>>11172862>Yes. Pre-cellular life would be incapable of leaving distinctive fossils.You don't even have a remotely plausible description of "pre cellular" life (rofl whatever that means, might as well say they were leprechauns) yet you somehow know it can't leave traces of its existence? Please. You pulled this straight out of your ass. If we did find pre-cellular fossil "evidence" tomorrow (we won't because duh these lifeforms never existed;but one of your leaders might pretend they found evidence and you'd fall for it ) you'd change your tone at the drop of the hat and realize you were just making things up to fit the narrative and pre-celluar life can totally leave fossil evidence.....
Bacteria leave fossil evidence; you can't form a valid reason to think bacteria "precursors" would not be able to do the same if you can't even describe what "they" were. I can't form a valid reason to think "they" would be able to either. It's simply a gap in the fossil record, nothing more. However, you are FORCED to invent the excuse your imaginary leprechauns/pre-cellular life was "incapable" of leaving fossils, all to explain this gap in the fossil record to up hold your narrative. It's a made up excuse, nothing more.
And to preemptively answer your inevitable and obvious response; No, I don't have to explain how your theoretical descriptionless pre-cellular life theoretically should leave evidence. If there is no evidence you default to disbelief.
And no, I don't have to offer an alternative theory.
>It evolved from earlier precellular life that left no fossils. It did not “pop into existence”.>That is the lie.Ok so we "know" life existed before cellular life because it left no evidence??
haha wow and you've somehow managed to convince yourself I'm the one who's lying. The only person here that's lying is you, and it's to yourself...keep deluding yourself with your religion
