority of the bible. So even if god is real, the bible is pretty false. I am surprised that the bible did not die out when it was shown that the Sun is the center of our solar system, and that the Earth is not the centre of the universe. I guess Christians will tailor the bible to modern science as they go along, though.

I'm surprised it didn't die out when pi was shown not to be three.
Well, no, I'm not really all that surprised.

5. There is a theory that our evolution was due to a disease actually. The muscles in our jaws became weaker, allowing our skulls to expand. The reason gorillas and other primates do not have our brain capacity is because their jaw muscles take up the space.

Which is absolute idiocy, because evolution is not Lamarckian.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_et_al.

Please, please stop with this creation science/intelligent design bullshit, because that's what it is - complete and utter bullshit.

Even a Republican judge agrees that it's fucking bullshit.

“For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child” (page 24)

“A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity.” (page 26)

“The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism” (page 31)

“The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.” (page 43)

“Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not “teaching” ID but instead is merely “making students aware of it.” In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members’ testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree.” (footnote 7 on page 46)

“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.” (page 64)

“[T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case.” (pages 86–87)

“ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.” (page 89)

“Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause.” (page 132)

In his Conclusion on pages 136–138 of 139 of this decision he writes:

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. [...]

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom. [...]

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

[QUOTE=Hotwife;13819761]http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_et_al.

Please, please stop with this creation science/intelligent design bullshit, because that's what it is - complete and utter bullshit.

Even a Republican judge agrees that it's fucking bullshit.[/QUO

wow