It's Always Sunny - evolution versus Christianity

[Huggy Bear]

And the point I was trying to make is that if you talk about evolution and the origin of life, as if they are somehow related fields, then you look like this guy:

---

---

Again, you should be addressing the OP not me. I thought I made it very clear that they were different.

I wasn't taking your quote out of context because the part I redacted does not change the fact that you seem to want to include abiogenesis in the field of evolution when in fact it is much more properly classified in chemistry.

First of all, where did I mention abiogenisis? 

Secondly there is a reason I used ellipses in my post, and in case you don't know what ellipses are:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis#cite_note-1

Ellipsis (plural ellipses; from the Ancient Greek: ἔλλειψις, élleipsis, "omission" or "falling short") is a series of dots (typically three, such as "…") that usually indicates an intentional omission of a word, sentence, or whole section from a text without altering its original meaning.

I put the ellipses there to show that I could go further into explanation, but the main point was that presenting creationism and evolution as if it's one side or the other is inaccurate, bringing up abiogenisis doesn't change that fact.

 I am of course aware of many Christians who believe in evolution, although honestly you are probably the first one I've seen who also believes in a literal, worldwide flood.  Are you one of those micro-evolutionists?

You do realize that whale fossils have been found on top of mountain ranges right?  

But of course science will put their own spin on it and say the mountain must of rose up really, really fast from the sea instead of admitting that the bible may have been correct on the earth being covered by water because of their system of peer pressu... uh peer review.

Also I am confused on these comments of yours:

Everyone is familiar with the story of Noah's ark. The problem is everyone ASSUMES Noah had to fit 2 (or seven depending on if the animal was clean or unclean, but for the purposes of this example i'll just say 2) of every single animal on the planet in the ark.

In the bible Noah is explicitly instructed to take two of every "sort" of animal.

...

The words "sort", "kind" and "species" are synonomous.

...

How the bible determines what belongs to a species is whether or not they can produce fertile offspring.

Well if you are saying that he had to accomodate 2 or 7 of every sort, and you are saying that this means he had to accomodate 2 or 7 of every species, then how is he not fitting 2 or 7 of every single animal on the planet into the ark?

There are more absurdities in the flood story than in any other story in the entire Bible, and that's saying something.

Anyway... from what I have seen of you, you are nowhere near the piss poor representation of Christianity that Drich (vulgar moron), athrock (intellectually dishonest), and Godschild (self-righteous moron) are, but that status merely makes you respectable, not commendable.  Or am I presuming too much?  Are you a Jew (converted or otherwise) and not a Christian?

*emphasis mine*

You're thinking of the modern definition of species, I made it clear the bible defines a species as one that can produce fertile offspring. A genus would probably be closer to the biblical definition of what the bible means a species to be. So if Noah were to take 2 animals from each genus, you get the picture.