there has to have been a literal Adam and a literal fall for the Gospel to make sense IMO

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5241839&forum_id=2#45542872)

https://journals.openedition.org/ejpap/1773

Your reasons for belief are implicit in the OP:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Neglected_Argument_for_the_Reality_of_God

>>>The hypothesis of God is a peculiar one, in that it supposes an infinitely incomprehensible object, although every hypothesis, as such, supposes its object to be truly conceived in the hypothesis. This leaves the hypothesis but one way of understanding itself; namely, as vague yet as true so far as it is definite, and as continually tending to define itself more and more, and without limit. The hypothesis, being thus itself inevitably subject to the law of growth, appears in its vagueness to represent God as so, albeit this is directly contradicted in the hypothesis from its very first phase. But this apparent attribution of growth to God, since it is ineradicable from the hypothesis, cannot, according to the hypothesis, be flatly false. Its implications concerning the Universes will be maintained in the hypothesis, while its implications concerning God will be partly disavowed, and yet held to be less false than their denial would be. Thus the hypothesis will lead to our thinking of features of each Universe as purposed; and this will stand or fall with the hypothesis. Yet a purpose essentially involves growth, and so cannot be attributed to God. Still it will, according to the hypothesis, be less false to speak so than to represent God as purposeless.

Assured as I am from my own personal experience that every man capable of so controlling his attention as to perform a little exact thinking will, if he examines Zeno's argument about Achilles and the tortoise, come to think, as I do, that it is nothing but a contemptible catch, I do not think that I either am or ought to be less assured, from what I know of the effects of Musement on myself and others, that any normal man who considers the three Universes in the light of the hypothesis of God's Reality, and pursues that line of reflection in scientific singleness of heart, will come to be stirred to the depths of his nature by the beauty of the idea and by its august practicality, even to the point of earnestly loving and adoring his strictly hypothetical God, and to that of desiring above all things to shape the whole conduct of life and all the springs of action into conformity with that hypothesis. Now to be deliberately and thoroughly prepared to shape one's conduct into conformity with a proposition is neither more nor less than the state of mind called Believing that proposition, however long the conscious classification of it under that head be postponed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5241839&forum_id=2#45542880)

https://as2.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/03/95/41/49/1000_F_395414944_DrkEoH5EvNcl9j4mJfJAUeo8lP4qhqTl.jpg

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5241839&forum_id=2#45542985)

I believe the universe is about 16 billion years old iirc per Big Bang (when God created everything)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5241839&forum_id=2#45543598)

Christianity dies out or rises on the basis of Christ's resurrection. It is not just another school of Jewish thought that stands on the merits of its theological arguments.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5241839&forum_id=2#45544998)

2. While I do think the evidence for Old Earth appears pretty convincing, the evidence for macro evolution is not as strong as people believe.

3. To be a Christian, step 1 is to believe in the resurrection. Even if you had to dispense with macro evolution (you dont, see #1), I'm not sure how that would be the sticky point once you accept bodily resurrection.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5241839&forum_id=2#45545007)

Like imagine if Christianity required you to be a flat-earther. No one would be terribly impressed by the apologist's shtick of "look, see, here's my historical evidence for the resurrection" if it were followed by "okay, so now that you've hopefully accepted that the resurrection happened, the flat earth part should be no big deal"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5241839&forum_id=2#45545183)

your Papist fueled religious takes are retarded gibberish, hth

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5241839&forum_id=2#45549087)

If you're willing to have a good faith discussion, let's chat. I believe the Bible is 100% true, including the universe being ~6,000 years old.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5241839&forum_id=2#45548994)