The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved in 50 Arguments by Russ Tanner, quoted from
The Evolution of Man
Scientifically Disproved
in 50 Arguments
Copyright, 1928 REPUBLISHED 1928.
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.
Even though it is 80 years out of date. Is it that hard to find modern evidence to refute evolution? Why not try 1858.
Let's look at the kind of evidence that Russ thinks is important enough to paste in here:
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.
:
:
Every theory to which mathematics can be applied will be proved or disproved by this acid test. Figures will not lie, and mathematics will not lie even at the demand of liars.
The problem, Russ (and anyone else interested in the truth) is that mathematics cannot tell the truth.
Numbers will make pretty pictures, but no matter how much you figure and calculate and postulate and formulate, there is no relation to reality. Mathematics cannot invalidate reality, and thus the only conclusion - the only valid rational conclusion - when you have evidence of reality that directly contradicts some mathematical calculation is that the mathematical calculation is in error, there is some mistake in calculation, in formulation or in assumption that was wrong in the math. From this simple fact comes the inevitable conclusion that math cannot prove a single thing one way or the other about reality.
Math is a model, and models are only good or useful as long as they model reality. When a hurricane prediction program crashes because it can't model the [url=http://www.usatoday.com/weather/hurricane/2004-03-26-brazil-hurricane_x.htm>first hurricane in the South Atlantic[/url] on record, the meteorologists don't go out to the hurricane and say "you can't be here, our model does not allow you to be here" ... they fix the model by looking for and taking out the failed assumptions (ie - that all hurricanes are north of the equator). When a model fails to model reality it is a good indication that some aspect of reality has been missed in the model.
"We are trying to run our hurricane forecast models, but they are structured for the North Atlantic," Beven says. "Some just flat out refused to run."
:
Computer models that are working disagree, with one saying the storm could hit Brazil, and the other two saying it should turn to the south, but with the two disagreeing on how close to land it will be when it turns.
If you don't believe me see if you can show that 1+1=2 has validity in the world of objective reality. Start by finding two absolutely identical things.
Einstein used the mathematics of general relativity to predict that a result that would occur if it was true, and would not if it wasn't (a falsification test), was that light would be observed to bend in a gravity lens even though a light particle has no mass. When this was found to be true it wasn't because the math made it true, it was the fact of the light traveling in curved space that showed that the mathematical model (and the theory behind it) was sound. Facts can validate theory, but theory, including mathematical calculations or logical constructions can never invalidate fact.
Now I bet if you looked hard enough you would find an 80 year old refutation of this argument that deals with this conceptual fallacy, funny how creationist frauds never go away eh?
Just like the tornado in the junkyard "calculation" proves nothing.
Now if it was me, I would just be embarrassed to post something as obviously in error as this is.
Enjoy.
Note: [color:"green"]My time (too) is limited, so I post on threads of particular interest to me, but I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]
