<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<style type="text/css">
#tab{width: 690px; background-color: #cc9900;}
#tap{margin: 17px 0; font: 9px Georgia;}
#subj{font: 23px Times New Roman; color: #000066 ; margin: auto auto 12px auto;}
#imag{background-color:#cc9900; padding-top: 16px;}
#imag1{max-width: 690px; background-color: #cc9900; padding: 12px; border: 13px double red;}
#content{background-color: #FFFFFF; color: #FFFFFF; font-size: xx-small;}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<center>
<table id="tab">
<tr>
<td align="center">
<p id="tap">
Cant look at this Ad below as no images present? <a href="http://www.whyiuntelle.eu/2741/89/93/356/4181.11tt54553465AAF1.php"> Go ahead and click this now to reload.</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center" style="padding: 10px;">
<a target="" href="http://www.whyiuntelle.eu/2741/89/93/356/4181.11tt54553465AAF1.php" id="subj"> Summer Vacation Is Calling On A Yacht </a>
</td>
</tr>
<br>
<br>
<tr>
<td align="center" id="imag" >
<a href="http://www.whyiuntelle.eu/2741/89/93/356/4181.11tt54553465AAF1.php"><img src="http://www.whyiuntelle.eu/2741/89/93/54553465/356.4181/img0899388.jpg" id="imag1" ></a>
</td>
</tr>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<tr>
<td align="center">
<a href="http://www.whyiuntelle.eu/2741/89/93/356/4181.11tt54553465AAF4.html"><img src="http://www.whyiuntelle.eu/2741/89/93/54553465/356.4181/img1899388.jpg"/></a>
</td>
</tr>
<TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR>
<table style="width: 690px; background-color: #FFFFFF; border: 10px;">
<tr>
<td>
<span id="content">
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p align="right" style="font: 9px;">of any who may wish to find them, I append their titles and places of publication. These are as follows:—“Retrogressive Religion,” in The
Nineteenth Century for July 1884; “Last Words about Agnosticism and the Religion of Humanity,” in The Nineteenth Century for November 1884; a note
to Prof. Cairns’ Critique on the Study of Sociology, in The Fortnightly Review, for February 1875; “A Short Rejoinder” [to Mr. J. F. McLennan],
Fortnightly Review, June 1877; “Prof. Goldwin Smith as a Critic,” Contemporary Review, March 1882; “A Rejoinder to M. de Laveleye,”
Contemporary Review, April 1885. In a debate upon the development hypothesis, lately narrated to me by a friend, one of the disputants was described as arguing that as, in all our
experience, we know no such phenomenon as transmutation of species, it is unphilosophical to hiume that transmutation of species ever takes place.
had i been present i think that, phiing over his hiertion, which is open to criticism, I should have replied that, as in all our experience we have </p>
<BR><BR><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif, Times New Roman, Arial;"></span>
<p align="right">never known a species created, it was, by his own showing, unphilosophical to hiume that any species ever had been created. Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution as not being adequately
supported by facts, seem to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all. Like the majority of men who are born to a given belief, they
demand the most rigorous proof of any adverse belief, but hiume that their own needs none. Here we find, scattered over the globe, vegetable and
animal organisms numbering, of the one kind (according to Humboldt), some 320,000 species, and of the other, some 2,000,000 species (see Carpenter);
and if to these we add the numbers of animal and vegetable species which have become extinct, we may safely estimate the number of species that have
existed, and are existing, on the Earth, at not less than ten millions. Well, which is the most rational theory about these ten millions of
species? Is it most likely that there have been ten millions of special creations? or is it most likely that, by continual modifications due to </p>
<BR><BR>
<p align="left" style="font: 13px;">change of circumstances, ten millions of varieties have been produced, as varieties are being produced still? Doubtless many will reply that they can more easily conceive ten millions
of special creations to have taken place, than they can conceive that ten millions of varieties have arisen by successive modifications. All such,
however, will find, on inquiry, that they are under an illusion. This is one of the many cases in which men do not really believe, but rather
believe they believe. It is not that they can truly conceive ten millions of special creations to have taken place, but that they think they can do
so. Careful introspection will show them that they have never yet realized to themselves the creation of even one species. If they have formed a
definite conception of the process, let them tell us how a new species is constructed, and how it makes its appearance. Is it thrown down from the
clouds? or must we hold to the notion that it struggles up out of the ground? Do its limbs and viscera rush together from all the points of the
comphi? or must<u>we receive the old hebrew idea, that god takes clay and moulds a new creature? If they say that a new creature</u>is produced in none
of these modes, which are too absurd to be believed, then they are required to describe the mode in which a new creature may be produced—a mode which .</p>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<tr><td></td></tr><tr><td></td></tr><tr><td></td></tr><tr><td></td></tr>
</table>
</center>
<center><a href="http://www.whyiuntelle.eu/u/2741/356/4181/11/54553465/ginga-argentina@lists.ourproject.org"><img src="http://www.whyiuntelle.eu/2741/89/93/54553465/356.4181/img2899388.jpg"/></a></center>
</body>
</html>