Total Posts:84|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Virgin Birth possible

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 11:33:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm not a Catholic and I think there is a lot to be said about the account of a virgin birth as recorded int he bible or other religious texts. So let us define virgin as no sexual contact between two people.

But the question is "Virgin birth even possible?"

Sam Berry, Emeritus professor of genetics at University College London, has also speculated (Daily Telegraph, 21 November 2001) that the Virgin Mary had Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, but with differentiation of her sex organs. He claims that it is possible for a person of this constitution to develop an ovum and uterus, "If this happened, and if the ovum developed parthenogenetically [i.e. unfertilised - common in some animals], and if a back-mutation to testosterone sensitivity took place, we would have a situation of an apparently normal woman giving birth without intercourse to a son."

Read more about the Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and source of quote.
http://www.secondtype.info...

Also one could hypothesize that Mary was a phenotypical female with Klinefelter syndrome. Which is the SECOND most common extra chromosomal disorder after down syndrome with 1:1,000 male births having the disorder.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

I think it safe to say that a Virgin Birth is not impossible. Extremely Extremely Rare but within the realm of human biology.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 11:40:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 11:33:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I'm not a Catholic and I think there is a lot to be said about the account of a virgin birth as recorded int he bible or other religious texts. So let us define virgin as no sexual contact between two people.

But the question is "Virgin birth even possible?"

Sam Berry, Emeritus professor of genetics at University College London, has also speculated (Daily Telegraph, 21 November 2001) that the Virgin Mary had Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, but with differentiation of her sex organs. He claims that it is possible for a person of this constitution to develop an ovum and uterus, "If this happened, and if the ovum developed parthenogenetically [i.e. unfertilised - common in some animals], and if a back-mutation to testosterone sensitivity took place, we would have a situation of an apparently normal woman giving birth without intercourse to a son."

Read more about the Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and source of quote.
http://www.secondtype.info...

Also one could hypothesize that Mary was a phenotypical female with Klinefelter syndrome. Which is the SECOND most common extra chromosomal disorder after down syndrome with 1:1,000 male births having the disorder.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

I think it safe to say that a Virgin Birth is not impossible. Extremely Extremely Rare but within the realm of human biology.

So rare that there has never been a single confirmed case. And it really doesn't matter what story you choose from the Bible, Qu'ran or other text, you can always find someone with a science degree who is willing to stretch well beyond the limits of rationality to try to make the Bible's claims sound plausible, even if very highly improbable. Islam has scientists willing to declare the account of human embryo development in the Qu'ran as absolute evidence that the Qur'an is true. Anyone with even a passing understanding of human embryonic development who reads the Qu'ran is left laughing hysterically.

The idea that a woman would become pregnant without the DNA from another person would mean she would essentially, give birth to a clone of herself. So to suggest she could have a son without DNA from a second person is interesting only in its hilarity.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 11:44:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 11:33:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I'm not a Catholic and I think there is a lot to be said about the account of a virgin birth as recorded int he bible or other religious texts. So let us define virgin as no sexual contact between two people.

But the question is "Virgin birth even possible?"

Sam Berry, Emeritus professor of genetics at University College London, has also speculated (Daily Telegraph, 21 November 2001) that the Virgin Mary had Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, but with differentiation of her sex organs. He claims that it is possible for a person of this constitution to develop an ovum and uterus, "If this happened, and if the ovum developed parthenogenetically [i.e. unfertilised - common in some animals], and if a back-mutation to testosterone sensitivity took place, we would have a situation of an apparently normal woman giving birth without intercourse to a son."

Read more about the Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and source of quote.
http://www.secondtype.info...

Also one could hypothesize that Mary was a phenotypical female with Klinefelter syndrome. Which is the SECOND most common extra chromosomal disorder after down syndrome with 1:1,000 male births having the disorder.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

I think it safe to say that a Virgin Birth is not impossible. Extremely Extremely Rare but within the realm of human biology.

That's all fine well and good, and the odds are very slim. I have a question for you. How can it be true that it was the son of God born to the virgin if she just had some kind of syndrome? What's miraculous or prophesy fulfilling about that? Why do Christians say it was an angel of God that visited her if she had a disease or chromosomal defect?

Why can't the obvious be considered? If someone named Mary gave birth to a Messiah named Jesus and she *said* she was a virgin, then maybe she was lying? Maybe she and Joseph couldn't wait until there wedding. Whatever, but let's be serious here. Maybe the story isn't true at all.

If it smells like a fish, looks like a fish, it's probably a fish. Christianity would be so much more believable without this crazy stuff.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 11:47:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 11:40:52 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:33:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I'm not a Catholic and I think there is a lot to be said about the account of a virgin birth as recorded int he bible or other religious texts. So let us define virgin as no sexual contact between two people.

But the question is "Virgin birth even possible?"

Sam Berry, Emeritus professor of genetics at University College London, has also speculated (Daily Telegraph, 21 November 2001) that the Virgin Mary had Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, but with differentiation of her sex organs. He claims that it is possible for a person of this constitution to develop an ovum and uterus, "If this happened, and if the ovum developed parthenogenetically [i.e. unfertilised - common in some animals], and if a back-mutation to testosterone sensitivity took place, we would have a situation of an apparently normal woman giving birth without intercourse to a son."

Read more about the Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and source of quote.
http://www.secondtype.info...

Also one could hypothesize that Mary was a phenotypical female with Klinefelter syndrome. Which is the SECOND most common extra chromosomal disorder after down syndrome with 1:1,000 male births having the disorder.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

I think it safe to say that a Virgin Birth is not impossible. Extremely Extremely Rare but within the realm of human biology.

So rare that there has never been a single confirmed case. And it really doesn't matter what story you choose from the Bible, Qu'ran or other text, you can always find someone with a science degree who is willing to stretch well beyond the limits of rationality to try to make the Bible's claims sound plausible, even if very highly improbable. Islam has scientists willing to declare the account of human embryo development in the Qu'ran as absolute evidence that the Qur'an is true. Anyone with even a passing understanding of human embryonic development who reads the Qu'ran is left laughing hysterically.

The idea that a woman would become pregnant without the DNA from another person would mean she would essentially, give birth to a clone of herself. So to suggest she could have a son without DNA from a second person is interesting only in its hilarity.

Such a person could have a "virgin birth" but be covered up youthful promiscuity. A person having such a birth and people around her would just blame the birth on her sexual encounter. Her sexual partner would not share DNA with the baby. So the frequency maybe even more than just one recorded event.

It would not be a clone. As explained the Baby boy would be a genetic match to her X and Y chromosome but not suffer from the same karyotype.

Beastt just eat your humble pie. You want so desperately to make a belief in God to be impossible by rational possible logical means but that is NOT the case. Such a belief can be perfectly reasonable and consistent with reality.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 11:58:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 11:44:25 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:33:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I'm not a Catholic and I think there is a lot to be said about the account of a virgin birth as recorded int he bible or other religious texts. So let us define virgin as no sexual contact between two people.

But the question is "Virgin birth even possible?"

Sam Berry, Emeritus professor of genetics at University College London, has also speculated (Daily Telegraph, 21 November 2001) that the Virgin Mary had Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, but with differentiation of her sex organs. He claims that it is possible for a person of this constitution to develop an ovum and uterus, "If this happened, and if the ovum developed parthenogenetically [i.e. unfertilised - common in some animals], and if a back-mutation to testosterone sensitivity took place, we would have a situation of an apparently normal woman giving birth without intercourse to a son."

Read more about the Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and source of quote.
http://www.secondtype.info...

Also one could hypothesize that Mary was a phenotypical female with Klinefelter syndrome. Which is the SECOND most common extra chromosomal disorder after down syndrome with 1:1,000 male births having the disorder.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

I think it safe to say that a Virgin Birth is not impossible. Extremely Extremely Rare but within the realm of human biology.

That's all fine well and good, and the odds are very slim. I have a question for you. How can it be true that it was the son of God born to the virgin if she just had some kind of syndrome? What's miraculous or prophesy fulfilling about that? Why do Christians say it was an angel of God that visited her if she had a disease or chromosomal defect?

Why can't the obvious be considered? If someone named Mary gave birth to a Messiah named Jesus and she *said* she was a virgin, then maybe she was lying? Maybe she and Joseph couldn't wait until there wedding. Whatever, but let's be serious here. Maybe the story isn't true at all.

If it smells like a fish, looks like a fish, it's probably a fish. Christianity would be so much more believable without this crazy stuff.

Crazy is being inconsistent with reality. There are a lot of things even viewed through a non theistic lens that at first blush is crazy.

As I said there are other statements made about the virgin birth such as a visiting angel and such. But those statements are personal accounts. They can not be confirmed bu Science and Genetics. All Science could do is say such an account is impossible. Such as Jack's been stalk leading to a castle built on clouds. Science could say this account is impossible by our understanding.

This however is an account that Science can say this part, virgin birth, is possible. The other facets of the account it really can not make a claim about.

I do not think personally a virgin birth is what it classically is understood to be. I merely present "scientific evidence" that can be used to support a virgin birth conclusion.

Can anyone present facts about human biology that would make it an impossibility? I already concede it is extremely rare. Near impossible chance. But being an Atheist you must know that enough time, chance, and mutations is enough to confirm many things as scientific theory ie. "fact"
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 12:03:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 11:47:16 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:40:52 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:33:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I'm not a Catholic and I think there is a lot to be said about the account of a virgin birth as recorded int he bible or other religious texts. So let us define virgin as no sexual contact between two people.

But the question is "Virgin birth even possible?"

Sam Berry, Emeritus professor of genetics at University College London, has also speculated (Daily Telegraph, 21 November 2001) that the Virgin Mary had Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, but with differentiation of her sex organs. He claims that it is possible for a person of this constitution to develop an ovum and uterus, "If this happened, and if the ovum developed parthenogenetically [i.e. unfertilised - common in some animals], and if a back-mutation to testosterone sensitivity took place, we would have a situation of an apparently normal woman giving birth without intercourse to a son."

Read more about the Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and source of quote.
http://www.secondtype.info...

Also one could hypothesize that Mary was a phenotypical female with Klinefelter syndrome. Which is the SECOND most common extra chromosomal disorder after down syndrome with 1:1,000 male births having the disorder.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

I think it safe to say that a Virgin Birth is not impossible. Extremely Extremely Rare but within the realm of human biology.

So rare that there has never been a single confirmed case. And it really doesn't matter what story you choose from the Bible, Qu'ran or other text, you can always find someone with a science degree who is willing to stretch well beyond the limits of rationality to try to make the Bible's claims sound plausible, even if very highly improbable. Islam has scientists willing to declare the account of human embryo development in the Qu'ran as absolute evidence that the Qur'an is true. Anyone with even a passing understanding of human embryonic development who reads the Qu'ran is left laughing hysterically.

The idea that a woman would become pregnant without the DNA from another person would mean she would essentially, give birth to a clone of herself. So to suggest she could have a son without DNA from a second person is interesting only in its hilarity.

Such a person could have a "virgin birth" but be covered up youthful promiscuity. A person having such a birth and people around her would just blame the birth on her sexual encounter. Her sexual partner would not share DNA with the baby. So the frequency maybe even more than just one recorded event.

It would not be a clone. As explained the Baby boy would be a genetic match to her X and Y chromosome but not suffer from the same karyotype.

Beastt just eat your humble pie. You want so desperately to make a belief in God to be impossible by rational possible logical means but that is NOT the case. Such a belief can be perfectly reasonable and consistent with reality.
The humble pie is all yours. Firstly, as Jodybirdy pointed out, your attempt to salvage the biblical account actually does nothing but refute it. It takes a special act of God, and turns it into a rare syndrome - one never shown to actually exist, but devoid of any miraculous agent.

Secondly, when you find a single scientist (or even two or three), who are willing to demonstrate their lack of scientific objectivity by trying to entertain such inversions of reality, file them with those like Kent Hovind, who tries to resolve the Bible with science through silly suggestions such as Earth being younger than some of its oldest trees, man co-existing with dinosaurs, etc.

Not only can we trace the origin of the virgin birth to a translational error, but the resulting baby was to be named Immanual, not Jesus. And to put all of that into perspective, you still have the problem of the missing Jesus. While we're still dealing with the fact that there is no credible evidence that Jesus even existed, here you are in your never-ending lack of humility or rationality; attempting to suggest that the virgin birth could be true, despite it being demonstrably only a translational error, accepted by a non-witness, and written into a ridiculous account placing the resulting person in a city which has since been determined to have been abandoned at that time.

In baseball, it's three strikes and you're out. In Christianity, 100-strikes against you only strengthens your resolve to believe the purely absurd.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Gentorev
Posts: 2,878
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 12:05:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 11:44:25 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:33:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I'm not a Catholic and I think there is a lot to be said about the account of a virgin birth as recorded int he bible or other religious texts. So let us define virgin as no sexual contact between two people.

But the question is "Virgin birth even possible?"

Sam Berry, Emeritus professor of genetics at University College London, has also speculated (Daily Telegraph, 21 November 2001) that the Virgin Mary had Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, but with differentiation of her sex organs. He claims that it is possible for a person of this constitution to develop an ovum and uterus, "If this happened, and if the ovum developed parthenogenetically [i.e. unfertilised - common in some animals], and if a back-mutation to testosterone sensitivity took place, we would have a situation of an apparently normal woman giving birth without intercourse to a son."

Read more about the Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and source of quote.
http://www.secondtype.info...

Also one could hypothesize that Mary was a phenotypical female with Klinefelter syndrome. Which is the SECOND most common extra chromosomal disorder after down syndrome with 1:1,000 male births having the disorder.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

I think it safe to say that a Virgin Birth is not impossible. Extremely Extremely Rare but within the realm of human biology.

That's all fine well and good, and the odds are very slim. I have a question for you. How can it be true that it was the son of God born to the virgin if she just had some kind of syndrome? What's miraculous or prophesy fulfilling about that? Why do Christians say it was an angel of God that visited her if she had a disease or chromosomal defect?

Why can't the obvious be considered? If someone named Mary gave birth to a Messiah named Jesus and she *said* she was a virgin, then maybe she was lying? Maybe she and Joseph couldn't wait until there wedding. Whatever, but let's be serious here. Maybe the story isn't true at all.

If it smells like a fish, looks like a fish, it's probably a fish. Christianity would be so much more believable without this crazy stuff.

But Mary never said that she was a virgin once she had conceived the biological son of her half brother "Joseph the son of Alexander Helios=Heli" and neither does the bible mention a virgin birth.
The tongue, the sharp two edged sword that divides the spirit from the soul.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 12:07:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 11:58:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:44:25 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:33:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I'm not a Catholic and I think there is a lot to be said about the account of a virgin birth as recorded int he bible or other religious texts. So let us define virgin as no sexual contact between two people.

But the question is "Virgin birth even possible?"

Sam Berry, Emeritus professor of genetics at University College London, has also speculated (Daily Telegraph, 21 November 2001) that the Virgin Mary had Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, but with differentiation of her sex organs. He claims that it is possible for a person of this constitution to develop an ovum and uterus, "If this happened, and if the ovum developed parthenogenetically [i.e. unfertilised - common in some animals], and if a back-mutation to testosterone sensitivity took place, we would have a situation of an apparently normal woman giving birth without intercourse to a son."

Read more about the Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and source of quote.
http://www.secondtype.info...

Also one could hypothesize that Mary was a phenotypical female with Klinefelter syndrome. Which is the SECOND most common extra chromosomal disorder after down syndrome with 1:1,000 male births having the disorder.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

I think it safe to say that a Virgin Birth is not impossible. Extremely Extremely Rare but within the realm of human biology.

That's all fine well and good, and the odds are very slim. I have a question for you. How can it be true that it was the son of God born to the virgin if she just had some kind of syndrome? What's miraculous or prophesy fulfilling about that? Why do Christians say it was an angel of God that visited her if she had a disease or chromosomal defect?

Why can't the obvious be considered? If someone named Mary gave birth to a Messiah named Jesus and she *said* she was a virgin, then maybe she was lying? Maybe she and Joseph couldn't wait until there wedding. Whatever, but let's be serious here. Maybe the story isn't true at all.

If it smells like a fish, looks like a fish, it's probably a fish. Christianity would be so much more believable without this crazy stuff.

Crazy is being inconsistent with reality. There are a lot of things even viewed through a non theistic lens that at first blush is crazy.

As I said there are other statements made about the virgin birth such as a visiting angel and such. But those statements are personal accounts. They can not be confirmed bu Science and Genetics. All Science could do is say such an account is impossible. Such as Jack's been stalk leading to a castle built on clouds. Science could say this account is impossible by our understanding.

This however is an account that Science can say this part, virgin birth, is possible. The other facets of the account it really can not make a claim about.

I do not think personally a virgin birth is what it classically is understood to be. I merely present "scientific evidence" that can be used to support a virgin birth conclusion.

Can anyone present facts about human biology that would make it an impossibility? I already concede it is extremely rare. Near impossible chance. But being an Atheist you must know that enough time, chance, and mutations is enough to confirm many things as scientific theory ie. "fact"

Being scientific more than atheist I will tell you this, Accom's Razor says she was not a virgin. Heck, being female and a mother of two girls well past their teenage years tells me that she was not a virgin if she was pregnant. I think it was made up to fit the Messiah theory in regards to Jesus. Simple. And don't come back and say that it's because I'm an atheist and I want to disprove God. On the contrary, I'd love to believe that there is something more. But if virgin births are the evidence, I am disappointed.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 12:11:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 12:05:58 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:44:25 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:33:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I'm not a Catholic and I think there is a lot to be said about the account of a virgin birth as recorded int he bible or other religious texts. So let us define virgin as no sexual contact between two people.

But the question is "Virgin birth even possible?"

Sam Berry, Emeritus professor of genetics at University College London, has also speculated (Daily Telegraph, 21 November 2001) that the Virgin Mary had Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, but with differentiation of her sex organs. He claims that it is possible for a person of this constitution to develop an ovum and uterus, "If this happened, and if the ovum developed parthenogenetically [i.e. unfertilised - common in some animals], and if a back-mutation to testosterone sensitivity took place, we would have a situation of an apparently normal woman giving birth without intercourse to a son."

Read more about the Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and source of quote.
http://www.secondtype.info...

Also one could hypothesize that Mary was a phenotypical female with Klinefelter syndrome. Which is the SECOND most common extra chromosomal disorder after down syndrome with 1:1,000 male births having the disorder.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

I think it safe to say that a Virgin Birth is not impossible. Extremely Extremely Rare but within the realm of human biology.

That's all fine well and good, and the odds are very slim. I have a question for you. How can it be true that it was the son of God born to the virgin if she just had some kind of syndrome? What's miraculous or prophesy fulfilling about that? Why do Christians say it was an angel of God that visited her if she had a disease or chromosomal defect?

Why can't the obvious be considered? If someone named Mary gave birth to a Messiah named Jesus and she *said* she was a virgin, then maybe she was lying? Maybe she and Joseph couldn't wait until there wedding. Whatever, but let's be serious here. Maybe the story isn't true at all.

If it smells like a fish, looks like a fish, it's probably a fish. Christianity would be so much more believable without this crazy stuff.

But Mary never said that she was a virgin once she had conceived the biological son of her half brother "Joseph the son of Alexander Helios=Heli" and neither does the bible mention a virgin birth.

Well, there you go. Tell Mhykiel.

Is it not disturbing to anyone else that he was her half brother? I have a half brother and... ew. I would not sleep with him.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 12:18:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 11:58:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:44:25 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:33:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I'm not a Catholic and I think there is a lot to be said about the account of a virgin birth as recorded int he bible or other religious texts. So let us define virgin as no sexual contact between two people.

But the question is "Virgin birth even possible?"

Sam Berry, Emeritus professor of genetics at University College London, has also speculated (Daily Telegraph, 21 November 2001) that the Virgin Mary had Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, but with differentiation of her sex organs. He claims that it is possible for a person of this constitution to develop an ovum and uterus, "If this happened, and if the ovum developed parthenogenetically [i.e. unfertilised - common in some animals], and if a back-mutation to testosterone sensitivity took place, we would have a situation of an apparently normal woman giving birth without intercourse to a son."

Read more about the Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and source of quote.
http://www.secondtype.info...

Also one could hypothesize that Mary was a phenotypical female with Klinefelter syndrome. Which is the SECOND most common extra chromosomal disorder after down syndrome with 1:1,000 male births having the disorder.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

I think it safe to say that a Virgin Birth is not impossible. Extremely Extremely Rare but within the realm of human biology.

That's all fine well and good, and the odds are very slim. I have a question for you. How can it be true that it was the son of God born to the virgin if she just had some kind of syndrome? What's miraculous or prophesy fulfilling about that? Why do Christians say it was an angel of God that visited her if she had a disease or chromosomal defect?

Why can't the obvious be considered? If someone named Mary gave birth to a Messiah named Jesus and she *said* she was a virgin, then maybe she was lying? Maybe she and Joseph couldn't wait until there wedding. Whatever, but let's be serious here. Maybe the story isn't true at all.

If it smells like a fish, looks like a fish, it's probably a fish. Christianity would be so much more believable without this crazy stuff.

Crazy is being inconsistent with reality.

I agree. So let's examine this. Firstly, there has never been a confirmed case of a virgin birth in humans. Secondly, even though we're talking about 2,000 years ago, it was obviously well known that sex lead to pregnancy, and that if a woman was pregnant, it meant that she'd had sex. So if a woman actually gave birth while still being a virgin, it would be a major event, and worthy of great interest. And yet, we have not a single historical account to support the supposed event.

- So... it hasn't ever happened.

- To say that it's highly improbable is a serious understatement.

- Even theoretically, it would require a combination of biological anomalies which we have no reason to suggest have ever existed in a single female.

And yet you're suggesting that an account of such an event, might be true, despite the fact that it was never credibly recorded, the offspring can't be shown to have actually existed, and if it did happen, it wasn't via the means suggested in the very account you're hoping to support.

I think that pretty well qualifies as being inconsistent with reality... on multiple levels.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 12:25:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 12:07:58 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:58:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:44:25 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:33:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I'm not a Catholic and I think there is a lot to be said about the account of a virgin birth as recorded int he bible or other religious texts. So let us define virgin as no sexual contact between two people.

But the question is "Virgin birth even possible?"

Sam Berry, Emeritus professor of genetics at University College London, has also speculated (Daily Telegraph, 21 November 2001) that the Virgin Mary had Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, but with differentiation of her sex organs. He claims that it is possible for a person of this constitution to develop an ovum and uterus, "If this happened, and if the ovum developed parthenogenetically [i.e. unfertilised - common in some animals], and if a back-mutation to testosterone sensitivity took place, we would have a situation of an apparently normal woman giving birth without intercourse to a son."

Read more about the Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and source of quote.
http://www.secondtype.info...

Also one could hypothesize that Mary was a phenotypical female with Klinefelter syndrome. Which is the SECOND most common extra chromosomal disorder after down syndrome with 1:1,000 male births having the disorder.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

I think it safe to say that a Virgin Birth is not impossible. Extremely Extremely Rare but within the realm of human biology.

That's all fine well and good, and the odds are very slim. I have a question for you. How can it be true that it was the son of God born to the virgin if she just had some kind of syndrome? What's miraculous or prophesy fulfilling about that? Why do Christians say it was an angel of God that visited her if she had a disease or chromosomal defect?

Why can't the obvious be considered? If someone named Mary gave birth to a Messiah named Jesus and she *said* she was a virgin, then maybe she was lying? Maybe she and Joseph couldn't wait until there wedding. Whatever, but let's be serious here. Maybe the story isn't true at all.

If it smells like a fish, looks like a fish, it's probably a fish. Christianity would be so much more believable without this crazy stuff.

Crazy is being inconsistent with reality. There are a lot of things even viewed through a non theistic lens that at first blush is crazy.

As I said there are other statements made about the virgin birth such as a visiting angel and such. But those statements are personal accounts. They can not be confirmed bu Science and Genetics. All Science could do is say such an account is impossible. Such as Jack's been stalk leading to a castle built on clouds. Science could say this account is impossible by our understanding.

This however is an account that Science can say this part, virgin birth, is possible. The other facets of the account it really can not make a claim about.

I do not think personally a virgin birth is what it classically is understood to be. I merely present "scientific evidence" that can be used to support a virgin birth conclusion.

Can anyone present facts about human biology that would make it an impossibility? I already concede it is extremely rare. Near impossible chance. But being an Atheist you must know that enough time, chance, and mutations is enough to confirm many things as scientific theory ie. "fact"

Being scientific more than atheist I will tell you this, Accom's Razor says she was not a virgin. Heck, being female and a mother of two girls well past their teenage years tells me that she was not a virgin if she was pregnant. I think it was made up to fit the Messiah theory in regards to Jesus. Simple. And don't come back and say that it's because I'm an atheist and I want to disprove God. On the contrary, I'd love to believe that there is something more. But if virgin births are the evidence, I am disappointed.

Are suggesting young teen girls are equally promiscuous back in the first century as they are today? tall claim.

I haven't made any connection between the physically possible virgin birth being evidence for God. Just stating the facts. So one can not really say it is impossible.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 12:31:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 12:25:41 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/11/2015 12:07:58 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:58:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:44:25 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:33:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I'm not a Catholic and I think there is a lot to be said about the account of a virgin birth as recorded int he bible or other religious texts. So let us define virgin as no sexual contact between two people.

But the question is "Virgin birth even possible?"

Sam Berry, Emeritus professor of genetics at University College London, has also speculated (Daily Telegraph, 21 November 2001) that the Virgin Mary had Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, but with differentiation of her sex organs. He claims that it is possible for a person of this constitution to develop an ovum and uterus, "If this happened, and if the ovum developed parthenogenetically [i.e. unfertilised - common in some animals], and if a back-mutation to testosterone sensitivity took place, we would have a situation of an apparently normal woman giving birth without intercourse to a son."

Read more about the Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and source of quote.
http://www.secondtype.info...

Also one could hypothesize that Mary was a phenotypical female with Klinefelter syndrome. Which is the SECOND most common extra chromosomal disorder after down syndrome with 1:1,000 male births having the disorder.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

I think it safe to say that a Virgin Birth is not impossible. Extremely Extremely Rare but within the realm of human biology.

That's all fine well and good, and the odds are very slim. I have a question for you. How can it be true that it was the son of God born to the virgin if she just had some kind of syndrome? What's miraculous or prophesy fulfilling about that? Why do Christians say it was an angel of God that visited her if she had a disease or chromosomal defect?

Why can't the obvious be considered? If someone named Mary gave birth to a Messiah named Jesus and she *said* she was a virgin, then maybe she was lying? Maybe she and Joseph couldn't wait until there wedding. Whatever, but let's be serious here. Maybe the story isn't true at all.

If it smells like a fish, looks like a fish, it's probably a fish. Christianity would be so much more believable without this crazy stuff.

Crazy is being inconsistent with reality. There are a lot of things even viewed through a non theistic lens that at first blush is crazy.

As I said there are other statements made about the virgin birth such as a visiting angel and such. But those statements are personal accounts. They can not be confirmed bu Science and Genetics. All Science could do is say such an account is impossible. Such as Jack's been stalk leading to a castle built on clouds. Science could say this account is impossible by our understanding.

This however is an account that Science can say this part, virgin birth, is possible. The other facets of the account it really can not make a claim about.

I do not think personally a virgin birth is what it classically is understood to be. I merely present "scientific evidence" that can be used to support a virgin birth conclusion.

Can anyone present facts about human biology that would make it an impossibility? I already concede it is extremely rare. Near impossible chance. But being an Atheist you must know that enough time, chance, and mutations is enough to confirm many things as scientific theory ie. "fact"

Being scientific more than atheist I will tell you this, Accom's Razor says she was not a virgin. Heck, being female and a mother of two girls well past their teenage years tells me that she was not a virgin if she was pregnant. I think it was made up to fit the Messiah theory in regards to Jesus. Simple. And don't come back and say that it's because I'm an atheist and I want to disprove God. On the contrary, I'd love to believe that there is something more. But if virgin births are the evidence, I am disappointed.

Are suggesting young teen girls are equally promiscuous back in the first century as they are today? tall claim.

I haven't made any connection between the physically possible virgin birth being evidence for God. Just stating the facts. So one can not really say it is impossible.

I'm not saying anything of the sort. What I am saying is that the birds and the bees are rather obvious to me. First hand as a woman and also second hand raising girls to adulthood.

If virgin birth is possible in theory, it still proves nothing. In fact it makes it all the more unlikely that she was a virgin. Unless it was really an angel, or more likely Gentorev and Beastt are correct and it was an error in translation.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 12:37:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 12:03:58 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:47:16 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:40:52 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:33:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I'm not a Catholic and I think there is a lot to be said about the account of a virgin birth as recorded int he bible or other religious texts. So let us define virgin as no sexual contact between two people.

But the question is "Virgin birth even possible?"

Sam Berry, Emeritus professor of genetics at University College London, has also speculated (Daily Telegraph, 21 November 2001) that the Virgin Mary had Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, but with differentiation of her sex organs. He claims that it is possible for a person of this constitution to develop an ovum and uterus, "If this happened, and if the ovum developed parthenogenetically [i.e. unfertilised - common in some animals], and if a back-mutation to testosterone sensitivity took place, we would have a situation of an apparently normal woman giving birth without intercourse to a son."

Read more about the Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and source of quote.
http://www.secondtype.info...

Also one could hypothesize that Mary was a phenotypical female with Klinefelter syndrome. Which is the SECOND most common extra chromosomal disorder after down syndrome with 1:1,000 male births having the disorder.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

I think it safe to say that a Virgin Birth is not impossible. Extremely Extremely Rare but within the realm of human biology.

So rare that there has never been a single confirmed case. And it really doesn't matter what story you choose from the Bible, Qu'ran or other text, you can always find someone with a science degree who is willing to stretch well beyond the limits of rationality to try to make the Bible's claims sound plausible, even if very highly improbable. Islam has scientists willing to declare the account of human embryo development in the Qu'ran as absolute evidence that the Qur'an is true. Anyone with even a passing understanding of human embryonic development who reads the Qu'ran is left laughing hysterically.

The idea that a woman would become pregnant without the DNA from another person would mean she would essentially, give birth to a clone of herself. So to suggest she could have a son without DNA from a second person is interesting only in its hilarity.

Such a person could have a "virgin birth" but be covered up youthful promiscuity. A person having such a birth and people around her would just blame the birth on her sexual encounter. Her sexual partner would not share DNA with the baby. So the frequency maybe even more than just one recorded event.

It would not be a clone. As explained the Baby boy would be a genetic match to her X and Y chromosome but not suffer from the same karyotype.

Beastt just eat your humble pie. You want so desperately to make a belief in God to be impossible by rational possible logical means but that is NOT the case. Such a belief can be perfectly reasonable and consistent with reality.
The humble pie is all yours. Firstly, as Jodybirdy pointed out, your attempt to salvage the biblical account actually does nothing but refute it. It takes a special act of God, and turns it into a rare syndrome - one never shown to actually exist, but devoid of any miraculous agent.


I don't think God does miracles by breaking natural laws. So explaining miracles does not take away the who? of an incident, just explains how?.

Secondly, when you find a single scientist (or even two or three), who are willing to demonstrate their lack of scientific objectivity by trying to entertain such inversions of reality, file them with those like Kent Hovind, who tries to resolve the Bible with science through silly suggestions such as Earth being younger than some of its oldest trees, man co-existing with dinosaurs, etc.


Oh yes I know bias full and well. Scientist that say that part A. B of the bible is wrong are "real" scientist, but those that present evidence that certain parts of the bible are possible they are "not real" scientist.

Don't look at the facts, Beastt. or the possibilities. Just go straight to the last page see conclusion is not what you like and dismiss the argument.

Not only can we trace the origin of the virgin birth to a translational error, but the resulting baby was to be named Immanual, not Jesus. And to put all of that into perspective, you still have the problem of the missing Jesus. While we're still dealing with the fact that there is no credible evidence that Jesus even existed, here you are in your never-ending lack of humility or rationality; attempting to suggest that the virgin birth could be true, despite it being demonstrably only a translational error, accepted by a non-witness, and written into a ridiculous account placing the resulting person in a city which has since been determined to have been abandoned at that time.


Arguments I'm not addressing in this thread. I said in the OP that a lot could be said. I was merely answering one question "Is it possible?"

Answer: yes.

In baseball, it's three strikes and you're out. In Christianity, 100-strikes against you only strengthens your resolve to believe the purely absurd.

I don't think you ever bother to understand arguments opposing you. I think you just regurgitate the same lines over and over again. Repetition a rebuttal does not make.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 12:37:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Try this. What if a vrigin lady had artificial insemination (without the surgeon doing it through the vagina) and gave birth ? That would count as some sort of virgin birth.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 12:43:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 12:37:52 AM, Iredia wrote:
Try this. What if a vrigin lady had artificial insemination (without the surgeon doing it through the vagina) and gave birth ? That would count as some sort of virgin birth.

It would, but that would take a certain knowledge of human reproductive cells and advanced medicine (even today it has to be done vaginally). It wouldn't apply to a virgin conception 2000+ years ago.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 12:50:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 12:31:09 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/11/2015 12:25:41 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/11/2015 12:07:58 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:58:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:44:25 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:33:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I'm not a Catholic and I think there is a lot to be said about the account of a virgin birth as recorded int he bible or other religious texts. So let us define virgin as no sexual contact between two people.

But the question is "Virgin birth even possible?"

Sam Berry, Emeritus professor of genetics at University College London, has also speculated (Daily Telegraph, 21 November 2001) that the Virgin Mary had Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, but with differentiation of her sex organs. He claims that it is possible for a person of this constitution to develop an ovum and uterus, "If this happened, and if the ovum developed parthenogenetically [i.e. unfertilised - common in some animals], and if a back-mutation to testosterone sensitivity took place, we would have a situation of an apparently normal woman giving birth without intercourse to a son."

Read more about the Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and source of quote.
http://www.secondtype.info...

Also one could hypothesize that Mary was a phenotypical female with Klinefelter syndrome. Which is the SECOND most common extra chromosomal disorder after down syndrome with 1:1,000 male births having the disorder.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

I think it safe to say that a Virgin Birth is not impossible. Extremely Extremely Rare but within the realm of human biology.

That's all fine well and good, and the odds are very slim. I have a question for you. How can it be true that it was the son of God born to the virgin if she just had some kind of syndrome? What's miraculous or prophesy fulfilling about that? Why do Christians say it was an angel of God that visited her if she had a disease or chromosomal defect?

Why can't the obvious be considered? If someone named Mary gave birth to a Messiah named Jesus and she *said* she was a virgin, then maybe she was lying? Maybe she and Joseph couldn't wait until there wedding. Whatever, but let's be serious here. Maybe the story isn't true at all.

If it smells like a fish, looks like a fish, it's probably a fish. Christianity would be so much more believable without this crazy stuff.

Crazy is being inconsistent with reality. There are a lot of things even viewed through a non theistic lens that at first blush is crazy.

As I said there are other statements made about the virgin birth such as a visiting angel and such. But those statements are personal accounts. They can not be confirmed bu Science and Genetics. All Science could do is say such an account is impossible. Such as Jack's been stalk leading to a castle built on clouds. Science could say this account is impossible by our understanding.

This however is an account that Science can say this part, virgin birth, is possible. The other facets of the account it really can not make a claim about.

I do not think personally a virgin birth is what it classically is understood to be. I merely present "scientific evidence" that can be used to support a virgin birth conclusion.

Can anyone present facts about human biology that would make it an impossibility? I already concede it is extremely rare. Near impossible chance. But being an Atheist you must know that enough time, chance, and mutations is enough to confirm many things as scientific theory ie. "fact"

Being scientific more than atheist I will tell you this, Accom's Razor says she was not a virgin. Heck, being female and a mother of two girls well past their teenage years tells me that she was not a virgin if she was pregnant. I think it was made up to fit the Messiah theory in regards to Jesus. Simple. And don't come back and say that it's because I'm an atheist and I want to disprove God. On the contrary, I'd love to believe that there is something more. But if virgin births are the evidence, I am disappointed.

Are suggesting young teen girls are equally promiscuous back in the first century as they are today? tall claim.

I haven't made any connection between the physically possible virgin birth being evidence for God. Just stating the facts. So one can not really say it is impossible.

I'm not saying anything of the sort. What I am saying is that the birds and the bees are rather obvious to me. First hand as a woman and also second hand raising girls to adulthood.

If virgin birth is possible in theory, it still proves nothing. In fact it makes it all the more unlikely that she was a virgin. Unless it was really an angel, or more likely Gentorev and Beastt are correct and it was an error in translation.

The explanation I gave includes how rare of an instance it might be. One must consider this mutation of the genes is common. And that many many people are having babies through out history.

You can't just dismiss admittedly rare events based on how likely the common occurrence is. Because I admit the rarity. I admit that it is not common. Concluding the explanation is false because a more common event occurs is a fallacy.

Argument from rarity " Consider this case: a lottery winner is accused of cheating, based on the improbability of winning. At the trial, the prosecutor calculates the (very small) probability of winning the lottery without cheating and argues that this is the chance of innocence. The logical flaw is that the prosecutor has failed to account for the large number of people who play the lottery.

Berkson's paradox " mistaking conditional probability for unconditional " led to several wrongful convictions of British mothers, accused of murdering two of their children in infancy, where the primary evidence against them was the statistical improbability of two children dying accidentally in the same household (under "Meadow's law"). Though multiple accidental (SIDS) deaths are rare, so are multiple murders; with only the facts of the deaths as evidence, it is the ratio of these (prior) improbabilities that gives the correct "posterior probability" of murder.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 12:52:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 12:37:52 AM, Iredia wrote:
Try this. What if a vrigin lady had artificial insemination (without the surgeon doing it through the vagina) and gave birth ? That would count as some sort of virgin birth.

I think such an event would not be construed as an act of God. If done to Mary would be more a deliberate attempt to deceive.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 12:57:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 11:58:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:44:25 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:33:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I'm not a Catholic and I think there is a lot to be said about the account of a virgin birth as recorded int he bible or other religious texts. So let us define virgin as no sexual contact between two people.

But the question is "Virgin birth even possible?"

Sam Berry, Emeritus professor of genetics at University College London, has also speculated (Daily Telegraph, 21 November 2001) that the Virgin Mary had Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, but with differentiation of her sex organs. He claims that it is possible for a person of this constitution to develop an ovum and uterus, "If this happened, and if the ovum developed parthenogenetically [i.e. unfertilised - common in some animals], and if a back-mutation to testosterone sensitivity took place, we would have a situation of an apparently normal woman giving birth without intercourse to a son."

Read more about the Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and source of quote.
http://www.secondtype.info...

Also one could hypothesize that Mary was a phenotypical female with Klinefelter syndrome. Which is the SECOND most common extra chromosomal disorder after down syndrome with 1:1,000 male births having the disorder.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

I think it safe to say that a Virgin Birth is not impossible. Extremely Extremely Rare but within the realm of human biology.

That's all fine well and good, and the odds are very slim. I have a question for you. How can it be true that it was the son of God born to the virgin if she just had some kind of syndrome? What's miraculous or prophesy fulfilling about that? Why do Christians say it was an angel of God that visited her if she had a disease or chromosomal defect?

Why can't the obvious be considered? If someone named Mary gave birth to a Messiah named Jesus and she *said* she was a virgin, then maybe she was lying? Maybe she and Joseph couldn't wait until there wedding. Whatever, but let's be serious here. Maybe the story isn't true at all.

If it smells like a fish, looks like a fish, it's probably a fish. Christianity would be so much more believable without this crazy stuff.

Crazy is being inconsistent with reality. There are a lot of things even viewed through a non theistic lens that at first blush is crazy.

As I said there are other statements made about the virgin birth such as a visiting angel and such. But those statements are personal accounts. They can not be confirmed bu Science and Genetics. All Science could do is say such an account is impossible. Such as Jack's been stalk leading to a castle built on clouds. Science could say this account is impossible by our understanding.

This however is an account that Science can say this part, virgin birth, is possible. The other facets of the account it really can not make a claim about.

I do not think personally a virgin birth is what it classically is understood to be. I merely present "scientific evidence" that can be used to support a virgin birth conclusion.

Can anyone present facts about human biology that would make it an impossibility? I already concede it is extremely rare. Near impossible chance. But being an Atheist you must know that enough time, chance, and mutations is enough to confirm many things as scientific theory ie. "fact"

a. virgin birth +
b. the dead rising at Jesus' death +
c. the sun ceasing to shine at Jesus' death +
d. miracle +
e. etc. +
f. etc. +
---------------------------------------------------------------
=/= Reality

When you consider the other implausible events in the Bible that happened over the lifetime of Jesus alone, the probability of these events actually happening are so close to 0% it is not even worth considering possible, much less plausible.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 1:06:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 12:57:14 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:58:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:44:25 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:33:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I'm not a Catholic and I think there is a lot to be said about the account of a virgin birth as recorded int he bible or other religious texts. So let us define virgin as no sexual contact between two people.

But the question is "Virgin birth even possible?"

Sam Berry, Emeritus professor of genetics at University College London, has also speculated (Daily Telegraph, 21 November 2001) that the Virgin Mary had Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, but with differentiation of her sex organs. He claims that it is possible for a person of this constitution to develop an ovum and uterus, "If this happened, and if the ovum developed parthenogenetically [i.e. unfertilised - common in some animals], and if a back-mutation to testosterone sensitivity took place, we would have a situation of an apparently normal woman giving birth without intercourse to a son."

Read more about the Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and source of quote.
http://www.secondtype.info...

Also one could hypothesize that Mary was a phenotypical female with Klinefelter syndrome. Which is the SECOND most common extra chromosomal disorder after down syndrome with 1:1,000 male births having the disorder.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

I think it safe to say that a Virgin Birth is not impossible. Extremely Extremely Rare but within the realm of human biology.

That's all fine well and good, and the odds are very slim. I have a question for you. How can it be true that it was the son of God born to the virgin if she just had some kind of syndrome? What's miraculous or prophesy fulfilling about that? Why do Christians say it was an angel of God that visited her if she had a disease or chromosomal defect?

Why can't the obvious be considered? If someone named Mary gave birth to a Messiah named Jesus and she *said* she was a virgin, then maybe she was lying? Maybe she and Joseph couldn't wait until there wedding. Whatever, but let's be serious here. Maybe the story isn't true at all.

If it smells like a fish, looks like a fish, it's probably a fish. Christianity would be so much more believable without this crazy stuff.

Crazy is being inconsistent with reality. There are a lot of things even viewed through a non theistic lens that at first blush is crazy.

As I said there are other statements made about the virgin birth such as a visiting angel and such. But those statements are personal accounts. They can not be confirmed bu Science and Genetics. All Science could do is say such an account is impossible. Such as Jack's been stalk leading to a castle built on clouds. Science could say this account is impossible by our understanding.

This however is an account that Science can say this part, virgin birth, is possible. The other facets of the account it really can not make a claim about.

I do not think personally a virgin birth is what it classically is understood to be. I merely present "scientific evidence" that can be used to support a virgin birth conclusion.

Can anyone present facts about human biology that would make it an impossibility? I already concede it is extremely rare. Near impossible chance. But being an Atheist you must know that enough time, chance, and mutations is enough to confirm many things as scientific theory ie. "fact"


a. virgin birth +
b. the dead rising at Jesus' death +
c. the sun ceasing to shine at Jesus' death +
d. miracle +
e. etc. +
f. etc. +
---------------------------------------------------------------
=/= Reality



When you consider the other implausible events in the Bible that happened over the lifetime of Jesus alone, the probability of these events actually happening are so close to 0% it is not even worth considering possible, much less plausible.

I'm not arguing for all those events as being possible. Just the virgin birth.

But that type of argument is bad.

http://imgur.com...

No real chance you exist.

Winston Churchhill did not exist:
a. speech impediment
b. Royal Academy Officer
c. parliament member
d. prime minister
e. world war 2 hero

What are the odds? no way someone could be all those things.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

My argument is not so fallacious. I am presenting facts that make the event "virgin birth" realistically possible.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 1:13:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 11:33:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I'm not a Catholic and I think there is a lot to be said about the account of a virgin birth as recorded int he bible or other religious texts. So let us define virgin as no sexual contact between two people.

But the question is "Virgin birth even possible?"

Sam Berry, Emeritus professor of genetics at University College London, has also speculated (Daily Telegraph, 21 November 2001) that the Virgin Mary had Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, but with differentiation of her sex organs. He claims that it is possible for a person of this constitution to develop an ovum and uterus, "If this happened, and if the ovum developed parthenogenetically [i.e. unfertilised - common in some animals], and if a back-mutation to testosterone sensitivity took place, we would have a situation of an apparently normal woman giving birth without intercourse to a son."

Read more about the Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and source of quote.
http://www.secondtype.info...

Also one could hypothesize that Mary was a phenotypical female with Klinefelter syndrome. Which is the SECOND most common extra chromosomal disorder after down syndrome with 1:1,000 male births having the disorder.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

I think it safe to say that a Virgin Birth is not impossible. Extremely Extremely Rare but within the realm of human biology.

Nothing is impossible for our Creator but in His prophecy of Isaiah 7, "virgin" has nothing to do with a woman giving birth without having sexual intercourse with a man. Virgin means our true created existence as invisible vibrations, not the visible body of a mother. We are all born ( created ) as invisible vibrations before our bodies are formed in the womb of a mother.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 1:15:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 1:13:55 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:33:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I'm not a Catholic and I think there is a lot to be said about the account of a virgin birth as recorded int he bible or other religious texts. So let us define virgin as no sexual contact between two people.

But the question is "Virgin birth even possible?"

Sam Berry, Emeritus professor of genetics at University College London, has also speculated (Daily Telegraph, 21 November 2001) that the Virgin Mary had Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, but with differentiation of her sex organs. He claims that it is possible for a person of this constitution to develop an ovum and uterus, "If this happened, and if the ovum developed parthenogenetically [i.e. unfertilised - common in some animals], and if a back-mutation to testosterone sensitivity took place, we would have a situation of an apparently normal woman giving birth without intercourse to a son."

Read more about the Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and source of quote.
http://www.secondtype.info...

Also one could hypothesize that Mary was a phenotypical female with Klinefelter syndrome. Which is the SECOND most common extra chromosomal disorder after down syndrome with 1:1,000 male births having the disorder.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

I think it safe to say that a Virgin Birth is not impossible. Extremely Extremely Rare but within the realm of human biology.

Nothing is impossible for our Creator but in His prophecy of Isaiah 7, "virgin" has nothing to do with a woman giving birth without having sexual intercourse with a man. Virgin means our true created existence as invisible vibrations, not the visible body of a mother. We are all born ( created ) as invisible vibrations before our bodies are formed in the womb of a mother.

I hope you live a long and fruitful life.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 1:20:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 1:15:58 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/11/2015 1:13:55 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:33:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I'm not a Catholic and I think there is a lot to be said about the account of a virgin birth as recorded int he bible or other religious texts. So let us define virgin as no sexual contact between two people.

But the question is "Virgin birth even possible?"

Sam Berry, Emeritus professor of genetics at University College London, has also speculated (Daily Telegraph, 21 November 2001) that the Virgin Mary had Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, but with differentiation of her sex organs. He claims that it is possible for a person of this constitution to develop an ovum and uterus, "If this happened, and if the ovum developed parthenogenetically [i.e. unfertilised - common in some animals], and if a back-mutation to testosterone sensitivity took place, we would have a situation of an apparently normal woman giving birth without intercourse to a son."

Read more about the Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and source of quote.
http://www.secondtype.info...

Also one could hypothesize that Mary was a phenotypical female with Klinefelter syndrome. Which is the SECOND most common extra chromosomal disorder after down syndrome with 1:1,000 male births having the disorder.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

I think it safe to say that a Virgin Birth is not impossible. Extremely Extremely Rare but within the realm of human biology.

Nothing is impossible for our Creator but in His prophecy of Isaiah 7, "virgin" has nothing to do with a woman giving birth without having sexual intercourse with a man. Virgin means our true created existence as invisible vibrations, not the visible body of a mother. We are all born ( created ) as invisible vibrations before our bodies are formed in the womb of a mother.

I hope you live a long and fruitful life.

Thank you my friend. I will live forever and so will you.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 1:25:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 1:06:44 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/11/2015 12:57:14 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:58:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:44:25 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:33:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I'm not a Catholic and I think there is a lot to be said about the account of a virgin birth as recorded int he bible or other religious texts. So let us define virgin as no sexual contact between two people.

But the question is "Virgin birth even possible?"

Sam Berry, Emeritus professor of genetics at University College London, has also speculated (Daily Telegraph, 21 November 2001) that the Virgin Mary had Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, but with differentiation of her sex organs. He claims that it is possible for a person of this constitution to develop an ovum and uterus, "If this happened, and if the ovum developed parthenogenetically [i.e. unfertilised - common in some animals], and if a back-mutation to testosterone sensitivity took place, we would have a situation of an apparently normal woman giving birth without intercourse to a son."

Read more about the Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and source of quote.
http://www.secondtype.info...

Also one could hypothesize that Mary was a phenotypical female with Klinefelter syndrome. Which is the SECOND most common extra chromosomal disorder after down syndrome with 1:1,000 male births having the disorder.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

I think it safe to say that a Virgin Birth is not impossible. Extremely Extremely Rare but within the realm of human biology.

That's all fine well and good, and the odds are very slim. I have a question for you. How can it be true that it was the son of God born to the virgin if she just had some kind of syndrome? What's miraculous or prophesy fulfilling about that? Why do Christians say it was an angel of God that visited her if she had a disease or chromosomal defect?

Why can't the obvious be considered? If someone named Mary gave birth to a Messiah named Jesus and she *said* she was a virgin, then maybe she was lying? Maybe she and Joseph couldn't wait until there wedding. Whatever, but let's be serious here. Maybe the story isn't true at all.

If it smells like a fish, looks like a fish, it's probably a fish. Christianity would be so much more believable without this crazy stuff.

Crazy is being inconsistent with reality. There are a lot of things even viewed through a non theistic lens that at first blush is crazy.

As I said there are other statements made about the virgin birth such as a visiting angel and such. But those statements are personal accounts. They can not be confirmed bu Science and Genetics. All Science could do is say such an account is impossible. Such as Jack's been stalk leading to a castle built on clouds. Science could say this account is impossible by our understanding.

This however is an account that Science can say this part, virgin birth, is possible. The other facets of the account it really can not make a claim about.

I do not think personally a virgin birth is what it classically is understood to be. I merely present "scientific evidence" that can be used to support a virgin birth conclusion.

Can anyone present facts about human biology that would make it an impossibility? I already concede it is extremely rare. Near impossible chance. But being an Atheist you must know that enough time, chance, and mutations is enough to confirm many things as scientific theory ie. "fact"


a. virgin birth +
b. the dead rising at Jesus' death +
c. the sun ceasing to shine at Jesus' death +
d. miracle +
e. etc. +
f. etc. +
---------------------------------------------------------------
=/= Reality



When you consider the other implausible events in the Bible that happened over the lifetime of Jesus alone, the probability of these events actually happening are so close to 0% it is not even worth considering possible, much less plausible.

I'm not arguing for all those events as being possible. Just the virgin birth.

But that type of argument is bad.

http://imgur.com...

No real chance you exist.

That is a bad argument, since I do actually exist and we can prove that. Plus, there is no reason to assume I, humans, or this particular universe was the guaranteed end result. There is no reason to think the universe or life as we know it is the only possibility, and it is backward logic to calculate odds on the assumption that is is. That is like looking at you drivers licence number and marveling at how unlikely it is to have that particular number, when the real odds are 1 in 1 you would have one DL#. It has nothing to do with any particular drivers licence number.

Winston Churchhill did not exist:
a. speech impediment
b. Royal Academy Officer
c. parliament member
d. prime minister
e. world war 2 hero

What are the odds? no way someone could be all those things.

Still backward logic.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Lol

My argument is not so fallacious. I am presenting facts that make the event "virgin birth" realistically possible.

Well, if you want to argue for one implausible event at a time, it still does not change the fact that the Bible tells us ALL of these implausible events actually happened. It is completely appropriate to consider the likelihood of that overall possibility. Essentially, it is not possible. I'm not saying the probability is 0, but it might as well be.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 1:44:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 1:25:41 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/11/2015 1:06:44 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/11/2015 12:57:14 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:58:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:44:25 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:33:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I'm not a Catholic and I think there is a lot to be said about the account of a virgin birth as recorded int he bible or other religious texts. So let us define virgin as no sexual contact between two people.

But the question is "Virgin birth even possible?"

Sam Berry, Emeritus professor of genetics at University College London, has also speculated (Daily Telegraph, 21 November 2001) that the Virgin Mary had Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, but with differentiation of her sex organs. He claims that it is possible for a person of this constitution to develop an ovum and uterus, "If this happened, and if the ovum developed parthenogenetically [i.e. unfertilised - common in some animals], and if a back-mutation to testosterone sensitivity took place, we would have a situation of an apparently normal woman giving birth without intercourse to a son."

Read more about the Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and source of quote.
http://www.secondtype.info...

Also one could hypothesize that Mary was a phenotypical female with Klinefelter syndrome. Which is the SECOND most common extra chromosomal disorder after down syndrome with 1:1,000 male births having the disorder.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

I think it safe to say that a Virgin Birth is not impossible. Extremely Extremely Rare but within the realm of human biology.

That's all fine well and good, and the odds are very slim. I have a question for you. How can it be true that it was the son of God born to the virgin if she just had some kind of syndrome? What's miraculous or prophesy fulfilling about that? Why do Christians say it was an angel of God that visited her if she had a disease or chromosomal defect?

Why can't the obvious be considered? If someone named Mary gave birth to a Messiah named Jesus and she *said* she was a virgin, then maybe she was lying? Maybe she and Joseph couldn't wait until there wedding. Whatever, but let's be serious here. Maybe the story isn't true at all.

If it smells like a fish, looks like a fish, it's probably a fish. Christianity would be so much more believable without this crazy stuff.

Crazy is being inconsistent with reality. There are a lot of things even viewed through a non theistic lens that at first blush is crazy.

As I said there are other statements made about the virgin birth such as a visiting angel and such. But those statements are personal accounts. They can not be confirmed bu Science and Genetics. All Science could do is say such an account is impossible. Such as Jack's been stalk leading to a castle built on clouds. Science could say this account is impossible by our understanding.

This however is an account that Science can say this part, virgin birth, is possible. The other facets of the account it really can not make a claim about.

I do not think personally a virgin birth is what it classically is understood to be. I merely present "scientific evidence" that can be used to support a virgin birth conclusion.

Can anyone present facts about human biology that would make it an impossibility? I already concede it is extremely rare. Near impossible chance. But being an Atheist you must know that enough time, chance, and mutations is enough to confirm many things as scientific theory ie. "fact"


a. virgin birth +
b. the dead rising at Jesus' death +
c. the sun ceasing to shine at Jesus' death +
d. miracle +
e. etc. +
f. etc. +
---------------------------------------------------------------
=/= Reality



When you consider the other implausible events in the Bible that happened over the lifetime of Jesus alone, the probability of these events actually happening are so close to 0% it is not even worth considering possible, much less plausible.

I'm not arguing for all those events as being possible. Just the virgin birth.

But that type of argument is bad.

http://imgur.com...

No real chance you exist.

That is a bad argument, since I do actually exist and we can prove that. Plus, there is no reason to assume I, humans, or this particular universe was the guaranteed end result. There is no reason to think the universe or life as we know it is the only possibility, and it is backward logic to calculate odds on the assumption that is is. That is like looking at you drivers licence number and marveling at how unlikely it is to have that particular number, when the real odds are 1 in 1 you would have one DL#. It has nothing to do with any particular drivers licence number.


There is a definite about your drivers license number. That there will be one. No matter what the numbers. This is akin to saying someone will be born but it not have to be you.

Winston Churchhill did not exist:
a. speech impediment
b. Royal Academy Officer
c. parliament member
d. prime minister
e. world war 2 hero

What are the odds? no way someone could be all those things.

Still backward logic.

No same logic you using for Jesus. You are adding up a series of low possibilities to make a case that the end result is nearly impossible. (yes assuming those events are even possible at all). When talking about a particular human in history this approach is just not a proper application. The result is of a very low odds. All that says is there are not 6 billion Jesus's running around. Not that Jesus is impossible.

I'm using the same argument you are. Well there are 5 billion non-Churchhill people, clearly anything resembling a Churchill is not common, therefore Churchill is not the answer because it is unlikely. Clearly a non sequitor

My OP is just like Atheist using the same odds for life. All it says is life is not rampant through out the universe but the chance is still there.


"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Lol

So you laugh at the truth instead of searching for it. okay.


My argument is not so fallacious. I am presenting facts that make the event "virgin birth" realistically possible.

Well, if you want to argue for one implausible event at a time, it still does not change the fact that the Bible tells us ALL of these implausible events actually happened. It is completely appropriate to consider the likelihood of that overall possibility. Essentially, it is not possible. I'm not saying the probability is 0, but it might as well be.

HaHa.

SO a series of low probability events is a history you conclude as implausible and False?

This obviously does not apply to all the things you accept as fact. Like abiogenesis.

Well that is generally what people would call a miracle or proof for the divine.

No need to argue with you further.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 2:14:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Can anyone present facts about human biology that would make it an impossibility? I already concede it is extremely rare. Near impossible chance. But being an Atheist you must know that enough time, chance, and mutations is enough to confirm many things as scientific theory ie. "fact"


a. virgin birth +
b. the dead rising at Jesus' death +
c. the sun ceasing to shine at Jesus' death +
d. miracle +
e. etc. +
f. etc. +
---------------------------------------------------------------
=/= Reality



When you consider the other implausible events in the Bible that happened over the lifetime of Jesus alone, the probability of these events actually happening are so close to 0% it is not even worth considering possible, much less plausible.

I'm not arguing for all those events as being possible. Just the virgin birth.

But that type of argument is bad.

http://imgur.com...

No real chance you exist.

That is a bad argument, since I do actually exist and we can prove that. Plus, there is no reason to assume I, humans, or this particular universe was the guaranteed end result. There is no reason to think the universe or life as we know it is the only possibility, and it is backward logic to calculate odds on the assumption that is is. That is like looking at you drivers licence number and marveling at how unlikely it is to have that particular number, when the real odds are 1 in 1 you would have one DL#. It has nothing to do with any particular drivers licence number.


There is a definite about your drivers license number. That there will be one. No matter what the numbers. This is akin to saying someone will be born but it not have to be you.

It is getting late here, and I would like to do a little research before I reply to this. I will respond on this tomorrow. Feel free to remind me.

Winston Churchhill did not exist:
a. speech impediment
b. Royal Academy Officer
c. parliament member
d. prime minister
e. world war 2 hero

What are the odds? no way someone could be all those things.

Still backward logic.

No same logic you using for Jesus. You are adding up a series of low possibilities to make a case that the end result is nearly impossible. (yes assuming those events are even possible at all). When talking about a particular human in history this approach is just not a proper application. The result is of a very low odds. All that says is there are not 6 billion Jesus's running around. Not that Jesus is impossible.

Even if I do not dispute your method, we still must consider all of the necessary events for Churchill is not implausible by themselves. All of the necessary events we have discussed for Jesus are.

I'm using the same argument you are. Well there are 5 billion non-Churchhill people, clearly anything resembling a Churchill is not common, therefore Churchill is not the answer because it is unlikely. Clearly a non sequitor

My OP is just like Atheist using the same odds for life. All it says is life is not rampant through out the universe but the chance is still there.


"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Lol

So you laugh at the truth instead of searching for it. okay.

Easy now. I'm not making fun of your argument, but I was attempting to keep the discussion lighthearted.


My argument is not so fallacious. I am presenting facts that make the event "virgin birth" realistically possible.

Well, if you want to argue for one implausible event at a time, it still does not change the fact that the Bible tells us ALL of these implausible events actually happened. It is completely appropriate to consider the likelihood of that overall possibility. Essentially, it is not possible. I'm not saying the probability is 0, but it might as well be.

HaHa.

SO a series of low probability events is a history you conclude as implausible and False?

These are not just low probability events, but I believe each single event necessary for Jesus are more improbable than all the events necessary for Churchill.

This obviously does not apply to all the things you accept as fact. Like abiogenesis.

You assume to much.

Well that is generally what people would call a miracle or proof for the divine.

No need to argue with you further.

That is your choice.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 2:20:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 2:14:34 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Can anyone present facts about human biology that would make it an impossibility? I already concede it is extremely rare. Near impossible chance. But being an Atheist you must know that enough time, chance, and mutations is enough to confirm many things as scientific theory ie. "fact"


a. virgin birth +
b. the dead rising at Jesus' death +
c. the sun ceasing to shine at Jesus' death +
d. miracle +
e. etc. +
f. etc. +
---------------------------------------------------------------
=/= Reality



When you consider the other implausible events in the Bible that happened over the lifetime of Jesus alone, the probability of these events actually happening are so close to 0% it is not even worth considering possible, much less plausible.

I'm not arguing for all those events as being possible. Just the virgin birth.

But that type of argument is bad.

http://imgur.com...

No real chance you exist.

That is a bad argument, since I do actually exist and we can prove that. Plus, there is no reason to assume I, humans, or this particular universe was the guaranteed end result. There is no reason to think the universe or life as we know it is the only possibility, and it is backward logic to calculate odds on the assumption that is is. That is like looking at you drivers licence number and marveling at how unlikely it is to have that particular number, when the real odds are 1 in 1 you would have one DL#. It has nothing to do with any particular drivers licence number.


There is a definite about your drivers license number. That there will be one. No matter what the numbers. This is akin to saying someone will be born but it not have to be you.

It is getting late here, and I would like to do a little research before I reply to this. I will respond on this tomorrow. Feel free to remind me.

Winston Churchhill did not exist:
a. speech impediment
b. Royal Academy Officer
c. parliament member
d. prime minister
e. world war 2 hero

What are the odds? no way someone could be all those things.

Still backward logic.

No same logic you using for Jesus. You are adding up a series of low possibilities to make a case that the end result is nearly impossible. (yes assuming those events are even possible at all). When talking about a particular human in history this approach is just not a proper application. The result is of a very low odds. All that says is there are not 6 billion Jesus's running around. Not that Jesus is impossible.

Even if I do not dispute your method, we still must consider all of the necessary events for Churchill is not implausible by themselves. All of the necessary events we have discussed for Jesus are.

I'm using the same argument you are. Well there are 5 billion non-Churchhill people, clearly anything resembling a Churchill is not common, therefore Churchill is not the answer because it is unlikely. Clearly a non sequitor

My OP is just like Atheist using the same odds for life. All it says is life is not rampant through out the universe but the chance is still there.


"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Lol

So you laugh at the truth instead of searching for it. okay.

Easy now. I'm not making fun of your argument, but I was attempting to keep the discussion lighthearted.


My argument is not so fallacious. I am presenting facts that make the event "virgin birth" realistically possible.

Well, if you want to argue for one implausible event at a time, it still does not change the fact that the Bible tells us ALL of these implausible events actually happened. It is completely appropriate to consider the likelihood of that overall possibility. Essentially, it is not possible. I'm not saying the probability is 0, but it might as well be.

HaHa.

SO a series of low probability events is a history you conclude as implausible and False?

These are not just low probability events, but I believe each single event necessary for Jesus are more improbable than all the events necessary for Churchill.

This obviously does not apply to all the things you accept as fact. Like abiogenesis.

You assume to much.

I apologize. The case that a series of low possible events adds up to an impossible event, seems biasly applied.

I think other evidence not just probability has to be weighed.


Well that is generally what people would call a miracle or proof for the divine.

No need to argue with you further.

That is your choice.

please do your research and reply back.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,878
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 4:28:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 12:11:13 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/11/2015 12:05:58 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:44:25 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:33:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I'm not a Catholic and I think there is a lot to be said about the account of a virgin birth as recorded int he bible or other religious texts. So let us define virgin as no sexual contact between two people.

But the question is "Virgin birth even possible?"

Sam Berry, Emeritus professor of genetics at University College London, has also speculated (Daily Telegraph, 21 November 2001) that the Virgin Mary had Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, but with differentiation of her sex organs. He claims that it is possible for a person of this constitution to develop an ovum and uterus, "If this happened, and if the ovum developed parthenogenetically [i.e. unfertilised - common in some animals], and if a back-mutation to testosterone sensitivity took place, we would have a situation of an apparently normal woman giving birth without intercourse to a son."

Read more about the Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and source of quote.
http://www.secondtype.info...

Also one could hypothesize that Mary was a phenotypical female with Klinefelter syndrome. Which is the SECOND most common extra chromosomal disorder after down syndrome with 1:1,000 male births having the disorder.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

I think it safe to say that a Virgin Birth is not impossible. Extremely Extremely Rare but within the realm of human biology.

That's all fine well and good, and the odds are very slim. I have a question for you. How can it be true that it was the son of God born to the virgin if she just had some kind of syndrome? What's miraculous or prophesy fulfilling about that? Why do Christians say it was an angel of God that visited her if she had a disease or chromosomal defect?

Why can't the obvious be considered? If someone named Mary gave birth to a Messiah named Jesus and she *said* she was a virgin, then maybe she was lying? Maybe she and Joseph couldn't wait until there wedding. Whatever, but let's be serious here. Maybe the story isn't true at all.

If it smells like a fish, looks like a fish, it's probably a fish. Christianity would be so much more believable without this crazy stuff.

But Mary never said that she was a virgin once she had conceived the biological son of her half brother "Joseph the son of Alexander Helios=Heli" and neither does the bible mention a virgin birth.

Well, there you go. Tell Mhykiel.

Is it not disturbing to anyone else that he was her half brother? I have a half brother and... ew. I would not sleep with him.

Isaac, the biological son Abraham, who is the son of Terah, was born according to the workings of the Holy Spirit, as was Jesus the son of Joseph, who is the son of Heli.
.
Amplified Bible Galatians 4: 29; "And just as at that time the child that was born according to the flesh (Ishmael) despised and persecuted (Isaac)who was born according to the promise and the workings of the Holy Spirit, etc.

Isaac is a prototype of Jesus and like Jesus, was born of God"s promise according to the workings of the Holy Spirit. Both are seen as the seed that was promised to Abraham.

Both Isaac and Jesus were the sons of parents who were both sired by the one Father.

"Terah," is the father to both Abraham and Sarah by different mothers, while "Heli," is the father of both Joseph and Mary, by different mothers.

Both Mary and Sarah were informed by an angel that they would become Pregnant and bear the son of God"s promise. Isaac was offered up as a sacrifice by his physical father, Jesus was offered up by his spiritual father, whose spirit=information=word, descended upon him in the form of a dove as the voice was heard to say, " you are my beloved in whom I am well pleased, TODAY I have become your Father." Or rather, "THIS DAY" I have begotten thee." See the more ancient authorities of Luke 3: 22; and Isaac was offered up on the same mountain at the very spot where Jesus was crucified.

In Luke 3: 22; (In place of "Thou art my beloved son in who I am well pleased.") The following authorities of the second, third, and fourth centuries read, "This day I have begotten thee," vouched for by Codex D, and the most ancient copies of the old latin (a, b. c. ff.I), by Justin Martyr (AD 140), Clemens Alex, (AD. 190), Methodius (AD. 290), among the Greeks. And among the Latins, Lactaitius (AD 300), Hilary (AD) Juvencus (AD. 330), Faustus (AD. 400) and Augustine. All these oldest manuscripts were changed completely. They now read, "This is my son in whom I am well pleased." Whereas the original variant was, "Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee."

The great grandfather of the biblical Jesus was Yehoshua/Jesus III, who was the high priest in Jerusalem from 36 to 23 BC. The sonless Yehoshua, had three daughters, Joanna, Elizabeth (The mother of John the Baptist) and Anna/Hanna the baby of the family. Knowing that his Zadokian lineage would become extinct unless his daughters were placed with future husbands according to the Torah, he married them off to the elite of Israel.

Hanna/Anna, was betrothed to Alexander Helios (Heli) a Macedonian Jew, of the tribe of Judah through Nathan the Levite an adopted son of David, and through Neri who married Tamar a female descendant of Solomon, one of their sons was Shealtiel who was adopted by King Jehoiachin who married Tamar after the death of Neri.

Shealtiel is seen in both the genealogy of Joseph ben Jacob the step father of Jesus as recorded in Matthew and the genealogy of Jesus the biological son of Alexander Helios, as recorded in Luke.
The tongue, the sharp two edged sword that divides the spirit from the soul.
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 5:57:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The idea that a deity got a young unmarried girl pregnant is crazy, and it is much more likely Mary conceived in the usual way, Joseph or another man being the father.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 8:30:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 11:33:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I'm not a Catholic and I think there is a lot to be said about the account of a virgin birth as recorded int he bible or other religious texts. So let us define virgin as no sexual contact between two people.

But the question is "Virgin birth even possible?"

Sam Berry, Emeritus professor of genetics at University College London, has also speculated (Daily Telegraph, 21 November 2001) that the Virgin Mary had Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, but with differentiation of her sex organs. He claims that it is possible for a person of this constitution to develop an ovum and uterus, "If this happened, and if the ovum developed parthenogenetically [i.e. unfertilised - common in some animals], and if a back-mutation to testosterone sensitivity took place, we would have a situation of an apparently normal woman giving birth without intercourse to a son."

Read more about the Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and source of quote.
http://www.secondtype.info...

Also one could hypothesize that Mary was a phenotypical female with Klinefelter syndrome. Which is the SECOND most common extra chromosomal disorder after down syndrome with 1:1,000 male births having the disorder.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

I think it safe to say that a Virgin Birth is not impossible. Extremely Extremely Rare but within the realm of human biology.

There are two definitions of "virgin", the medical one is having an intact hymen, a qualification whihc many girsl over 8 lost long ago, for numerous reasons.

However there is the most important, moral definition whcih is literally having had no sexual contact with any otehr person.

Howver virgin birth is possible in both cases, sicne it si no great problem for God to have a woman's egg feritlized without the intervention of a male.

What he created, he can control.

That's why it has happened twice in biblical history
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 9:20:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 11:33:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I'm not a Catholic and I think there is a lot to be said about the account of a virgin birth as recorded int he bible or other religious texts. So let us define virgin as no sexual contact between two people.

But the question is "Virgin birth even possible?"

Sam Berry, Emeritus professor of genetics at University College London, has also speculated (Daily Telegraph, 21 November 2001) that the Virgin Mary had Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, but with differentiation of her sex organs. He claims that it is possible for a person of this constitution to develop an ovum and uterus, "If this happened, and if the ovum developed parthenogenetically [i.e. unfertilised - common in some animals], and if a back-mutation to testosterone sensitivity took place, we would have a situation of an apparently normal woman giving birth without intercourse to a son."

Read more about the Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and source of quote.
http://www.secondtype.info...

Also one could hypothesize that Mary was a phenotypical female with Klinefelter syndrome. Which is the SECOND most common extra chromosomal disorder after down syndrome with 1:1,000 male births having the disorder.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

I think it safe to say that a Virgin Birth is not impossible. Extremely Extremely Rare but within the realm of human biology.

I do not see how testosterone could make an XX fetus a male.
It is thought that testosterone levels during fetal development can lead to homosexuality, transgender, pseudo hermaphrodites, and a few similar things, but that does not explain how it can change the gender of the fetus.

I can see it possible producing a female child that is a pseudo hermaphrodite, identifies as a man, is attracted to women, and looks masculine.

I do not see how it could lead to a male child.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO