If evolution is true, then obviously "Jesus" is not real.

Eat some flesh and drink some blood and your sins will be forgiven and you will gain eternal life.
John 6:53-58

 

What's not to love about a religion which wants you to engage in ritual vampirism to prove yourself worthy?

 

But what did they actually ingest; what did they actually drink? It is utterly amazing how shallow minded you are in thinking that Jesus might have attempted to get those Disciples to actually consume his flesh and drink his blood... IT WAS A METAPHORIC expression. Aside from that, you didn't even get the wording correct.

 

Because they have the genes from the horse and the donkey, they are a dual species.
But you're right they aren't really a single species, just like the fruit flies.

Now, let's get back to evolution.

 

Please list ten items that are literal in the Bible and ten items that are metaphors.

Literal:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10

Metaphor:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

 

Brilliant.

The "literal" category has to include Jesus magically coming back to save Christians someday because they are too INSECURE to face death, so THAT one's gotta be literal/true! But the other ones, especially if they make no logical sense at all, will be deemed "metaphors". And YES, the authors of the Bible did INTEND those ones to be metaphors from the very beginning, they'll argue, even though their own great-grandparents generation believed them to be literal!

- - - Updated - - -

And just like a vampire, Christians are afraid of the light.....the light of truth.

 

Okay, how about answering a question I asked before we got sidetracked on hybrids. If we have two separate species, fully able to breed within their own group but not between the two groups, would evidence that they were once the same species be evidence of evolution?

 

It's hard to understand the fairy tale if some things are literal and other things are metaphors. At some point (the first two items you look at) you will run into major problems if you try to say that one is literal but the other one is a metaphor. I always try to examine it as being 100 percent literal or 100 percent metaphor. I try to avoid mixing them.

 

All of the big cats are still one species although they look completely different from each other and they can produce copies of themselves. Wolves and dogs are still the same species although some breeds of dogs don't resemble wolves. But wolves and dogs are not foxes. Horses and donkeys are the same species but their mixed offspring don't resemble either one.

Almost all life forms are in transition. Horseshoe crabs have been constant for millions of years so they are the exception.

 

Actually I asked you for your definition of evolution way back and you never replied. Your entire history of posts seems to be designed to confuse evolution with species interbreeding.

 

This simply illustrates the blurred lines you get when you try to apply discrete labels to something more of a spectrum. Group A can crossbreed with Group B so we call them the same species. Group B can crossbreed with Group C so we call them the same species. But if Group A cannot crossbreed with Group C, are they still the same species? While organisms which only recently diverged are still able to produce hybrids, the further back the common ancestor is, the less likely hybridization becomes.

Horseshoe crabs are not the only organism that appears the same as it did in the past (crocodiles, coelacanth, nautilus, etc.), but they have not been constant and scientists can easily distinguish between them.

 

I've already answered that, maybe twice.

If they can't breed with other groups it isn't evolution. Not that
evolution has ever taken place. It hasn't.

 

I don't have a personal definition. That wouldn't be scientific.

How can interbreeding be deemed evolution? My entire history of posts shows that
evolution has been created by extrapolation and artistic renderings. Do you have evidence
to the contrary?

 

You still don't understand the question. If they could breed with other groups in the past but cannot breed with them in the present, how is that not evolution?

 

I understand it very well.

I've answered that. You don't understand your own question. Not being
able to breed, regardless of past or present, isn't evidence of evolution.

 

Obviously, you don't.

Since, as you yourself admitted, a species is defined by its ability to breed, not being able to breed makes them different species. If they were originally the same species, that means one of them had to have evolved. Or do you want to change your definition of evolution?

 

Of course morality is subjective. Do you know anything about human history?

 

Evolution does not produce a new species or animal, it simply describes the process of life being rewarded for surviving long enough to make another life. Those that succeed to reproduce extend their genetic makeup to a new life. Genes are the key to understanding evolution. If they never changed, evolution would still occur except on a different scale and via a different survival mechanism. Let us say that every single human being had identical genes, that no mutations occur and that every single child born was identical to one or the other parent. Even then, some kids would survive over others due to accidents, inability to mate, food abundance, wars, disease and so on. As generations passed, those kids that came from lineages that successfully reproduced would become the majority type in the human landscape. That is still evolution. Genes though provide a means for genetic variation to occur and allows survivors a means of producing similar replicants as a result of mating with opposite sexes that also survived. Let us say that one continent filled with people decided to never let anyone on that land ever again. They then decided to kill every red head produced at birth. It would not take long for that continent to be devoid of redheads. This is all so simple to understand that it boggles the mind why anyone would doubt evolution. The Christian religion itself has evolved since the time of Jesus. None of you would enjoy being a Christian in 300AD or 900 AD, you would hardly recognize the religion. It survived by adapting. Evolving. Islam needs to do the same thing.

 

So far your definition has contradicted the first nine words of your post.

Thus the evolutionist must rely upon creative scenarios since there is no evidence
to support evolution.

Christianity has not evolved or changed in any way whatsoever.. There has never
been a reason to do so. It's the same today as it was at the beginning. Not sure
where you're getting your information but it's not accurate.

 

Are you saying that there has always been about 34,000 different Christian denominations? Martin Luther and Joseph Smith might disagree with you on that point.

 

Well you might actually consider giving what you consider the scientific definition. I can't give scientific evidence to counter something as meaningless as " extrapolation and artistic renderings" You are clearly unable to have a discussion on any basis that would yield to,rational analysis.

 

No. Christianity itself has not changed. Man has created religions and
denominations but Christianity is the same.

 

Don't hold your breath. Prunepicker won't quote the scientific definition because it destroys every argument he's made against evolution.

- - - Updated - - -

Now you're saying that Christianity is not a religion?

 

Not at all. If you had evidence of evolution you'd put it up. You, nor has
anyone else done so.

Correct, but since people can't grasp that it's put in the same box as
religions.

Christianity is a relationship with Jesus Christ. One does not need to
belong to a specific group, church, denomination etc... in order to be
a Christian.

 

So when someone is performing what you call a 'rational analysis', can it be said that the person is 'rationalizing'?