DELETE

[sumrndmdude]

1. I don't understand your answer. Make it concise.

2. I don't jump to something else. You're not giving direct answers. 

3. Cute. 

4. I'm reading your response and it doesn't make sense. Parthenogenesis can't happen in humans. 

5. Save it. You're not above answering a very simple question.

Are you saying that god randomly and magically put a baby in Mary?

well we'll try this again:

1. This is an improvement:

'The God who created man, was able to put life into the virgin. That that virgin then gave birth to a child. The logistics of that birth could possibly be explained, or might be inexplicable. I however feel that the God who created man was able to allow for the creation of life in a virgins womb.

And to reiterate I am not commiting to IVF or parthenogenis, I cited 'IVF' to propose that it is not 'impossible', even through modern methods, for a person to become pregnat without intercourse.

2. Thank you for responding to my earlier comments, this is some progress. (However, my response with regards to some of the supposed contradictions in the Bible has not been addressed by you) Perhaps you are just getting your replies mixed up with other people, and if that's the case I apologize for being, pushy?

3. I think this is the feeling of most casual observers of the board. Or I could just be reading you wrong, again I retroactively as well as prospectively apologize. 

4. It quite possibly doesn't make sense with your current worldview/thesis, but as I stated in my earlier response that is my position. And, I have restated it in (1). The premise of the argument, that God created man. is something you don't agree with and therefore the argument will not make sense to you. But I think the 'argument' should make sense, you can however disagree with the position. Sorry for any confusion

5. I think I have demonstrated through out this thread that I am open to answering and discussing 'questions', I would be quite flattered if you at least gave me credit for that.

 

[michigan]

I'm not going to clutter the thread:

1. I responded to this already

2. Every time I write a cogent response you jump to something else, (this especially happens when we are discussing bible verses in particular)without addressing it

3. At this point I think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, you can at least clarify this for me

4. I feel that you are not reading my responses, and I am at a loss at to figure out what direction you want this discussion to go.

5. I feel that you are not open to any sort of agreement, which would render a discussion fruitless for both you and me (see 2,3)

Like I said several pages back.  Its pointless for us to continue to argue with them.  All they do is twist our words and come back with another question.  When we give them a answer they say its not logical then they talk down to us. In our religion a lot of it is based on faith and they dont believe in that so they say because of what science says that these events cant happen.  We believe God can do anything and they find that not logical because of what science says.  Thats why its pointless to debate with them.

 

[sumrndmdude]

Its not.

It isn't. I just showed you that parthenogenesis can't happen in humans and "divine IVF" is pretty much out of the picture.

Its not. If it was, then it would not stand up to any scrutiny or criticism under its own weight.

It doesnt and this entire sentence fragment is a contradiction

again Future MD

I urge you to keep your arguments straight and refrain from jumping into discussions that have a progression that you have no involvement in. This saves on some confusion, you've been to Grad school I'm sure you know this. At the least when you do contribute to the discussion come with something fresh, and that contributes to the discussion beyond just spouting negative exclamations.

As I stated prior, I think you are smarter/better/older than this.

 

[futuremd]

1. I don't understand your answer. Make it concise.

2. I don't jump to something else. You're not giving direct answers. 

3. Cute. 

4. I'm reading your response and it doesn't make sense. Parthenogenesis can't happen in humans. 

5. Save it. You're not above answering a very simple question.

Are you saying that god randomly and magically put a baby in Mary?

well we'll try this again:

1. This is an improvement:

'The God who created man, was able to put life into the virgin. That that virgin then gave birth to a child. The logistics of that birth could possibly be explained, or might be inexplicable. I however feel that the God who created man was able to allow for the creation of life in a virgins womb.

And to reiterate I am not commiting to IVF or parthenogenis, I cited 'IVF' to propose that it is not 'impossible', even through modern methods, for a person to become pregnat without intercourse.

Look.

Step beside the bible for a second and look at the biological facts here.

If you're not going to propose IVF as the non-sexual method of pregnancy and not as an option for pregnancy, HOW DID GOD PUT A CHILD IN MARY?

SPERM. MUST. MEET. EGG.

HOW. DID. THIS. HAPPEN?

Do you REALLY think that happened?

Like imagine you're at the stop light with your girlfriend in the car and in-between the seconds for you to look at her, look ahead and then look back at her that she is pregnant.

And you ARE committing to PARTHENOGENESIS. Thats what virgin birth is.  Modern Biology explains this EXPLICITLY. 

Virgin Pregnancy = Parthenogenesis

HOWEVER Parthenogenesis has not been EVER observed or deemed possible in ANY study of human reproduction, embryology or development. It is technically impossible to occur because of the genetic substrates required to unite.

Sharks can do this. Some insects can do this.

HUMANS CAN NOT DO THIS.

Is that what you're telling me? 

You understand that this is not biological possible in humans, right? 

This isn't opinion, this is observed fact.

Its SLIGHTLY possible in rabbits (if INDUCED through some completely complex and rare procedure) and just about all other mammals CAN NOT do this. 

2. Thank you for responding to my earlier comments, this is some progress. (However, my response with regards to some of the supposed contradictions in the Bible has not been addressed by you) Perhaps you are just getting your replies mixed up with other people, and if that's the case I apologize for being, pushy?

3. I think this is the feeling of most casual observers of the board. Or I could just be reading you wrong, again I retroactively as well as prospectively apologize. 

4. It quite possibly doesn't make sense with your current worldview/thesis, but as I stated in my earlier response that is my position. And, I have restated it in (1). The premise of the argument, that God created man. is something you don't agree with and therefore the argument will not make sense to you. But I think the 'argument' should make sense, you can however disagree with the position. Sorry for any confusion

5. I think I have demonstrated through out this thread that I am open to answering and discussing 'question', I would be quite flattered if you at least gave me credit for that.

This is just a bunch of apologies and has nothing to do with the thread.

 

[sumrndmdude]

Look.

Step beside the bible for a second and look at the biological facts here.

If you're not going to propose IVF as the non-sexual method of pregnancy and not as an option for pregnancy, HOW DID GOD PUT A CHILD IN MARY?

SPERM. MUST. MEET. EGG.

HOW. DID. THIS. HAPPEN?

Do you REALLY think that happened?

Like imagine you're at the stop light with your girlfriend in the car and in-between the seconds for you to look at her, look ahead and then look back at her that she is pregnant.

And you ARE committing to PARTHENOGENESIS. Thats what virgin birth is.  Modern Biology explains this EXPLICITLY. 

Virgin Pregnancy = Parthenogenesis

HOWEVER Parthenogenesis has not been EVER observed or deemed possible in ANY study of human reproduction, embryology or development. It is technically impossible to occur because of the genetic substrates required to unite.

Sharks can do this. Some insects can do this.

HUMANS CAN NOT DO THIS.

Is that what you're telling me? 

You understand that this is not biological possible in humans, right? 

This isn't opinion, this is observed fact.

Its SLIGHTLY possible in rabbits (if INDUCED through some completely complex and rare procedure) and just about all other mammals CAN NOT do this. 

This is just a bunch of apologies and has nothing to do with the thread.

I think apologies that were due? If not then feel free to disregard them. However (2) and (4) I think are relevant.

Your response is fascinating. That is some interesting stuff and worthy of study, how that can contribute to, or disprove a virgin birth is intriguing to me. I will definitely look it up.

However, please consider point 1 and 4, in my previous response.

 

[futuremd]

I'm not going to clutter the thread:

1. I responded to this already

2. Every time I write a cogent response you jump to something else, (this especially happens when we are discussing bible verses in particular)without addressing it

3. At this point I think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, you can at least clarify this for me

4. I feel that you are not reading my responses, and I am at a loss at to figure out what direction you want this discussion to go.

5. I feel that you are not open to any sort of agreement, which would render a discussion fruitless for both you and me (see 2,3)

Like I said several pages back.  Its pointless for us to continue to argue with them.  All they do is twist our words and come back with another question.  When we give them a answer they say its not logical then they talk down to us. In our religion a lot of it is based on faith and they dont believe in that so they say because of what science says that these events cant happen.  We believe God can do anything and they find that not logical because of what science says.  Thats why its pointless to debate with them.

This is ridiculous. 

 

[yeold360s]

I know I said I wasn't going to post here again, but dude has asked the same wuestion without being smart enough to take into account the beliefs of a Christian to understand the dude's answer.

If God created the universe and the laws that bind it, why can he not alter them with his power as he sees fit?
See: virgin birth, revival from the dead, other miracles from the Bible.

 

[futuremd]

I know I said I wasn't going to post here again, but dude has asked the same wuestion without being smart enough to take into account the beliefs of a Christian to understand the dude's answer.

If God created the universe and the laws that bind it, why can he not alter them with his power as he sees fit?
See: virgin birth, revival from the dead, other miracles from the Bible.

A 2000+ year old story of virgin birth violates every concept of modern human biology AND research EVER done on the topic. 

On top of that, this isn't even the ONLY virgin birth story in religions around the world. They all steal the different parts of different stories from each other. 

Who are you rolling with? Scientific evidence and peer reviewed research (the very thing you take advantage of every damn day) or the bible? 

 

[yeold360s]

Nice false-dilemma fallacy. This isn't an either or thing, as I just explained.

Biology: the self-sustaining laws, put into place by God, that bind life on Earth.

That definition works, and if you don't believe in God, just take out the second clause.

Yes, there's no scientific proof that it happened. Maybe if scientists were around 2000 years ago, they could've seen it first-hand.

WHAT ARE VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS OF LIFE TO THE GUY THAT PUT THESE LAWS INTO PLACE?
Nothing more than true examples of his power.
Answer me this: If the God of the Bible's actions were restrained to commonly accepted law, what could he possibly do to show his omnipotence?

 

[futuremd]

Nice false-dilemma fallacy. This isn't an either or thing, as I just explained.

Biology: the self-sustaining laws, put into place by God, that bind life on Earth.
 

You've made an assertion.

Prove it.

That definition works, and if you don't believe in God, just take out the second clause.

Thats not what biology is IN THE FIRST PLACE. So the original definition is not "working"

Thats like saying math has a stance on god.

It doesn't. It merely assesses what it knows and nothing else.

Yes, there's no scientific proof that it happened. Maybe if scientists were around 2000 years ago, they could've seen it first-hand.

And you believe it because...?

WHAT ARE VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS OF LIFE TO THE GUY THAT PUT THESE LAWS INTO PLACE?

That there was a temporary suspension of logic and the laws of physics, biochemistry, and human anatomy to do something that every other major religion claims happened TO THEM.

Nothing more than true examples of his power.

Nothing says true power like being unable to fight chariots of Iron, the devil, or feeding the most faithful of believers in the anthropological origin of humanity.

Virgin birth stories are as old as dirt and as original as the wheel. 

Answer me this: If the God of the Bible's actions were restrained to commonly accepted law, what could he possibly do to show his omnipotence?

Admit that we don't have free-will, as you claim we do. 

 

[lexlieno]

Not even just dinosaurs, there is not one mention of Kangaroos!!!! Why the **** not!?!?  

You sir, have made my day with this post.

 

[squatchnt]

I've always wondered why the birth of Jesus mirrors that of Horus which was supposed to have occured waaaaaaay before the birth of Christ. I'm all for religion if it makes you a better man, to your fellow man. Hipocrasy is something I have a special disdain for though.

 

[elpablo21]

@ the timeline of title changes

 

[sumrndmdude]

You've made an assertion.

Prove it.

Thats not what biology is IN THE FIRST PLACE. So the original definition is not "working"

Thats like saying math has a stance on god.

It doesn't. It merely assesses what it knows and nothing else.

And you believe it because...?


That there was a temporary suspension of logic and the laws of physics, biochemistry, and human anatomy to do something that every other major religion claims happened TO THEM.

Nothing says true power like being unable to fight chariots of Iron, the devil, or feeding the most faithful of believers in the anthropological origin of humanity.

Virgin birth stories are as old as dirt and as original as the wheel. 

Admit that we don't have free-will, as you claim we do. 

I thought we touched on a lot of these subjects already and you totally disregarded them because the don't fit into your current worldview. For someone who wants to be open minded you are frustratingly closed minded and as arrogrant as you insult others to be. A quasi troll even.

Stop it man.

If you don't want to discuss this then just state your thesis and stop it with the 'gotcha' arguments, it's becoming comically pathetic at this point.

 

[futuremd]

You've made an assertion.

Prove it.

Thats not what biology is IN THE FIRST PLACE. So the original definition is not "working"

Thats like saying math has a stance on god.

It doesn't. It merely assesses what it knows and nothing else.

And you believe it because...?


That there was a temporary suspension of logic and the laws of physics, biochemistry, and human anatomy to do something that every other major religion claims happened TO THEM.

Nothing says true power like being unable to fight chariots of Iron, the devil, or feeding the most faithful of believers in the anthropological origin of humanity.

Virgin birth stories are as old as dirt and as original as the wheel. 

Admit that we don't have free-will, as you claim we do. 

I thought we touched on a lot of these subjects already and you totally disregarded them because the don't fit into your current worldview. For someone who wants to be open minded you are frustratingly closed minded and as arrogrant as you insult others to be. A quasi troll even.

Stop it man.

If you don't want to discuss this then just state your thesis and stop it with the 'gotcha' arguments, it's becoming comically pathetic at this point.

Son, this isn't even about world view.

We're talking about FACTS.

Otherwise you'll just say "Well god can do anything. The end."

How the hell does that work???

Parthenogenesis AKA Virgin Birth medically CAN. NOT. HAPPEN. IN. HUMANS.

PERIOD.

You can't say people aren't responding to you. The facts are NOT on your side.

Whats the matter here?

The bible is not a valid source of information on virgin birth...AND its not even a unique creation story in terms of religion.

I don't care WHAT you believe. Its not corroborating with reality. 

Where is your evidence? The book that says it happened? Thats it? 

Thats just circular reasoning...AND its a logical fallacy. 

How is this being closed-minded?

Go to the ER and tell them you have a virgin birth child and see what the OB/GYN tells you...rather, tell me about the look on her face. 

 

[odog24]

if i loved reading this would be a good thread