Genesis is not fact, there for Jesus is not necessary?

[Esquilax]

Here are the choices as I see them.

You can accept a scientific theory (evolution) that has been scrutinized and tested for more than 150 years now and is supported by the irrefutable fact that genetic change takes place within organisms over generations. Or, you can opt to accept a story from a 3,000-year-old book which features a rib-clone, a talking serpent, a worldwide flood for which no evidence exists whatsoever, an ark that is an engineering impossibility, and a world that was created in six days (but billions upon billions of stars almost as an afterthought).

I'll throw my lot in with science, thanks.

Yeah, if my choices are to either accept 150 years of peer reviewed science, with evidence that I can look up in all of five seconds, or accept the opinions of a pair of uneducated randos whose argument is just pointing to the first choice and saying "that's wrong," over and over, I know where my money is going.

Now, let's see whether it's Tweedledee or Tweedledum who's going to pop up first and use my money turn of phrase to launch into an oblique reference to Pascal's Wager, shall we?