Questions that evolutionists and billions of years proponents cannot answer but disprove their theories.

[YoursTrue]

He simultaneously holds two mutually incompatable belief systems. Nothing unusual in that.

Who holds two mutually incompatible belief systems. Either way, glad you said that anyway. So are you referring to me or those who believe in the form process of evolution without wavering along with the "immaculate conception??" Which one are you talking about. And can you possibly explain how the "immaculate conception" of Jesus by Mary can happen logically by the theory of evolution. Maybe you can pretend you're the Pope who said Mary is eternally a virgin, and then explain if that happened by natural way of evolution and conception. I think you cannot explain how the two (evolution as the considered way humans come about) and a virgin conceiving without having sexual relations at that time? And, then, according to the church and some, staying "eternally virgin"?

 

[YoursTrue]

You assume that just because the Pope (and others) accept evolution, like rational people do, that that somehow makes them incapable of also accepting the possibility of magic and thus a magical pregnancy.

Why?

I asked you WHY you think these things are incompatible. Instead of answering the question, you are just repeating your claim that they must be incompatible.

I DOUBT the Pope and his fellow believers would call it magic. If I meet a priest or nun in my regular daily movement I will try to ask how they figure it out. And by the way yes, according to the Catholic Church believing that Mary is "eternally virgin" is a dogma. That means it cannot be controverted. And the thought is infallible. I didn't make it up. The church said it. Just look up 'dogma' as defined by the church and then look up if the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is dogma. I doubt they say it's "magic" as you do, but that's ok because you have your beliefs and others have their beliefs, including those who say they believe in evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I DOUBT the Pope and his fellow believers would call it magic

It doesn't matter what they call it.

It would be the violation / suspension of natural law.
That is pretty much the same as magic.

. If I meet a priest or nun in my regular daily movement I will try to ask how they figure it out. And by the way yes, according to the Catholic Church believing that Mary is "eternally virgin" is a dogma. That means it cannot be controverted. And the thought is infallible. I didn't make it up. The church said it. Just look up 'dogma' as defined by the church and then look up if the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is dogma.

Myeah, I don't really care what the catholic church says / declares / thinks.

I doubt they say it's "magic" as you do, but that's ok because you have your beliefs and others have their beliefs, including those who say they believe in evolution.

I don't "believe" in evolution. I accept it as the best supported explanation of the available facts.

 

[Valjean]

I don't believe it is "magic" that Mary was impregnated. But...! -- since I do believe in a Creator, a Supreme Power and do not consider it "magic," I will tell you that. Yes, I was wondering how others who profess a religion based on the Bible figure it and therefore I asked. And so far -- on this thread -- from those professing a bond of sorts with a religion claiming a basis on the Bible in part, I find the answer that the Bible, as said by religious believers of sort is "mythical," all of it. So I thank you for answering I am happy to have received the responses.

If not magic, and not sex, by what method was she impregnated?

 

[Astrophile]

The 'immaculate conception' and the virgin birth are completely different things. The doctrine of the immaculate conception holds that the virgin Mary was free of original sin from the moment of her conception - Immaculate Conception - Wikipedia . It has nothing to do with the virgin birth of Jesus, or with questions that evolutionists and billions of years proponents supposedly cannot answer.

 

[Astrophile]

Maybe you can pretend you're the Pope who said Mary is eternally a virgin, and then explain if that happened by natural way of evolution and conception. I think you cannot explain how the two (evolution as the considered way humans come about) and a virgin conceiving without having sexual relations at that time?

I came about by a process of sexual reproduction; so, I suspect, did you, and the Pope. This process is connected with evolution, in the sense of the origin of species, but reproduction and evolution are not the same thing.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The 'immaculate conception' and the virgin birth are completely different things. The doctrine of the immaculate conception holds that the virgin Mary was free of original sin from the moment of her conception - Immaculate Conception - Wikipedia . It has nothing to do with the virgin birth of Jesus, or with questions that evolutionists and billions of years proponents supposedly cannot answer.

I hear Protestants making this mistake all the time, but I would think that those who participate on religion forums would be a little more educated.

 

[Astrophile]

Short lived comets are a problem for long ages of the universe. Why?

Comets come from the Kuiper Belt, outside the orbit of Neptune, and from the Oort Cloud, at distances of up to 200,000 AU (1 parsec) - see Kuiper belt - Wikipedia and Oort cloud - Wikipedia and . The Oort cloud contains trillions of objects larger than 1 km in diameter and was probably formed at the same time as the Sun and the planets, about 4570 million years ago. The existence of short-lived comets is therefore not an unanswerable question for astronomers.

 

[Astrophile]

The arms of spiral galaxies should no longer exist, but they do. Why?

The arms of spiral galaxies are not solid 'ropes' that can be wound up; they are density waves moving through the discs of the galaxies. Also, the rotation periods of spiral galaxies are hundreds of millions of years, so the existence of spiral arms implies that these galaxies are at least hundreds of millions of years old.

There is not enough sediment at the bottom of the sea to support an old earth. Why?

Sediments at the bottom of the oceans is transported to subduction zones at the continental margins and carried down into the Earth's upper mantle. Sedimentary sequences in continental shelf seas are much thicker; the Cenozoic rocks at the bottom of the North Sea are about 3 km thick. Land-based sedimentary sequences are much thicker; the rocks of the Ordovician, Devonian, Carboniferous and Cretaceous systems are each more than 10 km thick. Do you think that such thicknesses of rock could be deposited by a single flood?

High speed objects in globular clusters show that they are young. Why?

Can you give me a link to the paper where you found this? How fast are these high-speed objects travelling? Globular clusters are high-speed objects; they are members of the Galactic halo, not of the Galactic disc. This, as well as their H-R diagrams and their low abundance of heavy elements ('metals') is evidence that they are among the oldest objects in the Galaxy.

 

[YoursTrue]

I came about by a process of sexual reproduction; so, I suspect, did you, and the Pope. This process is connected with evolution, in the sense of the origin of species, but reproduction and evolution are not the same thing.

I'm not sure of what you mean. Yet I don't think the Pope would call what is termed the "Immaculate Conception" as magic, do you?

 

[YoursTrue]

The arms of spiral galaxies are not solid 'ropes' that can be wound up; they are density waves moving through the discs of the galaxies. Also, the rotation periods of spiral galaxies are hundreds of millions of years, so the existence of spiral arms implies that these galaxies are at least hundreds of millions of years old.

Sediments at the bottom of the oceans is transported to subduction zones at the continental margins and carried down into the Earth's upper mantle. Sedimentary sequences in continental shelf seas are much thicker; the Cenozoic rocks at the bottom of the North Sea are about 3 km thick. Land-based sedimentary sequences are much thicker; the rocks of the Ordovician, Devonian, Carboniferous and Cretaceous systems are each more than 10 km thick. Do you think that such thicknesses of rock could be deposited by a single flood?

Why would they be? The earth had waters in various parts way before that as well.

 

[YoursTrue]

If not magic, and not sex, by what method was she impregnated?

I leave that up to others right now to figure. So far what I've seen from those claiming a link to religion of sorts and believing as well in the absolute truth of the theory of evolution as delineated by scientists that it's "mythical," but not necessarily a lie. Or they are afraid to answer lest they expose themselves. And so at that my right shoulder goes up in a shrug of sorts at that reply as if to say...huh? that's even worse than talking about something coming from nothing. So long and have a nice evening.

 

[Valjean]

I leave that up to others right now to figure. So far what I've seen from those claiming a link to religion of sorts and believing as well in the absolute truth of the theory of evolution as delineated by scientists that it's "mythical," but not necessarily a lie. Or they are afraid to answer lest they expose themselves. And so at that my right shoulder goes up in a shrug of sorts at that reply as if to say...huh? that's even worse than talking about something coming from nothing. So long and have a nice evening.

You have an odd definition of "myth," then.
What are scientists afraid to expose?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You have an odd definition of "myth," then.
What are scientists afraid to expose?

I don't think he could supply a definition of myth if you paid him to.

 

[Astrophile]

I'm not sure of what you mean. Yet I don't think the Pope would call what is termed the "Immaculate Conception" as magic, do you

Maybe you can pretend you're the Pope who said Mary is eternally a virgin, and then explain if that happened by natural way of evolution and conception. I think you cannot explain how the two (evolution as the considered way humans come about) and a virgin conceiving without having sexual relations at that time?

You are confusing reproduction with evolution. Individual living things come into existence by a process of reproduction. Evolution is the process of cumulative change over many generations that leads to the origin of new species.

The birth of Jesus was an act of reproduction, not of evolution. To put it in its crudest terms, Jesus came out of a woman's vagina, like you, me, the Pope, King Charles III, the Archbishop of Canterbury and anybody else you care to mention. No doubt, Jesus's birth was as painful and messy as the birth of any other child. Also Jesus inherited his genes, including his X-chromosome, from his mother, just as you and I inherited half our genes from our mothers.

So far as I can understand it, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is an imaginary solution to an imaginary problem. The Christian Church teaches that original sin is a condition of sinfulness that we have all inherited from Adam and Eve. If this were true, Jesus would have inherited original sin from his mother. To escape this problem, the Catholic Church teaches that the Virgin Mary was free of original sin from the moment of her conception. You can look all this up on Wikipedia. Since I don't believe either in Adam and Eve or in original sin, I regard both the problem and its solution as imaginary rather than magical.

 

[YoursTrue]

You have an odd definition of "myth," then.
What are scientists afraid to expose?

I am not necessarily speaking of scientists being afraid to expose their opinions about religion or whether there is God. (I have not taken a poll of scientists, and, as you may have seen, some people here get really, really upset and annoyed when asked to explain their viewpoint. That is what I have found.) I am referring to some here. As usual, I give you credit for your polite (I mean that) way of speaking. So thank you again.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are confusing reproduction with evolution. Individual living things come into existence by a process of reproduction. Evolution is the process of cumulative change over many generations that leads to the origin of new species.

The birth of Jesus was an act of reproduction, not of evolution. To put it in its crudest terms, Jesus came out of a woman's vagina, like you, me, the Pope, King Charles III, the Archbishop of Canterbury and anybody else you care to mention. No doubt, Jesus's birth was as painful and messy as the birth of any other child. Also Jesus inherited his genes, including his X-chromosome, from his mother, just as you and I inherited half our genes from our mothers.

So far as I can understand it, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is an imaginary solution to an imaginary problem. The Christian Church teaches that original sin is a condition of sinfulness that we have all inherited from Adam and Eve. If this were true, Jesus would have inherited original sin from his mother. To escape this problem, the Catholic Church teaches that the Virgin Mary was free of original sin from the moment of her conception. You can look all this up on Wikipedia. Since I don't believe either in Adam and Eve or in original sin, I regard both the problem and its solution as imaginary rather than magical.

I am asking how those who believe in the theory of evolution and who may go to church figure what happened with Mary. That's all. So far no one has answered who claims to be a believer of sorts...except maybe to say it's all mythical while they attend a church they claim is based on myths. And then say well myths don't have to be lies. (chuckle here..)
I appreciate your answer though. I do not share it, but thank you for your honesty. Unlike some here who won't come forward and then claim harassment if I keep asking... Hey, have a good one!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am asking how those who believe in the theory of evolution and who may go to church figure what happened with Mary. That's all. So far no one has answered who claims to be a believer of sorts...except maybe to say it's all mythical while they attend a church they claim is based on myths. And then say well myths don't have to be lies. (chuckle here..)
I appreciate your answer though. I do not share it, but thank you for your honesty. Unlike some here who won't come forward and then claim harassment if I keep asking... Hey, have a good one!

The problem is that it's a question loaded up with false assumptions.
You are implying that somehow accepting evolution excludes belief in the christian virgin birth and thereby insinuate that people who have such beliefs have some "special explaining" to do.

They don't. Or at least, not more or less then any other christian who believes in the virgin birth.

 

[gnostic]

Who holds two mutually incompatible belief systems. Either way, glad you said that anyway. So are you referring to me or those who believe in the form process of evolution without wavering along with the "immaculate conception??" Which one are you talking about. And can you possibly explain how the "immaculate conception" of Jesus by Mary can happen logically by the theory of evolution. Maybe you can pretend you're the Pope who said Mary is eternally a virgin, and then explain if that happened by natural way of evolution and conception. I think you cannot explain how the two (evolution as the considered way humans come about) and a virgin conceiving without having sexual relations at that time? And, then, according to the church and some, staying "eternally virgin"?

The case of Mary becoming pregnant without fertilisation of the ovum and sperm, is biologically improbable and impossible for humans, PERIOD!

While asexual reproduction (parthenogenesis) is possible for vertebrates like reptiles, birds, and even more so with amphibians and fishes, among mammals (including humans), it cannot happen biologically. But far more common, asexual reproduction can occur with invertebrates.

The problem with human ovum, is that it always contains half of the number of chromosomes. Mary’s egg would only have 23 chromosomes. The other 23 chromosomes will have to come from the human sperm.

Human reproduction cannot occur without the fertilisation of ovum and sperm. The fusion of these 2 seperate cells into one (one cell called zygote), during fertilisation, is what unify two pairs of 23 cells into 46 chromosomes in a zygote. Without the 46 chromosomes, the zygote going through a series of cell division couldn’t happen.

If Jesus is human, then he should have the full 46 chromosomes, just as Mary do, but the ovum (unfertilised egg) will only have 23 chromosomes. So where did the other 23 chromosomes come from, if it didn’t come from a sperm?

You should understand this, as human reproduction can occur through sexual reproduction, not asexual reproduction. This same biological rule applied to all mammals. Humans are biologically incapable of asexual reproduction, like parthenogenesis, YoursTrue. Humans are mammals, not reptiles or amphibians.

This “immaculate conception“ is a myth, not biologically possible.

 

[Astrophile]

I am asking how those who believe in the theory of evolution and who may go to church figure what happened with Mary. That's all. So far no one has answered who claims to be a believer of sorts...except maybe to say it's all mythical while they attend a church they claim is based on myths. And then say well myths don't have to be lies. (chuckle here..)
I appreciate your answer though. I do not share it, but thank you for your honesty. Unlike some here who won't come forward and then claim harassment if I keep asking... Hey, have a good one!

You are still confusing evolution with reproduction. The birth of Jesus was an act of reproduction, not evolution. Most people, even most Christians, believe that, as gnostic has explained in post 2299, sexual intercourse between a male and a female is a necessary precondition for pregnancy and childbirth. You should be asking how people who believe in sexual reproduction and who go to church believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. If these two beliefs are compatible, I do not see why a belief in the origin of species by natural selection should be incompatible with belief in the virgin birth.

On a different subject, nobody has yet considered the morality of the virgin birth. I find the thought of a male god using his supernatural power to impregnate a virgin rather unpleasant. I do not think more highly of Zeus because he fathered children by Io, Europa, Callisto, Leda, Alcmene, Danae, etc., or of Mars because he raped the virgin Rhea Silvia to become the father of Romulus and Remus, so I do not see why I should think more highly of Yahweh because he fathered a son by the virgin Mary.

I think that this argument about the virgin birth of Jesus misses the essential point. The point of the Biblical prohibition of adultery was to prevent a wife from deceiving her husband into bringing up another man's child, not to prevent adulterous intercourse per se. (I have often wondered whether the woman of John 8:1-11 became pregnant as a result of her adultery, and whether this should have changed Jesus's judgement.) It does not matter whether a wife becomes pregnant through having sex with another man than her husband or is miraculously impregnated by a god without a sexual act; either way, it is still the illegitimate procreation of a child. If Mary consented to becoming pregnant, that makes it adultery; if she did not consent, or, as Matthew 1:18 implies, she was impregnated without her knowledge, that makes it rape; if she was under 16, that makes it child abuse. Mary's reply to the angel Gabriel, 'Let it be unto me according to thy word' (Luke 1:38) sounds to me as if she consented because she had no choice; that again makes it rape. You may think that the fact that Mary remained physically a virgin after having been seduced or raped by a god makes it all right; I do not.