Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Cassiterides

Now We Evolved From This?

Recommended Posts

Posted Image

 

Saw this book on Amazon, apparently evolutionists are now claiming we evolved from this fish like creature.

 

It's hard to take this serious, you can read my review on amazon.co.uk which sums up my views.

 

I don't know, everytime i look at evolution book they are claiming we evolved from something different. They can't keep their theories coherent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a theory based on whatever works. And the best way to sell the idea to the masses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted Image

63667[/snapback]

Its basically a prayer to the god of evolution... I think they call her "Nature"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have any of you read the book?

 

I haven't but the reviews make it sound approachable by anyone interested in learning about Evolution.

 

As far as "not being able to make up our minds on what we evolved from...

 

This fish is further down the Evolutionary ladder that the simian ancestor we share with the Great Apes. If what this book is saying to be true is true, then we would have to have this common ancestor with many Creatures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have any of you read the book?

 

I haven't but the reviews make it sound approachable by anyone interested in learning about Evolution.

 

As far as "not being able to make up our minds on what we evolved from...

 

This fish is further down the Evolutionary ladder that the simian ancestor we share with the Great Apes.  If what this book is saying to be true is true, then we would have to have this common ancestor with many Creatures.

63670[/snapback]

Again, there is absolutely no evidence for an ancestral connection for any of these creatures (in this book, or any other publication), so to make statements like “simian ancestor we share with the Great Apesâ€ÂÂ, or “we would have to have this common ancestor with many Creatures†is purely fallacious and nothing more than fantasy.

 

Ergo, provide the transitional lineage, or admit the faith statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, there is absolutely no evidence for an ancestral connection for any of these creatures (in this book, or any other publication), so to make statements like “simian ancestor we share with the Great Apesâ€ÂÂ, or “we would have to have this common ancestor with many Creatures†is purely fallacious and nothing more than fantasy.

 

Ergo, provide the transitional lineage, or admit the faith statements.

63671[/snapback]

+1 And admit this is the philosophy part of evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have any of you read the book?

 

I haven't but the reviews make it sound approachable by anyone interested in learning about Evolution.

 

As far as "not being able to make up our minds on what we evolved from...

 

This fish is further down the Evolutionary ladder that the simian ancestor we share with the Great Apes.  If what this book is saying to be true is true, then we would have to have this common ancestor with many Creatures.

63670[/snapback]

I am pretty sure everyone here is aware of that (well... most of us :lol: ), but I was thinking the same reply was needed because posts seem to show a misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution.

 

Um.... mods, what would you add to this post to make it acceptable? I thought that "if what this book is saying is true" was a good start...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1  And admit this is the philosophy part of evolution.

63672[/snapback]

:lol: Philosophical Evolution!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have any of you read the book?

Yes, i read a few chapters. Couldn't get far into it, as it was just all faith and poor interpretation of history. I've also read most of Dawkins books. All of these i review on amazon.co.uk.

 

I've looked at both sides of the debate od creation vs. evolution. I look at pretty much every theory/concept regarding origins including both creation and evolution ideas, particularly alternitive/rare/strange/out-dated theories.

 

Here's an rather unknown evolution theory:

 

Zermatism

http://www.paranormality.com/zermatism.shtml

 

''The theory was conceived by a man called Stanislav Szukalski who was born in Gidle in Poland around 1893 and died in 1987. "According to his theory, differences in races and cultures were due primarily to inter-species breeding between near-perfect ancestral beings and the Yetinsyn (humanoid creatures reputed to live in remote Himalayan valleys which some people call Abominable Snowmen".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, i read a few chapters. Couldn't get far into it, as it was just all faith and poor interpretation of history. I've also read most of Dawkins books. All of these i review on amazon.co.uk.

 

I've looked at both sides of the debate od creation vs. evolution. I look at pretty much every theory/concept regarding origins including both creation and evolution ideas, particularly alternitive/rare/strange/out-dated theories.

 

Here's an rather unknown evolution theory:

 

Zermatism

http://www.paranormality.com/zermatism.shtml

 

''The theory was conceived by a man called Stanislav Szukalski who was born in Gidle in Poland around 1893 and died in 1987. "According to his theory, differences in races and cultures were due primarily to inter-species breeding between near-perfect ancestral beings and the Yetinsyn (humanoid creatures reputed to live in remote Himalayan valleys which some people call Abominable Snowmen".

63683[/snapback]

There may be a new book out soon.... "Your inner Snowman" :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There may be a new book out soon.... "Your inner Snowman" B)

63695[/snapback]

Posted Image

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every evolution promoting book, article, or video I have ever read or watched say the basic same thing. "Watch all this micro-evoluiton, evolution is a fact." Then they jump to the conclusion of macro-evolution based on that presuppostion. There is never any valid testable, repeatable scientific evidence, just conjecture. They also say that micro-evolution equals speciation which proves macro-evolution. It's a big puff of smoke that goes away if you don't presuppose Darwinism. What we observe is what creation says, that all life forms were created in certain kinds and evolved from there during reproduction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every evolution promoting book, article, or video I have ever read or watched say the basic same thing.  "Watch all this micro-evoluiton, evolution is a fact."  Then they jump to the conclusion of macro-evolution based on that presuppostion.  There is never any valid testable, repeatable scientific evidence, just conjecture.  They also say that micro-evolution equals speciation which proves macro-evolution.  It's a big puff of smoke that goes away if you don't presuppose Darwinism.  What we observe is what creation says, that all life forms were created in certain kinds and evolved from there during reproduction.

63724[/snapback]

I prefer not to use the term micro-evolution as that still implies progress. I believe that the evidence shows speciation to be a loss of genetic information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer not to use the term micro-evolution as that still implies progress. I believe that the evidence shows speciation to be a loss of genetic information.

63727[/snapback]

Good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw this book on Amazon, apparently evolutionists are now claiming we evolved from this fish like creature.

 

It's hard to take this serious, you can read my review on amazon.co.uk which sums up my views.

 

I don't know, everytime i look at evolution book they are claiming we evolved from something different. They can't keep their theories coherent.

63667[/snapback]

Have you read the entire book before you came to your conclusion? I think it's a bit unfair to critise/critique a book you have not read, as the saying goes, you can't judge a book by it's cover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you read the entire book before you came to your conclusion? I think it's a bit unfair to critise/critique a book you have not read, as the saying goes, you can't judge a book by it's cover.

63775[/snapback]

 

:P exactly. But to be fair he did say already that he only read a few paragraphs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:) exactly.  But to be fair he did say already that he only read a few paragraphs.

63781[/snapback]

Which, in my definition means Cassiterides is not warranted to accurately critique the book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which, in my definition means Cassiterides is not warranted to accurately critique the book.

63816[/snapback]

 

oh I absolutely agree with you. :) Neither does anyone else who hasn't read it either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:) exactly.  But to be fair he did say already that he only read a few paragraphs.

63781[/snapback]

Actually, he/she claimed to have read a few chapters. "Yes, i read a few chapters."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, i read a few chapters. Couldn't get far into it, as it was just all faith and poor interpretation of history.

What exactly did Shubin say in his book which you claim is "just all faith and poor interpretation of history"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly did Shubin say in his book which you claim is "just all faith and poor interpretation of history"?

63827[/snapback]

The front cover and early chapters. Which is based entirely on the assumption/faith 3.5 billion years has existed.

 

Does he have a time machine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you read the entire book before you came to your conclusion? I think it's a bit unfair to critise/critique a book you have not read, as the saying goes, you can't judge a book by it's cover.

63775[/snapback]

oh I absolutely agree with you.  :)  Neither does anyone else who hasn't read it either.

63817[/snapback]

What exactly did Shubin say in his book which you claim is "just all faith and poor interpretation of history"?

63827[/snapback]

Does the author claim to have found a “missing link�

Does the author claim evolution (i.e. macro) to be anything other than presupposition?

Does the author claim to have anything other than presupposition for the so-called “evolution†of the human body?

Has the author actually claim to have been around (or know someone who has been around) for 3.5 “billion†years, in order to substantiate his claims?

 

(here’s a hint; I already know the answers to the questions, and I believe you do too).

 

Until you have hard “empirical†evidence for the affirmative for ANY of these questions, then “Yes indeed†the book is nothing more than interpretation, and not that of fact.

 

One doesn’t need to read the “entire bookâ€ÂÂ, or even go beyond a paragraph, if that paragraph contains fictitious claims based upon opinion. In fact, one need not even look beyond the cover to find unfounded claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you'll find the contents of Shubin's book includes much factual information. You don't need a time machine to observe the rock record. For instance, in the rock record why do we observe that the deepest sedimentary layers(the oldest) contain no lifeforms, then as we progress upward to the younger rock we observe the simple life forms(i.e. jelly-fish-like creatures) and moving to even younger rock we see greater complexity ("creatures with skeletons, appendages, and various organs" from page 6 of Shubin's book). Furthermore, you'd have to continue onto even younger rock above these layers to find animals with backbones. Such change would be expected from biological evolution. How do you explain this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, he/she claimed to have read a few chapters. "Yes, i read a few chapters."

63826[/snapback]

very true. I made an error in not re-reading Cass's post. my apologies for the mistake. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the author claim to have found a “missing link�

Does the author claim evolution (i.e. macro) to be anything other than presupposition?

Does the author claim to have anything other than presupposition for the so-called “evolution†of the human body?

Has the author actually claim to have been around (or know someone who has been around) for 3.5 “billion†years, in order to substantiate his claims?

 

(here’s a hint; I already know the answers to the questions, and I believe you do too).

I haven't read it so I can't answer your questions.

 

 

Until you have hard “empirical†evidence for the affirmative for ANY of these questions, then “Yes indeed†the book is nothing more than interpretation, and not that of fact.

Isn't everything interpretation of facts/observations? We know that the creatures in the fossil record are different than the creatures currently around. The interpretations that we can take from this are that creatures can change. We can also say that some species have gone extinct.

 

We can also observe that certain species are not found with other species. This is a fact. This tells us that different creatures existed at different times.

 

One doesn’t need to read the “entire bookâ€ÂÂ, or even go beyond a paragraph, if that paragraph contains fictitious claims based upon opinion.  In fact, one need not even look beyond the cover to find unfounded claims.

63834[/snapback]

Very true. If the introduction of any book sounds incredible, or credulous then the rest of the book probably will also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms