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

[IndigoChild5559]

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

First, your post was spot on. Thank you.

I just want to point out one wee little problem. The "Immaculate Conception" is a Catholic doctrine that Mary was conceived without Original Sin. It has nothing to do with Jesus so-called virgin birth. Not a biggie--this is a very common mistake.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Look, here's what I know and believe. Take it as you will. The impregnation of Mary without having relations with a man is a -- miracle. It was *not* natural. It is NOT in harmony with the theory of evolution except that the development of Jesus in Mary's womb came about to an extent naturally, but not entirely. Again -- take it as you will. God had to make a man--not a mangod--for certain reasons.

 

[YoursTrue]

First, your post was spot on. Thank you.

I just want to point out one wee little problem. The "Immaculate Conception" is a Catholic doctrine that Mary was conceived without Original Sin. It has nothing to do with Jesus so-called virgin birth. Not a biggie--this is a very common mistake.

Yes, it's a "biggie." But then so many are still waiting for the Messiah. Or think they're going to heaven or hellfire. I see pictures in my neighborhood of -- Mendel Schneerson. And wonder if they're still guarding his grave, maybe he will yet arise? Just to say...

 

[YoursTrue]

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.



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


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

I didn't know this until now, but I read that there are about one MILLION visitors to M. Schneerson's grave every year. "The gravesite, known by observers as “The Ohel,” Hebrew for “tent” or “house,” draws about a million visitors yearly, including plenty of other pols. Among them are Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) who made an Election Day guest appearance last week and President-elect Donald Trump, who came on the first anniversary of Hamas’ October 7,2023 terrorist attack on Israel." NYC Mayor Eric Adams visited famous Jewish leader’s grave twice since indictment, six times total

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I didn't know this until now, but I read that there are about one MILLION visitors to M. Schneerson's grave every year. "The gravesite, known by observers as “The Ohel,” Hebrew for “tent” or “house,” draws about a million visitors yearly, including plenty of other pols. Among them are Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) who made an Election Day guest appearance last week and President-elect Donald Trump, who came on the first anniversary of Hamas’ October 7,2023 terrorist attack on Israel." NYC Mayor Eric Adams visited famous Jewish leader’s grave twice since indictment, six times total

Do you have a point with this rather random statement?

 

[Astrophile]

Look, here's what I know and believe. Take it as you will. The impregnation of Mary without having relations with a man is a -- miracle. It was *not* natural. It is NOT in harmony with the theory of evolution except that the development of Jesus in Mary's womb came about to an extent naturally, but not entirely. Again -- take it as you will. God had to make a man--not a mangod--for certain reasons.

This is not what I was saying. To put it shortly, in my opinion making a woman pregnant against her will by a miracle is as much a crime as actual rape.

 

[Astrophile]

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

I would call it witchcraft (and rape).

 

[Astrophile]

Look, here's what I know and believe. Take it as you will. The impregnation of Mary without having relations with a man is a -- miracle. It was *not* natural. It is NOT in harmony with the theory of evolution except that the development of Jesus in Mary's womb came about to an extent naturally, but not entirely. Again -- take it as you will. God had to make a man--not a mangod--for certain reasons.

Besides God's original crime in making Mary pregnant out of wedlock and perhaps against her will, He doesn't appear to have had any consideration for Joseph's feelings. If you believe Matthew's story (Matthew 1:18-25), Joseph intended to break off his engagement to Mary, and God had to send an angel to let him into the secret and to persuade him to go ahead with the marriage. Even so, he appears to have resented being cuckolded, since he told other people that he had intended to divorce Mary when he learnt that she was with child and he was not the father. (If Joseph didn't tell anybody else of this intention, how did Matthew know what had happened?)

 

[gnostic]

Look, here's what I know and believe. Take it as you will. The impregnation of Mary without having relations with a man is a -- miracle. It was *not* natural. It is NOT in harmony with the theory of evolution except that the development of Jesus in Mary's womb came about to an extent naturally, but not entirely.

it is not the theory of evolution that has problem with the virgin birth myth, it completely defied basic biology of human reproduction.

Every time a woman produces an egg cell (ovum) from the ovary, the egg only has half the number of chromosomes of the woman, 23 out of the 46 chromosomes. The other half of the chromosomes come from the sperm. The fertilised egg - the zygote cell - will have the full 46 chromosomes.

Without (the egg) being fertilised by the sperm, the unfertilised egg won’t have the full 46 chromosomes, and the egg won’t even start the cell divisions (mitosis), and these cells won’t start developing into an embryo.

Because the egg hasn’t been fertilised, the egg cell would eventually disintegrate in the uterus, therefore it won’t be viable after a day.

Now there are cases, where the number of chromosomes may have less (45 chromosomes) or more (47 chromosomes). When that happened, either miscarriage would occur, or the baby born will either be sterile or have serious health issue or birth defect.

In any case, it is not possible for any woman to conceive without the sperm, and it is not biological possible for Jesus being born with only 23 chromosomes.

Lastly, no mammals, let alone humans being capable of asexual reproduction, like parthenogenesis.

You said, you were great a student in biology, when you were in high school. Apparently you didn’t understand human biology as well as you think you do, since your knowledge in human reproduction systems are appalling deficient. Did you fail in the reproduction questions?

 

[F1fan]

Besides God's original crime in making Mary pregnant out of wedlock and perhaps against her will, He doesn't appear to have had any consideration for Joseph's feelings. If you believe Matthew's story (Matthew 1:18-25), Joseph intended to break off his engagement to Mary, and God had to send an angel to let him into the secret and to persuade him to go ahead with the marriage. Even so, he appears to have resented being cuckolded, since he told other people that he had intended to divorce Mary when he learnt that she was with child and he was not the father. (If Joseph didn't tell anybody else of this intention, how did Matthew know what had happened?)

Hitchens called it "celestial rape" which is an accurate label. Of course all these stories in the New Testament are implausible and absurd, and no rational mind can take them literally or seriously. Christians should be deiscussing the symbolism of these stories, not struggling with tortured thinking in how they could be true. This literalism is a serious flaw in modern Christianity and it's reason why it fails its followers. This literalist interpretation has led to belief that the Genesis myths are true, which leads to doubt about evolution as we see @YoursTrue do. It led to Christians feeling justified in enslaving Africans, that was so deeply rooted that it required a civil war to resolve. It led to Catholics and Lutherans justifying the Holocaust, the biggest crime against humanity in history.

If Christians interpreted the Bible more symbolically, and had to actually tink about morality and meaning as individuals, they might be less willing to believe in irrational ideas, and less likely to lead immoral lives, all the while thinkng they are saved from their sins.