This would seem to be an important theory to either accept or reject

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745857&forum_id=2#34311066)

generally, i believe in microevolution. macroevolution (across the trees) is nonsense to me.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745857&forum_id=2#34311111)

Fossils of pre-human ancestors like Homo Erectus?

FACT of the age of the Earth?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745857&forum_id=2#34311175)

How do you reconcile the FACT that you share 50% of your DNA with a banana?

--we all have similar building blocks? shrug.

Fossils of pre-human ancestors like Homo Erectus?

--and they somehow don't have the shape of dolphin skulls

FACT of the age of the Earth?

--what about it?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745857&forum_id=2#34311244)

anyone who believes it's incompatible is an idiot

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745857&forum_id=2#34311177)

homo erectus, etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745857&forum_id=2#34311262)

are you one of those tards who believe they, like dinosaurs, were put there by God to test our faith?

or that God just made the species Homor Erectus for shits and giggles to go extinct long before humans were around (which would contradict the perfection of the Garden, as do dinosaurs)?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745857&forum_id=2#34311325)

i simply said "i don't believe in evolution". i don't have an answer to how things happened. i basically believe god made it that way. that's it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745857&forum_id=2#34311365)

God is omnipotent and could use literally any physical process He wants to create, including macroevolution

if you deny this, you are denying that God is truly omnipotent

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745857&forum_id=2#34311193)

he could have made everything out of a toenail should he have chosen to do so. but he did not.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745857&forum_id=2#34311213)

if they existed, which they factually did, why would God create them just to go extinct? If the Garden was perfect before man was around, how do you reconcile that with entire species going extinct (as like 99% of all species did)?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745857&forum_id=2#34311344)

http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/04_00/island_mice.shtml

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745857&forum_id=2#34311339)

I consider myself a Christian, PCA Presbyterian to be exact

The creation story of Genesis, like much of the Bible, is poetry not history and is meant to be interpreted as such

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745857&forum_id=2#34311354)

btw, that is not a very convincing rhetorical style.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745857&forum_id=2#34311382)

It's clearly poetry man, just like the Psalms

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745857&forum_id=2#34311397)

It gives a bad rap to all believers, enabling atheists to easily deconstruct and demolish important principles.

In other words, poor hermeneutics becomes the strawman for scientists to tear down.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745857&forum_id=2#34311464)

so, yes, does that fly in the face of evolution? sure. but--speaking for myself--it doesn't effect me at all.

i think it's odd that a sola scriptura camp christian would be so rigid in imposing a singular reading of an obviously plain text.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745857&forum_id=2#34311512)

Re: Adam and Eve, I believe that story in particular could refer to the first humans to become truly spiritual/conscious, which had to happen to literally one Homo Sapiens at some point. The "breath of Life," etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745857&forum_id=2#34311538)

this isn't a lawman thread where he comes barging in looking for libs to argue with.

dude was asked for clarification on his opinion and gave it thoughtfully. probe him if you want but don't be a shithead faggot. don't assume he's interested in playing the other side of the insufferable battles you like to pick. makes you look 1000x times more boneheaded regardless of his thoughts on evolution tbh.

and for full disclosure i don't disagree with everything you say but you seem extremely dense.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745857&forum_id=2#34311502)

it's just literally my most fundamental and important theological position, other than the work of Christ himself

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745857&forum_id=2#34311517)

As long we we believe in crushing the lib menace and making them cry tears of unfathomable sorrow, we are on the same team.

Contrast this with anyone trying to form a coalition on the left because he (understandably) thinks Trump is not a good president, but he also believes abortion is murder. BURN THE HERETIC!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745857&forum_id=2#34311518)

videos like this should be shown in class around the country: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWwhQB3TKXA

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745857&forum_id=2#34311568)

the problem with the atheist crowd isn't that they're athiest, when it comes down to it atheism isn't difficult to argue for and it's a fine position to hold intellectually. their problem is that they are incredibly obtuse and inflexible, unwilling to open themselves to any other ideas, and ultimately just as proselytizing as the mainstream religious crowd (probably moreso) while relying on i fucking love science-level intellectual standards and rhetoric.

you're performing the same shit here for a different side of the debate. 80% of what you said itt could have come straight from r/atheism, not only in content but style, which is their real problem.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745857&forum_id=2#34311662)

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a much better framework in 200 years.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745857&forum_id=2#34311590)

the same natural processes that govern biological evolution also govern the evolution of stars, planets, etc. Even if we are literally the only intelligent life in the universe, the entire thing had to be made this way in order for us to exist. Earth could not have been made without the numerous collisions of space debris, which could not have been made without the birth and death of countless stars, which could not have been made without the clouds of gas, which could not have been made without elementary particles, which could not have been made without the fundamental physical laws, etc.

In other words, God set it all up that way to evolve over billions of years to end up exactly the way it did: with a small mammalian species suddenly recognizing its own reflection in the water.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745857&forum_id=2#34311691)

how has evolution charged your/our lives? what major technological or medical breakthrough has it created that effects us on a day to day basis? maybe i can be convinced of it.

EDIT: what technology RELIES on evolution happening as believed?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745857&forum_id=2#34311818)

why does an avenue of scientific investigation need to have functional utility? what utility is there, really, in studying the nature of black holes or quasars or whatever? Mostly, it's just because it's interesting.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745857&forum_id=2#34311845)

science is supposed to be reproduceable.

btw, i hear what your saying. i dig it. respect it. and understand it. but...if evolution has no functional utility...is it science? i'm asking because i legit don't know.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745857&forum_id=2#34311866)

Evolution is impossible to reproduce because of the time involved. It takes millions and millions of years. It's more similar to studying the birth and death of stars, but of course we can reproduce studies on the latter because there are hundreds of billions of stars to observe. If we had the ability to study the evolution of life on hundreds of billions of other planets, we could reproduce studies and compare. Not only do we not have that ability technologically, but it's likely that life is exceptionally rare in the universe (though I'm in the camp that argues it's not confined to Earth because of the sheer numbers involved). In short, we can't "test" the theory, so all we can do is analyze all the biological history available to us (fossils, etc.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745857&forum_id=2#34311962)

Example: Schistosomes have obligate snail intermediate hosts and coevolve with them. Certain schistosomes can only infect certain species of snail. So when human activity changes the fish species that prey on the snail, that has disease implications.

Viruses develop drug resistances in predictable ways that inform treatment options.

And cancer biology is just evolution run amok.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745857&forum_id=2#34312044)

if you are willing to reject observed facts or well-tested hypotheses just because "it dont make good sense to me" this is a hallmark of stupidity, irrationality, poor education, etc and people are right to judge you as such

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745857&forum_id=2#34311974)