Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Scientific Proof of Virgin Birth
-
13-11-2007 12:32am#1New Scientist has confirmed definitive scientific proof of a virgin birth, unhappily for myself and other Christians it was with respect to a hammerhead shark in Omaha zoo in 2001 rather than with respect to a Jewish parthenos in Bethlehem in 4 BC.
Read the article here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11908-shark-pup-result-of-virgin-birth.html
Now, when I first heard of this I was sceptical (or even skeptical). It was, I understand, scientific orthodoxy that sharks do not do the virgin birth thing. Therefore when I first heard of this incident (via the BBC) I was trying to find natural explanations for an apparently supernatural act. Maybe somebody smuggled a male shark into the tank for one night? Maybe the zoo keepers had invented the whole story to make money? However, DNA testing has definitively proved (at least to the satisfaction of a science dunce such as me) that a virgin hammerhead shark did indeed conceive and give birth.
Incidentally, the process by which this remarkable event occurred is called parthenogenesis. I will leave it to Scofflaw to explain why scientists would use that as a technical term for virgin birth when he has argued in another thread that parthenos does not mean 'virgin'
Now, I understand that our knowledge of human physiology is infinitely greater than that of an unusual fish such as the hammerhead - but it would seem to me that it is in theory possible, if extremely unlikely, that one day we may hear a similar claim, verified by DNA, about parthenogenesis with respect to a human.
How would this affect atheists' (and indeed agnostics') dismissal of the New Testament claims that Jesus was born of a virgin? Would you dismiss the Gospel record on the grounds that, while not impossible, it was still extremely unlikely? Would you be prepared to concede the possibility that Christ was indeed born of a virgin since such a scenario no longer would contradict preconceived notions of what is impossible? Just interested to hear your views.
By the way, the potential hammerhead Messiah sadly got eaten by another fish in the zoo - a stingray, no less, (as if doing in the Crocodile Hunter was not enough notoriety for one species of flat fish).Tagged:2
Comments
-
-
-
-
New Scientist has confirmed definitive scientific proof of a virgin birth, unhappily for myself and other Christians it was with respect to a hammerhead shark in Omaha zoo in 2001 rather than with respect to a Jewish parthenos in Bethlehem in 4 BC.
Read the article here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11908-shark-pup-result-of-virgin-birth.html
Now, when I first heard of this I was sceptical (or even skeptical). It was, I understand, scientific orthodoxy that sharks do not do the virgin birth thing. Therefore when I first heard of this incident (via the BBC) I was trying to find natural explanations for an apparently supernatural act. Maybe somebody smuggled a male shark into the tank for one night? Maybe the zoo keepers had invented the whole story to make money? However, DNA testing has definitively proved (at least to the satisfaction of a science dunce such as me) that a virgin hammerhead shark did indeed conceive and give birth.
Incidentally, the process by which this remarkable event occurred is called parthenogenesis. I will leave it to Scofflaw to explain why scientists would use that as a technical term for virgin birth when he has argued in another thread that parthenos does not mean 'virgin'
Pft. It certainly does mean 'virgin', and means both 'physically' virgin and 'unmarried', as you will be forced to acknowledge soon enough. The former is the sense used in "parthenogenesis", although that too is shaded, since it essentially means "without male involvement".Now, I understand that our knowledge of human physiology is infinitely greater than that of an unusual fish such as the hammerhead - but it would seem to me that it is in theory possible, if extremely unlikely, that one day we may hear a similar claim, verified by DNA, about parthenogenesis with respect to a human.
How would this affect atheists' (and indeed agnostics') dismissal of the New Testament claims that Jesus was born of a virgin? Would you dismiss the Gospel record on the grounds that, while not impossible, it was still extremely unlikely? Would you be prepared to concede the possibility that Christ was indeed born of a virgin since such a scenario no longer would contradict preconceived notions of what is impossible? Just interested to hear your views.
If anything, it would detract rather from the divinity of Jesus. Being conceived by special intervention of God is one thing, but to simply be conceived by a perfectly possible, but rather abnormal, mechanism, is another - particularly since it is rather likely to make you grow up with a slightly exaggerated conceit of your own uniqueness.
By the way, in 1956 the medical journal Lancet published a report concerning 19 alleged cases of virgin birth among women in England, who were studied by members of the British Medical Association. The "six-month study convinced the investigators that human parthenogenesis was physiologically possible and had actually occurred in some of the women studied".
See JC_2K3 above, though, for the most important point.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Actually, your memory concerning Scripture is at fault. Luke 2:21 refers to Jesus being circumcised.
There is such a thing as female circumcision, y'know.
New thread: "Circumcision - a primarily religiously-motivated waste of time"
Or perhaps Jesus had this unfortunate affliction known to be associated with pseudo-male genitalia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_adrenal_hyperplasia0 -
There is such a thing as female circumcision, y'know.
'Female circumcision' is a euphemism that, like 'joy-riding', should be banned. FGM - 'female genital mutilation' is a more accurate description, and any males who encourage the practice should be castrated (without anaesthetic).0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
And what a raison d'être.Odd threads are this board's raison d'etre. (Still haven't worked out how to to create accents on these pesky boards.)
But this revelation about a shark doesn't even reflect this. It's already accepted that some creatures reproduce asexually in the natural world. Unless there is a record of a blanket dismissal by scientific clergy of some rogue marine biologist suggesting sharks could do this feat, I fail to see where the "fools and dullard" come into it.I have a healthy mistrust of any priesthood (whether they wear dog collars or white coats) that demands my unthinking obedience.0 -
-
-
-
I am asking that, if the virgin birth had a theoretically possible natural explanation then would you still be inclined to argue against it.
Depends on how likely the "theoretical possible natural explanation" is.
I know plenty of girls around our way who proclaim to be virgins until the kid pops out.
I don't considered asexual reproduction to be the most likely explanation in those instances
Anything is possible. That doesn't mean anything is likely. It is not likely that Mary (a female) produced a male offspring through asexual reproduction. In fact that is very very very very unlikely.In other words, how much of the ridicule that the concept of the virgin birth attracts is based on our presuppositions that such events are impossible.However, what this incident does demonstrate is something I have always believed, that scientists are prepared to pronounce certain things as impossible, treat us as fools and dullards if we disagree with them, then quite happily revise their definitions of what is impossible due to new evidence (in this case DNA).
I would be very weary of any scientist who proclaims something is "impossible" in a scientific sense. I would imagine most scientists use impossible in the lay mans sense, in the same way that you claim you "know" God exists.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Perhaps you could tell us where we can find this scientific "priesthood" which demands "unthinking obedience"?
Yes, its a curious idea
TBH the only people I find who believe science requires unthinking acceptance and obedience are religious people who don't disagree with scientific theories because of religious reasons.
Its a bit of a straw man fallacy. If science does require unthinking acceptance and unquestion obedience then yes this is very bad (bo-erns as it were)
But then anyone who knows anything about science (he says adding his own little "no true scots man" fallacy) knows that that is not what science is about. Science requires doubt as a fundamental aspect of all scientific work, through the need for all theories to be falsifiable.
I think it comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding about what the purpose of science actually is. Theists seem to think the point of science is to answer the big questions in a definitive way, similar to a religion. That actually isn't the point of science at all. The point of science is to model the universe to produce models that work because working models of the universe are useful, even if the use if simply to further our understanding.0 -
Yes, its a curious idea
TBH the only people I find who believe science requires unthinking acceptance and obedience are religious people who don't disagree with scientific theories because of religious reasons.
Its a bit of a straw man fallacy. If science does require unthinking acceptance and unquestion obedience then yes this is very bad (bo-erns as it were)
But then anyone who knows anything about science (he says adding his own little "no true scots man" fallacy) knows that that is not what science is about. Science requires doubt as a fundamental aspect of all scientific work, through the need for all theories to be falsifiable.
I think it comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding about what the purpose of science actually is. Theists seem to think the point of science is to answer the big questions in a definitive way, similar to a religion. That actually isn't the point of science at all. The point of science is to model the universe to produce models that work because working models of the universe are useful, even if the use if simply to further our understanding.
It may also come down to teaching methods...for many of our posters, their only experience of science will have been at school, where they will have been handed out-of-date scientific thought as inarguable dogma. The examination system here encourages rote answers, so many teachers will have little time for speculation outside the accepted answers on the curriculum.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
Yes, that was something that was going through my mind -- perhaps PDN has never encountered science outside a second-level classroom (or hereScofflaw wrote:The examination system here encourages rote answers, so many teachers will have little time for speculation outside the accepted answers on the curriculum.)? PDN?
Didn't the UK include some interpretive stuff in the science curriculum while back with a view to teaching students that scientific theories are never absolute; But it wasn't specified or taught properly, so students left thinking that all interpretations of evidence were equally valid? I can't quite remember what happened here; maybe somebody else does?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
It does when the species requires XY chromosomes to be males.A quick perusal of the wikipedia (normal caveats apply) article on parthenogenesis suggests that reproduction does not necessarily result in female offspring
"The offspring of parthenogenesis will be all female if two like chromosomes determine the female gender (such as the XY sex-determination system), but male if two like chromosomes determine the male gender (such as the ZW sex-determination system), because the process involves the inheritance and subsequent duplication of only a single sex chromosome."
So unless Jesus was actually some species of bird ...
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement