tldr we would kill ourselves with our CO2 faster than an air tank running out

WD-40. WD = Water Displacement. 40 = The 40th formula created.
Originally developed to prevent corrosion on Nuclear Missiles. It wasn't patented when it was created in order to keep the formula a trade secret.

I hate to be this guy, but I'm about to be this guy.

We've witnessed microevolution, not macroevolution. See, part of being a Christian involves believing in superpowerful deities that can warp nature and manipulate how we see the world. With that in mind, it's entirely possible that Satan planted fake evidence around the world to trick us into believing in evolution. Just saying.

That said, I'm open to either literal creationism or theistic evolution, because believing in only one or the other is not required to receive salvation.

Tell biologists that you believe in microevolution and not macroevolution. They will laugh at you.

Macroevolution has been observed through speciation events. Furthermore macroevolution is confirmed by many independent facts such as the fossil record, ERV's and atavisms.

Okay, I'll give you speciation events. But that just means macroevolution is possible. It doesn't mean that's our actual origin. And as I said above, when considering the existence of supernatural entities (one of which is bent on deceiving us), the fossil record loses reliability. Of course I understand your faith in it, but I'm just saying, from the perspective of someone who believes in those entities, it's not really a stretch.

Ultimately, the only way to prove beyond any and all doubt that evolution is our origin (which again, I don't care if it's real or not, as it doesn't change my faith in God) would be to use that mirror experiment mentioned on this site a few times. You would have to use a ship that can travel faster than the speed of light, to place a mirror several million light years away from the Earth. Then if we look in that mirror and see the past, and do in fact see the species that we supposedly evolved from, only then would the world have no choice to agree on the issue. But until that happens, there will always be room for doubt.

It doesn't lose reliability because the existence of these supernatural beings is not confirmed. And you're violating the entire scientific method, we might aswell say that gravity is not proven because a giant cake monster might be pushing us down instead.

When you compare the two idea's natural events of the fossil record and it's evolution is based on evidence where as satan putting the fossils down does not have any evidence, thus your hypothesis is completely bullcrap aswell as violating occam's razor.

The evidence of evolution is a fact, as is gravity and that was the point of the content.

I didn't say the theory loses its validity by itself. Again, I understand why you believe in it. I'm saying that as a Christian, as someone who believes in those deities, it loses reliability from our perspective.

And no, evolution not a definitive fact. That's why it's called a theory.

I don't believe in evolution, i accept it based on evidence. Evidence is not based on perspective, your supernatural creatures are fairtales, evolution is true.

Then neither is the theory of gravitation, cell theory or germ theory. But we accept them as facts because they are based on facts, as is evolution.

I'm not sure what the "theory" of gravitation is. Gravity is just a thing, not a theory. I assume you're referring to the theory of why gravity is a thing, to which I would also attribute that to God. In fact, I'd attribute all natural phenomenon to God. The difference between gravity and evolution, though, is that gravity is right here, in our face, every second of every day. There are no fundamentalist Christians claiming that gravity isn't real.

On a lesser note, if you feel the need to insist that evolution is so undeniable, then whatever, I won't bother arguing anymore. Like I said, I'm open to the idea of both literal creationism and evolution. But don't sink to petty insults. I don't care if you don't personally believe in the same things I do, but I think we're both capable of civilized conversation.

It's not a choice. It's a result of education and upbringing.

This post is trying to tell us that the way people are raised in the USA is deeply flawed.

And it's got a point.

Very much so. I can't speak for everyone else, but in my community I grew up in, Atheists would be ran out of town. I can remember a time when I was younger than a family had their house burn down, and my aunt said it was because they didn't believe in God and no one wants that in the community. In other words, she or someone she knew burnt down their house.

As an adult, i'm an unwilling Atheist. Meaning I want to believe, but can't. I wouldn't tell anyone in my family, for any fuckin reason. Years of indoctrination will do this to an individual.

And boom! That right there is the exact kind of anecdote I'd have used to explain my point if I was asked to expand.

If you reach 15 or 16 years old, and suddenly realise that your entire family's beliefs don't sit right with you, you're in a really difficult situation. Especially if you'll be rejected for it.

A family rejecting a member because of something so trivial (and it is trivial to the non-radicals) as religious standing is the most backwards shit that they could possibly do. Think about all the advances in medicine and technology and engineering we've made over the past two thousand years, and then think that we still have people willing to chase away their own family over a load of bullshit.

That is why I'm opposed to children being taught this kind of thing. The people who do it only do it to make their kids exactly like them, and then punish individual thought.

Eat da pussy

I wanna say...duh?

Just because you already understand it doesn't mean everyone else does.

but if you spend more on keeping it running than on getting to the goal youve done something wrong

I.... I guess that makes sense.

Yeah true. But when you advertise high profile events when cheaper methods ar avaliable, you gotta wonder why

High profile events are attended by high profile people, you don't advertise to them by buying up a billboard in a ghetto.

At least that's how I see it.

I'm not saying put a bilboard in a ghetto.

I think this is refering to advertising during the super bowl. Which is why it was so expensive.

They could have easily advertised on other TV channels at other times and nearly as many people to see it. Plus during the superbowl everyone is drunk and shit and not paying attention to adverts like that.

It works for companies that sell stuff you buy often and so will have that brand imprinted in your head when you next go to the super market and think, i'll try this one.

But no one gives money to every charity, and so they need to make people contribute. They arent going to make people think they should give money to this charity during a super bowl when they are wasted and watching the game.

Oh I get it man, not every charity uses their money with the most efficiency.... but putting a superbowl ad would kinda be "close enough" in my opinion.

Statistically are Superbowl ads, the VERY best bang for your buck? No, fuck no. But is it a waste? Debatable.

To me as long as a decent amount of money is being generated for the actual charity work, then I won't hate even though I like many people feel that the money could be used in a more efficient manner.

Have a lobster dinner for the hungry, sure it seems inappropriate, but some rich people won't donate without something like that. :/