• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Virgin birth of Jesus

Abiogenesis isn't impossible. But later life gobbled up the evidence. So we'll never be able to prove it.
Abiogenesis happened, we are here, so that prove it. But that goes against your theory that says, if we can't measure it in a lab it probably didn't happen.

Yes, it has. By people like Lemaitre, Hoyle, Penrose and so on. An explosion of the magnitude of the Big Bang left plenty of evidence. That evidence can be collected and then we draw conclusions. All of which can be independently verified. That's what it means that it can be tested in a lab.

The Big Bang is an unsatisfactory and incomplete explanation for the creation of the universe. What happened before that, ad infinitum?
What precursors are there to the Big Bang that can be measured in a lab?

The evidence for Big Bang is like the evidence for Theory of Evolution. We're awash with mountains of extremely strong independently verifiable evidence.

At best this evidence is circumstantial, and it does not answer the big questions.
 
Abiogenesis happened, we are here, so that prove it. But that goes against your theory that says, if we can't measure it in a lab it probably didn't happen.

Abiogenesis is more philosophy than science. We don't really have much to go on other than hypothetical models.

Postulating a supernatural agent doesn't help answer how it happened. So that's not much of an answer either.

No, we have to be able to measure it in a lab for science to take a stand on it.

Yes, it has. By people like Lemaitre, Hoyle, Penrose and so on. An explosion of the magnitude of the Big Bang left plenty of evidence. That evidence can be collected and then we draw conclusions. All of which can be independently verified. That's what it means that it can be tested in a lab.

The Big Bang is an unsatisfactory and incomplete explanation for the creation of the universe. What happened before that, ad infinitum?
What precursors are there to the Big Bang that can be measured in a lab?
.

I'm sorry you find it unsatisfactory. But the fact remains is that we can measure it in a lab and we have. The evidence is strong.

The Big Bang theory only deals with that event itself. It doesn't touch on what happened before the Big Bang. That would be a Before-Big-Bang theory. Ante Bang Theory.

But there's a problem with your question. There was no time before the Big Bang. Time istelf began at the Big Bang. Time is itself only one dimension of many. If you want to pick a "before" the Big Bang pick another dimension than time.

Christian theological concepts of the world are 2000 years old. They are out of date. So Christians keep looking foolish when they question modern science.


The evidence for Big Bang is like the evidence for Theory of Evolution. We're awash with mountains of extremely strong independently verifiable evidence.

At best this evidence is circumstantial, and it does not answer the big questions.

Which are different questions. Science can never answer the big questions. That's not what it's for. Try philosophy instead.

But just because science can't answer something doesn't mean it's up to anybody to insert whatever. Science is still the best tool we have for finding the truth.

Blue sky speculation is fun to do. But that is all Christian theology will ever be. It's an entertaining what if parlour game. It will never be able to provide answers for anything
 
Abiogenesis is more philosophy than science. We don't really have much to go on other than hypothetical models.

Postulating a supernatural agent doesn't help answer how it happened. So that's not much of an answer either.

No, we have to be able to measure it in a lab for science to take a stand on it.

Yes, it has. By people like Lemaitre, Hoyle, Penrose and so on. An explosion of the magnitude of the Big Bang left plenty of evidence. That evidence can be collected and then we draw conclusions. All of which can be independently verified. That's what it means that it can be tested in a lab.

The Big Bang is an unsatisfactory and incomplete explanation for the creation of the universe. What happened before that, ad infinitum?
What precursors are there to the Big Bang that can be measured in a lab?
.

I'm sorry you find it unsatisfactory. But the fact remains is that we can measure it in a lab and we have. The evidence is strong.

The Big Bang theory only deals with that event itself. It doesn't touch on what happened before the Big Bang. That would be a Before-Big-Bang theory. Ante Bang Theory.

But there's a problem with your question. There was no time before the Big Bang. Time istelf began at the Big Bang. Time is itself only one dimension of many. If you want to pick a "before" the Big Bang pick another dimension than time.

Christian theological concepts of the world are 2000 years old. They are out of date. So Christians keep looking foolish when they question modern science.


The evidence for Big Bang is like the evidence for Theory of Evolution. We're awash with mountains of extremely strong independently verifiable evidence.

At best this evidence is circumstantial, and it does not answer the big questions.

Which are different questions. Science can never answer the big questions. That's not what it's for. Try philosophy instead.

But just because science can't answer something doesn't mean it's up to anybody to insert whatever. Science is still the best tool we have for finding the truth.

Blue sky speculation is fun to do. But that is all Christian theology will ever be. It's an entertaining what if parlour game. It will never be able to provide answers for anything
Well, some members of my family, like Eric H, believe the universe is here because of a magical, baby spaceman that visited Earth 2000 years ago. That's their answer, and they are adults. It's not a scientific answer but it nevertheless satisfies their curiosity enough that they accept it as accurate. For them, all people ultimately came from a magic garden with a talking serpent and two adults without navels named Eve and Adam, and they know that these people were put there by the same baby spaceman.

These are answers identical in every way to a kid knowing that an elderly gentleman and his flying reindeer made presents appear under a tree set up where he lives at about the time of the Winter Solstice, or that a Fairy brought coins of the proper currency and placed them under a pillow in exchange for a tooth.

The lesson in all this is that people will seek a level of comfort and understanding based upon their present ability to comprehend, which is based upon their knowledge of the universe, knowing they cannot be expected to use knowledge and experience they do not possess.

If a course of antibiotics saves the life of one of their children it isn't because of scientific Germ Theory, rather it's because the baby spaceman planned it that way. If the child dies despite all possible medical care it's because the baby spaceman wanted it that way. They will then, before burial, take the corpse of their child to a place where they feel close to the baby spaceman and praise the baby spaceman nonetheless.

I think the lesson here is to understand the survival value of personal comfort while attempting to unravel the roots of what is clearly irrational behavior among members of our own species.

I should add that the ability to comprehend scientifically varies among members of our species same as any other ability. Just because one human can run very fast does not mean that all humans should be able to run just as fast. But when it comes to scientific comprehension for some reason we make the mistake of assuming that all people are equally capable.
 
The Big Bang is an unsatisfactory and incomplete explanation for the creation of the universe.
Coming from a person who thinks that 'it was created by an intelligent God' is either satisfactory or complete, that's hilarious.
What happened before that, ad infinitum?

The idea that the world is spherical is crazy. What happens if you go to the North Pole, and then keep walking North?

Clearly a God is necessary to explain what happens on the parts of the Earth's surface that are North of the North Pole. :rolleyes:
 
I've heard an explanation which holds that early translators used 'virgin' when 'young girl' would have been more accurate.
So Joseph knew her before she became a virgin ...
I can quite see the translators wishing to make a point about the dangers of sex -- after all, it can lead to dancing.
 
All these incredible logical fallacies about the human body experiencing 'x' therefore 'y'.

So sad coming from folks who deign to lecture others about science and evolution.

Apparently the human body is so badly designed/evolved that our species currently has, either complete or potential, dominion over every other form of animal life on earth.

Oh but Lion IRC...

penguins don't get bad backs because they have pyramid shaped weight distribution.

Great. I'll remember that the next time I feel like standing around all day on an iceberg.

You say the job of holding the vertebrae apart against the force of gravity is 'bad design' and not a problem for quadrupeds. But strangely, bipedalism has conferred upon us a huge evolutionary survival advantage. And last time I checked, it's humans holding the leash when dogs go for a walk.

Yabbut Lion IRC you forget that...

our massive arms need a swivelling torso.

Oh yeah. What a pity we can't use that swivelling torso to make proper use of axes and spears and put more body weight behind our swinging fists.

Yes. It's just awful design. So bad in fact that our useless primitive brains and pathetic retinas are limited to a measly 16 000 bits of data a second. Maybe we should just stick to tree dwelling ape stuff like...

reading Gestalt Psychology

Yeah. Let's just do that instead. Because...

when we're traumatised our mind makes up stuff

...such as the fight or flight response and our brain dumping adrenaline which helps fast-track our focus on a very narrow range of input - instead of all that other irrelevant stuff like how many dots per inch of color a predators fur has.

Yabbut...our vision sucks. We can only see colours that correspond to the ripeness of fruit.

Strangely enough we don't seem to have suffered very much from this handicap. And somehow we have managed to find foods which - when ripe - are completely different colors. Our limited eye sight still manages to cope with yellow fruit, green fruit, red fruit, brown fruit, black fruit, purple fruit..oh, man I'm getting bored with all this variety of color. (BTW - we do actually eat stuff apart from fruit. What color do you prefer your steak cooked)

oh yeah well animals who can see in the infrared band can see through walls. Wouldn't that be handy?

Yeah. Or we could just use our massive brains to build machines that can do the same.
Let me know if you ever come across a snake that can communicate with other snakes on the other side of the world or send spaceships to Mars.

But never mind about that. Our highly advanced mental faculties are nothing compared to...

the reason why we think farts smell horrible and dogs don't

Yes curse you God for those ancient methane lakes. Why, why, why!!! Why can't we be like those four-legged dogs and not dry retch when we sniff fecal matter. Why this "useless holdover from way back"? Bilby and DrZoidberg are right. So annoying!

Alas we burdened with the appalling design flaw that hampers our true enjoyment of life's finer things. What do you recommend Dr?


I recommend the TV series Cosmos

Ah yes, a TV show about how bad design has hampered the progress of our species.
 
Last edited:
Apparently the human body is so badly designed/evolved that our species currently has, either complete or potential, dominion over every other form of animal life on earth.

Gah.... Humans do NOT have dominion over every other form of life on Earth. We're nowhere near as dominant as bacteria. Earth worms are more dominant than us.

You are aware that chickens domesticated us just as much as we domesticated it? Thanks to being tasty there's about a hundred times more chickens than humans. Wheat is fucken everywhere. Thanks to their ability to domesticate humans in helping it spread. Winning evolution is only about spreading one's genes. That's the winner. You're looking at all of life through with an absurdly narrow human perspective. You're not better than a fish because you can climb trees better than it. Nor are you dominating it.

On that topic. 70% of the Earth's surface is water. Very little is touched by humans. In what way are we dominating it?

At most you can make the case that we dominate the large land mammals (who share our evolutionary niche) of this planet. But that doesn't sound particularly impressive.

You say the job of holding the vertebrae apart against the force of gravity is 'bad design' and not a problem for quadrupeds. But strangely, bipedalism has conferred upon us a huge evolutionary survival advantage. And last time I checked, it's humans holding the leash when dogs go for a walk.

Obviously it has an evolutionary survival advantage. Every aspect of any creature exists because it has a slight advantage of over the next best thing. That's not an argument of perfection or good design. It's not even evidence of half-arsed design. The human bipedal design is what you get when you start with a quadroped monkey and have 3 million years to improve it. For evolution that's not a huge amount of time. Penguins have had 65 million years to improve. So they're better at bipedalism than us.

And again... the fact that humans are holding the leash doesn't mean that we're dominating dogs. Dogs are just as much holding the humans leash, emotionally. We feed them and take care of them, and they do fuck all for us practically. In the modern world they're basically parasites. Who's dominating who here?

our massive arms need a swivelling torso.

Oh yeah. What a pity we can't use that swivelling torso to make proper use of axes and spears and put more body weight behind our swinging fists.

What? We're the weakest primate. By weight we're the weakest and most physically pathetic simian ever to have graced the Earth. No, it's a terrible design. Ask any physiotherapist. Dumb dumb dumb.

But you touched on why we're so weak. Tool use. Muscles are expensive to maintain. Brains also. Because of our tool use we ditched muscle. Since we have a frame adapted to big muscles (we don't have) it leads to lots of muscle damages. Dumb dumb dumb.

...such as the fight or flight response and our brain dumping adrenaline which helps fast-track our focus on a very narrow range of input - instead of all that other irrelevant stuff like how many dots per inch of color a predators fur has.

I am aware of it. But it doesn't answer why? Why can't we have both? Truth and accuracy is always good to have. Why did our designer think that us getting stuff right is of such low priority under stress? Or at any time? We're not built for understanding stuff. We're built for dodging immediate threats.

BTW, our brains use more energy (sugar) than it can physically absorb through eating. So it has to go off-line a third of the day and just lie there helpless and defenceless. Really clever design!

It's like our God designed us to be such poor assessors of reality so that we'd be sure to worship the wrong God.

Yabbut...our vision sucks. We can only see colours that correspond to the ripeness of fruit.

Strangely enough we don't seem to have suffered very much from this handicap. And somehow we have managed to find foods which - when ripe - are completely different colors. Our limited eye sight still manages to cope with yellow fruit, green fruit, red fruit, brown fruit, black fruit, purple fruit..oh, man I'm getting bored with all this variety of color. (BTW - we do actually eat stuff apart from fruit. What color do you prefer your steak cooked)

How do you know? You're literally like a blind man claiming that he's fine with it because there's not much to see anyway.

Ever seen Predator 2? When he fiddles with his computer and comes up with all those cool filters? That's what we could have had. I think it would be very handy indeed.

oh yeah well animals who can see in the infrared band can see through walls. Wouldn't that be handy?

Yeah. Or we could just use our massive brains to build machines that can do the same.

I don't know about you but I'd prefer not to have to have a machine that does it. BTW, I don't know how to build an x-ray machine.

Let me know if you ever come across a snake that can communicate with other snakes on the other side of the world or send spaceships to Mars.

I'm not sure what you think this proves? Does this prove that we wouldn't benefit from x-ray vision? You've got a very confused argument.

Yes curse you God for those ancient methane lakes. Why, why, why!!! Why can't we be like those four-legged dogs and not dry retch when we sniff fecal matter. Why this "useless holdover from way back"? Bilby and DrZoidberg are right. So annoying!

Alas we burdened with the appalling design flaw that hampers our true enjoyment of life's finer things. What do you recommend Dr?

The point is that we have fancy features that are unnecessary. Hardly intelligent design.


I recommend the TV series Cosmos

Ah yes, a TV show about how bad design has hampered the progress of our species.

It doesn't touch on that. It just goes through basic science. But it does it very well, with great visualizations. I'm very well read on science and even I learned some stuff watching that recently. It's great. It's all the more important considering that we're living in a world where the majority are not scientifically literate.
 
Coming from a person who thinks that 'it was created by an intelligent God' is either satisfactory or complete, that's hilarious.
What happened before that, ad infinitum?

The idea that the world is spherical is crazy. What happens if you go to the North Pole, and then keep walking North?

Clearly a God is necessary to explain what happens on the parts of the Earth's surface that are North of the North Pole. :rolleyes:

You mean when there's a Magnetic Pole Reversal?

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-poleReversal.html
 
Abiogenesis is more philosophy than science. We don't really have much to go on other than hypothetical models.

Likewise, the virgin birth of Jesus is based on faith, we don't really have much more to go on. However, I would suggest that a virgin birth can be understood through science, unlike abiogenesis.
 
Abiogenesis is more philosophy than science. We don't really have much to go on other than hypothetical models.

Likewise, the virgin birth of Jesus is based on faith, we don't really have much more to go on. However, I would suggest that a virgin birth can be understood through science, unlike abiogenesis.

You mean credulity? We have plenty to go on. We have a firm handle on how pregnancy works. Based on science there's an obvious conclusion. Obviously Mary wasn't a virgin. She just said she was. She certainly had the inventive. How fucking dumb do you need to be to not draw that obvious conclusion? I maintain that any Christian who doesn't accept this is.. well.. there's no polite way to put it.

Having faith in stuff that is obviously wrong is just idiocy.

Scientists can always produce hypotheses. That's allowed.

The biggest difference between scientists and Christians is that scientists admit when they don't know stuff. Christians just make shit up and call it faith. As if that warrants respect. No. Not knowing stuff just means you don't know something. Something I'd wish Christians would do more of. Which doesn't include the virgin birth. Science has this covered = not a virgin.

edit: ...another solution is that Mary was a nematode. Just throwing it out there.
 
Abiogenesis is more philosophy than science. We don't really have much to go on other than hypothetical models.

Likewise, the virgin birth of Jesus is based on faith, we don't really have much more to go on. However, I would suggest that a virgin birth can be understood through science, unlike abiogenesis.
IOW will the real John Rowland please stand up.
 
I always enjoy when someone claims that humans are so dominant on earth.

Toss them in shark infested water without a boat and see how dominant they feel then.

Let them traipse naked and without any tools across the African savannah and see how dominant they feel then.

Humans are on a world that is made up of 70% water most of which will kill us if we try to drink it. Not seeing our domination.
 
I always enjoy when someone claims that humans are so dominant on earth.

Toss them in shark infested water without a boat and see how dominant they feel then.

Let them traipse naked and without any tools across the African savannah and see how dominant they feel then.

Humans are on a world that is made up of 70% water most of which will kill us if we try to drink it. Not seeing our domination.

I think the logic is:

I am a human.
I am very special and important
Therefore Humans are very special and important.

This is the 'humility' that religious people keep talking about. You know, the way that they are so humble that they believe themselves to be made in the image of the most powerful and awesome entity they could ever imagine.

That's what I call humility. They've got more humility than ANYBODY. Everyone is saying it; Great people - truly great people are saying how humble the theists are. Winning at humility is so easy for them. Natural, even. :rolleyes:

Religion gets everything backwards.
 
I always enjoy when someone claims that humans are so dominant on earth.

You mean people like scientists?
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...s-urge-geological-congress-human-impact-earth

Toss them in shark infested water without a boat and see how dominant they feel then.

A human tossing another human into shark infested water is about human domination of events - not sharks. Did you know humans pass laws protecting sharks from being hunted/fished?

Let them traipse naked and without any tools across the African savannah and see how dominant they feel then.

We already did that survivor challenge. And guess what? We made it.
We DID start out naked and with no tools (probably in somewhere in Africa.)
Are humans on the endangered species list?

Humans are on a world that is made up of 70% water most of which will kill us if we try to drink it.

That water is probably the most precious commodity on Earth. It keeps us alive.
Our drinking water comes from those very oceans!

Not seeing our domination.

Maybe that's just your personal perspective.

Aaaaaaany way.....how about that miraculous, immaculate conception.
Now THATS an example of dominion over nature.
 
If God could make it so that Mary was immaculately conceived, meaning that she wouldn't have a sinful nature to pass on to Jesus...

Then why can't he just do that for everyone?
 
I'm talking about Mary's immaculate conception of Jesus.

We aren't told that Mary herself was immaculately conceived - ie. That her mother was a virgin and/or that Mary was herself conceived by the Holy Spirit the same as Jesus.
 
Immaculate conception doesn't mean virgin birth.
 
Immaculate conception applies to Mary's conception not Jesus's.
 
Yes of course.
Jesus never conceived - He had no womb.
Mary was immaculate when she conceived Jesus in her womb by the power of the Holy Spirit.

We are not told whether Mary's mother had an immaculate conception of Mary.
 
Back
Top Bottom