Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1910-04-14

understanding to any appreciable ex-
tent. My difficulties. in the order OF
their statement, still remain, and have
become, in Miltonian phrase, "Confu-
sion worse confounded," and II am
lost in the involute and labyrinthinate
tangle of his theory. AS logician
my preceptor is aware that 1t Is axio-
matte in logic that gratituitous as
sertion may be gratuitously denied;
that, the onus probandi or the burden
OF proving, rests on him who seeks to
overturn the existing order; and that,
in an argument by or from analogy,
the conditions must be analogous.
Therefore, as he has no patent right
to interpret scripture. his assertion OF
the correctness of his Interpretation
OF the text quoted, Is exactly equal
led by my denial. Though not logical.
ly bound to do SO, wish to call at
tention to several points concerning
the text. He, unintentionally, feel
sure, ignored very essential portion,
the conclusion; "in whom all have
sinned." "All men" did not sin mere
ly by initiating Adams disobedience.
They sinned in him. It was not q sin
Of their own volition, but because
they (all men) were flesh and blood
of Adam, the progenitor Of the race.
Each is guilty Of humanity's sin, be-
cause human. Humanity called John
Doe or Richard Roe is in the state or
condition in which It's progenitor-
Adam-placed it. The text says Sin
whom all have sinned." Then "all
men, have descended from Adam, else
they could not have sinned In
Adam. Neither the Copernican sys-
tenn nor Christianity is accepted by
all men. They are in possession, how
ever, and the onus probandi lies with
the opposition, who would dispossess
them. We cannot truthfully say that
all men have acted in COpernicus.
The life received from the Goldman
Christ is spiritual. We are discussing
human existence The illustration,
then, does not parallel the text. Early
in my philosophic studies learned
to distinguish between eternal and
everlasting. In all my preceptor has
advanced. concerning life, he con.
POUNDS the two. Man and matter had
beginning and are therefore not
eternal. Philosophical diction Is not
SO indulgent as to regard these terms
as synonymous. In the metaphy steal
sense future eternal is contradictio
in terminus. l have long been famil-
lar with the Harveyan dictum, "Omne
vivum ex vivo," but 1t matters nothing
to the present investigation. My pre-
ceptor affirmed the eternal existence
of both man and the universe. He
has failed to furnish any evidence
that they are without beginning,
and l suppose he means by existence,
real, actual, not merely possible be-
ing. The Century and Standard die
tionaries are in substantial agreement
as to the meaning of. origin. It is
defined: beginning Of existence.
2-That from which anything derives
its being or nature. 3.-Parentage;
Ancestry. The origin of humanity,
then, means the beginning OF It's ex-
istence; its parentage. Perpetuation
"by periodic inyolution of essence
says nothing about such beginning;
about the common origin OF all men,
admitted by my preceptor. am I'M
able to determine what Is meant by
~
tor regard the Deity as being created?
My preceptor says OF my astronomic-
Ial distance problem, that Its value de-
ponds upon whether the observation
be related to convex or concave
arc. l have no hobby to ride. II Kore-
shan astronomy be true, have no
reason to reject it. Hence, determin-
ed to follow my preceptor's instruc-
ton and permit the unrestrained ex-
ercise Of my reasoning faculties" In
fact, resolved to better the instruc-
ton" and have sent for copy of
Cellular Cosmogomy." My, preceptor
called upon me to prove the convexity
of the earth's surface. This, as |
have shown, is the reverse of our log
zeal positions. The burden OF proving
rests on him. 1t Is for him to prove
the concavity of 1t. However, / will
state few facts which seem to me
conclusive. took my dividers and
drew two circles Of equal diameter so
one overlapped the other. marked
the points where the lines intersected,
and, whetherfI took the convex or the
concave arc, the chord, or the distance
between these points, remained iden.
ideally Juc SdIHc. I1CACC CUAVCAlIy VI
concavity of arc affects the base Of
our triangle not at all. To show
those who are unfamiliar with the
principle involved in the calculation,
let us apply it geodetically. A tri-
angle has six parts, any three of which
parts being given, provided one of
them is side, we can compute the
other three. Desiring to know the
distance of an inaccessible object. we
first place stake. Getting a direct
line from this to the object, we mea-
sure, say twenty feet along this line
and place another stake. Measuring
from the first, say forty feet, We
place third stake opposite the
first. Getting direct line from this
to the object, we measure along it
twenty feet and place fourth stake
opposite the second. Measuring now
from the fourth to the sec
|ond, we find the distance to
-L l. - - + ~ -.