Common Ancestry a Religious Concept.

The fact that neo-Darwinists premise their notions, ideas, concepts and theories about common ancestry and common descent on the biblical story of Adam and Eve is proof enough that evoutionist "theory" is premised on a religious belief and concept to start with.

 

Not really, since the notion, idea, premise, belief in, and percept of, such concepts as common ancestry, origins and descent was originally, and basically still is, a religious premise, foundational and equally fundamental to concepts of, and beliefs in, creation and evolution both.

Darwin discovered the principle of common ancestral origins in the Bible since there was no empirical evidence of it in his day and such original assumptions are still not naturally observable today.

 

I'm a religious genius, Galatian, since no one else seems to have ever observed and theorized that all scientific theories based on concepts and ideas regarding common ancestral descent and genealogy, must of necessity be premised on historical and original biblical pre-suppositions, beliefs, and accounts of, the concept and idea of common ancestral origins and genealogies in the first place, since such original concepts, ideas and beliefs are not physically observable in the natural world.

 

Even so, they both premised their arguments for empirical evidence on the specifically Jewish and Christian a priori religious notion, concept, idea and belief of historical genealogies being tracable to common ancestral origins.

 

Yes, racial distinctions and beliefs about racial origins were common in Europe and America in the past and are still being taught in neo-Darwinist theories and models about the physical origins of several racial groups today.

Yes, the denial of common ancestral origins from one geographic location on earth (Noah's Ark Model) may lead to the acceptance of racist theories and models of Eurasian descent from African people who originally evolved from the ancestors of African monkeys and apes. (African Eve Model)

 

Yes, in this case, that is correct, UTEOWE, since additional differences between the Noah's Ark Model and the African Eve Model, (which was named and modelled after the former) show all people descending from human beings in the first model while the second tries to prove Darwin's racial theory that before there were any other racial groups on earth, African people evolved out of non-human ancestors of African monkeys and apes.

 

One doesn't agrue for evidence; one uses evidence in or as the argument. </font>[/QUOTE]One can't use the Biblical premise of common ancestral descent from common origins as part of the evidence though, without being called a creationist, can one?

 

That certainly is an exceptionally unique observation of shared common ancestry. Do you think that religion and science come from the same ancestral origins in the Bible?

We also disagree on whether the historical notion, concept and idea, was originally outlined and presented in the Bible long before Darwin ever came along with his 'theories' about it.

Since no racial groups in the Americas, Eurasia, the Middle-East or Africa ever evolved from 'furry' non-human ape-like creatures in Africa, everyone may be said to share common original human ancestry with Adam and Eve.

 

Any theory that predicted that Adam and Eve and all their descendents had more distant and primitive ancestors in Africa, though, would be racist.

Ho, ho, ho. It seems to me that anyone who either intentionally or unwittingly includes neo-Darwinist race theories about Adam and Eve's shared common ancestry with African monkeys and apes, is practicing a neo-Darwinist form of religion.

Theistic evolution isn't science. It's just an evolutionary offshoot of religion.

 

How human was he?

Whatever happened to his common descendents?