Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Totally wrong. Where on what cranny did you yank that claim out of? I hope that you washed your hands afterwards.
When looking at Evolution 101 and the tree of life, what is displayed is Genesis Creation week, meaning all the different animals, plants etc. that God created. If you look at the tree they do go back to 1 place in that tree which would be what? What organism started everything, what is all life’s common ancestor? The next question is how impossible it would be to get from this organism to life as we have it today, this is what I see here. This would take great faith and wishful thinking.
There was one species that all present day life was descended from. That does not mean that the LUCA was right after abiogenesis. There could have been, and almost certainly were many different species even at the time of the LUCA. Those other species would have gone extinct. That was what was wrong with your claim that the first life had to be the LUCA.
What I’m saying is the life and diversity of animals,
No. It is not. Genesis is a myth. The tree of life in evolution has nothing to do with that myth.
Whether you believe in the Genesis story or not isn’t the point, what is the point is the life that the Genesis story describes is all that can be confirmed by evolutionary theory.
How so? It gives a false narrative. Actually two different false narratives.
Notice how they mention origin of life (abiogenesis) and how even Evolution 101 uses this language yet you keep saying they aren’t related. Go ahead fill in the tree with what proof you have. All I’ve seen as your proof is subjective interpretation of fossils.
Another risibly false claim, The genesis creation myth doesn't come close to even a broad explanation of how humans evolved. Instead making an appeal to inexplicable magic, that created humans in an instant in their current form, and at the same time as the universe, stars, our solar system, the planets moon and all all living things, which is errant nonsense, since all those things existed for billions of years before humans evolved in their current form, roughly 200k years ago. We know this as an objective fact from the fossil record.
You are misunderstanding. I did not say that they are unrelated. I was trying to explain why your version was wrong.
Not one single word about abiogenesis or the origin of life, so you have rather undone the creationist canard you are parroting with that example.Notice how they mention origin of life (abiogenesis) and how even Evolution 101 uses this language yet you keep saying they aren’t related. Go ahead fill in the tree with what proof you have. All I’ve seen as your proof is subjective interpretation of fossils.View attachment 62757
Read the last sentence…Evolution 101 says human evolution and the origin of life.
This is subjective interpretation that isn’t proven, you can fill in the blank family tree. There is common design by the Creator.
It does not say what the origin of life was
Sorry, wrong. You need to find evidence for your claim. Too bad that you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence.
You’ll have to fill in the family tree information that’s blank, it’s a nice picture of the animals, fish etc. that’s described in Genesis. This seems to be all the information evolution theory has.
No we don't. Why do you think that we need to know exactly who was the father or mother of whom? The tree is still there even if we do not know precisely who.
