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

I'm using the accepted scientific definition.

But that's all science has going for it. If you can produce real evidence of evolution
then do so.

Au contraire, my discussions have been clear and extremely rational. The
problem is that you and others aren't capable of supporting evolution or
showing that science has or can. I'm using science to show that lack of
evidence for evolution.

 

You do know that your DNA is not a perfect copy of your parents, don't you?

Ah, the good old True Christian™ argument. I present for you the definition of religion from the Oxford English dictionary.

 

What a crock. One can believe in the theory of evolution and Jesus.

 

So true. Cognitive dissonance has never been a problem for most humans.

 

No, just the truth. If you'll look at the definition you posted you'll see what
I mean. This is a definition of religion and NOT Christianity. It's exactly what
I said. Mormonism is religion. Methodist is a religion. Catholicism is a religion.
Buddhism is a religion.

Can you provide any evidence that a person must adhere to a specific
denomination, group, church or anything in order to be a Christian? That will
prove interesting if you can.

 

So you're saying that Christians don't believe in a personal God? Doesn't that make them atheists?

 

Any who claim to know the answer to that question speak from a position of ignorance.

- - - Updated - - -

Could be Deist.

 

You're grasping at straws.

Christianity isn't a religion. It's a relationship. If you can provide evidence to
the contrary then do so.

Hint: step out of the box.

 

Thank you.

 

Given no one knows, it's purely vanity to imagine you do - no matter the impetus. For example, some think calling it 'god' excuses vanity. If you're determined to be 'special' you'll find a vehicle.

 

evidence to the contrary that it's a 'relationship'? of course not. That's precisely what it is, or what it feels like.you have a 'relationship' with yourself playing the role of the other party. It's a neat trick.

 

You continually say you are using the scientific definition of evolution and then talk about the failure of breeding two different species to produce viable offspring as proof evolution doesn't exist. You need to post your scientific definItion of evolution that allows you to be this confused about what would constitute a repudiation of evolution.

 

You have me mixed up with someone else. I have not posted any "scientific definition of evolution" nor have I conjectured about the breeding of different species. Try again.

 

Yes, you're grasping at straws. As for the rest of your post I have no idea
who you're talking about.

 

I don't see the connection. Many people have faith and don't take the Bible (independent of the version) too literal. They might believe in certain bits and pieces. Jesus's teachings aren't generally wrong, and I like if people try to live up to what he preached. The "loving your neighbor" and "turn the other cheek"-part are certainly not negative. It is the select few who take it to the extreme and who cause the problem and create a negative reputation for the entire community. Whether that's in Christianity, in any other religion really doesn't matter or in Atheist-communities. And to give you a heads-up: I am an Atheist myself, but that doesn't mean I put all theists or atheists in the same basket. There are crazies everywhere.

The evolution deniers tend to be found in select places. I don't think evolution is an issue in any European country, neither is climate change or abortion. It depends on the location on what the issue is. Most people tend to ignore that there are nearly as many Muslims living east of India as west. I wonder why we only focus on the few in the Arabic world and completely ignore what the other half east of India says and does. Same thing is true for the US. Beliefs which are represented in the US don't necessarily go world wide to other Christian communities.

 

I he believed in Adam/Eve, then he was too stupid to be considered "divine". A philosopher, but not the magic son of god or god himself, obviously. And since Adam/Eve is a lie, then there was no need for Jesus to absolve us of "original sin". Jesus is therefore a con.

 

Original Sin is Catholic doctrine that appeared about 300 AD.. You should actually know more about religion before you attempt to draw conclusions and trash it.

 

But they can reproduce within the population, so how is that not evolution?

 

He said not being able to breed with other groups. They can breed with each other! YOU are the one that has proven to not understand the question.

 

Why? Because it offends your sensibilities that someone gets the history of your mythology wrong?

 

People who take the Bible literally are often offended..... FS has no other purpose here except to mock others.

 

If Jesus had DNA he was the product of evolution.

Why would God give Jesus the ability to procreate if he knew Jesus' fate. There was no need for Jesus to have DNA.

DNA in Jesus was as needed as belly buttons on Adam and Eve.

 

Why would you internalize his doubts...or anyone's... as mocking?

 

Because he/she has been on PF a long time ... FS has no doubts.

 

Sorry about that. My comments were ment to be directed at Prunepicker. I apologize for my mistake.