With the evidence Jesus gives us, this shows us that evolution does not cover a very important aspect of life. God conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit, not by the flesh. Therefore, if Jesus had had children and evolution was true, there would be a possibility that Jesus would have a son who was an exact reproduction of Mary, yet Mary was a woman...
The reason that something is not right (with evolution) is that a son cannot exactly reproduce a woman based on genetic information even though the Devil would have us believe that a child can be anything they want to be.
When Jesus died on the cross, He showed that even if you don't have genetic information from your parents, you can still please them. That means it is possible to overcome the development of the genetic process!
46 comments
...I'm pretty sure that if Jesus had fathered Children, he'd have probably, you know, fathered them. He's a dude, after all.
When you try to predict the effect of an imaginary spook on a real process, its not surprising you get nonsensical results.
This makes no sense. Evolution is wrong because a child doesn't look 100% like one parent? Try mixing different amounts (but not largely different so that you have a speck of one color and a fist full of the other) of red plato with blue plato and see how often the result is exactly the same as one of the original colors.
Me fail English? That's unpossible!
What the fuck is he talking about?!"He showed that even if you don't have genetic information from your parents, you can still please them."
If you don't have the genetic information from your parents, they AREN'T your parents! At least not your biological ones.
And what is "the development of the genetic process" .
Why are fundies always trying to engage in discussions, when they lack even the most basic information?!
Oh, man, that's just impenetrable. This poster doesn't have the faintest idea what genetics and evolution are, yet feels entitled to express some kind of opinion on it -- invoking the aspect of the supernatural on the process, yet.
Except that you're talking about an ancient myth with no grounding in reality, written by people who, at best, had an extremely limited understanding of basic biology. Even if there was a Jesus figure, he was entirely human, just like everybody else. So, you lose.
It looks like you heathens don't understand clear christian teaching.
This about as "scientific" as cat painting is "artistic." Neither has anything comprehensible in it.
But cat footprints are cute. Plus, given enough tries cat painting might result in a recognizable pattern, though it will be a mere accident (what is the scientific name of the human tendency to see patterns, again? You know, what makes people see Mother Theresa on a pastry and so on), while Gottservant is actively avoiding making any sense.
"With the evidence Jesus gives us,"With all the evidence Jesus gives us? Jesus has given us NO evidence.
"this shows us that evolution does not cover a very important aspect of life."
The ToE covers evolution. It does not cover all aspects of life. People who understand the ToE and accept it realize that it only addresses evolutiom.
"God conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit, not by the flesh."
No, the Bible's virgin birth story is a fiction. It is a plot device ripped-off from more ancient myths to give the story's hero a larger than life dimension.
"Therefore, if Jesus had had children and evolution was true, there would be a possibility that Jesus would have a son who was an exact reproduction of Mary, yet Mary was a woman..."
Are you unclear on the difference between male and female, or are you unclear on the definition of "exact."
"The reason that something is not right (with evolution) is that a son cannot exactly reproduce a woman based on genetic information even though the Devil would have us believe that a child can be anything they want to be."
Huh? Well, now the question has to be: Are you loaded, stupid, or stupid and loaded?
"When Jesus died on the cross, He showed that even if you don't have genetic information from your parents, you can still please them."
So, Jesus' crucifixion showed that adoptive parents can be proud? You're loaded and stupid.
"That means it is possible to overcome the development of the genetic process!"
Though your "reasoning" is incorrect, I would agree that certain people can overcome certain genetic conditions under certain circumstances. So what? It is not true for all people, or all genetic conditions, nor under all circumstances.
Two thoughts: why is he talking about the possible genetic identity of a child of Jesus when every fundie in the world denies that Jesus ever even thought about women, much less hunkered down in the back of the Jesus Mobile and did the nasty?
This guy is........undescriptible. So, I look like my dad, because, obviously, he has transfer his DNA to me. Are you serious or just didn´t sleep well tonight and can´t think with clarity?
*mock hysterical* All right! All right! If I agree with you, will you stop torturing science and reason in this appalling manner?! *sobs* IT'S INHUMAN!
was that? o_O
I thought that the mumbo jumbo of DNA and reproduction was NOT TO HAVE TWO IDENTICAL PEOPLE IN ANY WAY, because it´s detrimental to the survival of the species and one of the biggest objections to cloning. By the way, how many children conceived by the Holy Ghost you know?. That´s what happens when you mix speculation with anecdotical evidence.
This moron disproves his own argument. If Jesus had no genetic material from his father and only from his mother, then Jesus must have been female.
It is physically impossible to take female genetic material and produce a male (although the opposite is possible)
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
