Virgin Mary's Miracle birth to Isa (RA) - Scientifically Impossible?

[beespreeteam]

http://beespree.com/story.php?title=Virgin...ally_impossible

It's taken six years to find out but the zookeepers at Henry Doorly Zoo in Nebraska finally know how the female hammerhead shark that was in their care managed to get pregnant on her own. Scientists revealed last week that DNA profiling showed the shark's baby contained no paternal DNA.

There's comments in the description in the link before you nagivate to the actual site, so check it out

 

[Woodrow]

http://beespree.com/story.php?title=Virgin...ally_impossible



There's comments in the description in the link before you nagivate to the actual site, so check it out

Pathogenesis is actually fairly common among fish and amphibians. This in no way detracts from the miracle of Isa(as)'s birth as Isa(as) is the only human to have been born of a virgin.

 

[beespreeteam]

Pathogenesis is actually fairly common among fish and amphibians. This in no way detracts from the miracle of Isa(as)'s birth as Isa(as) is the only human to have been born of a virgin.

I'm interested. Does the Quran indicate that it was a one-off, or that it's impossible and could never happen in a human again?

I like the two sides to this.

btw, I didn't mean the user-submitted comments at the bottom, I meant the actual summarized view of the person that submitted the article, and anyone can view that you dont need to register

 

[Philosopher]

No, it is not scientifically possible. Pathogenesis never happened with mammals.

 

[Woodrow]

there does seem to be an error in one of the intro comments.

Perhaps science will slowly bring these reasons to light. Who knows, but this recent evidence (parthenogenesis in a mammal) may serve as a good read for those who scoff at the 'scientific impossibility' of Virgin Mary's (Maryam[RA]) miracle birth to Isa[A] (Jesus).

A shark is a fish and is not a mammal.

Scientifically pathogenesis is possible in a human, but we have yet to find any mechanism that would cause it to occur and there does not appear to be any natural means for it to occur. Pathogenesis has been induced in Rabbits and several other small mammals. I won't go into detail, but I doubt the rabbit was in favor of it and
I do not see it occuring naturaly.

The interesting thing about the birth of Isa(as) is that he is male. The result of any natural pathogenesis has to be female as no male chromosomes are involved. so, even if parthogenesis were a routine event in humans, the birth of Isa(as) would still be a miracle.

 

[Woodrow]

No, it is not scientifically possible. Pathogenesis never happened with mammals.

In 1900 Jacques Loeb accomplished the first clear case of artificial parthenogenesis when he pricked unfertilized frog eggs with a needle and found that in some cases normal embryonic development ensued. In 1936 Gregory Pincus induced parthenogenesis in mammalian (rabbit) eggs by temperature change and chemical agents. Artificial parthenogenesis has since been achieved in almost all major groups of animals, by mechanical, chemical, and electrical means, though it usually results in incomplete and abnormal development.

Source: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/sex2.htm

 

[Philosopher]

there does seem to be an error in one of the intro comments.



A shark is a fish and is not a mammal.

Scientifically pathogenesis is possible in a human, but we have yet to find any mechanism that would cause it to occur and there does not appear to be any natural means for it to occur. Pathogenesis has been induced in Rabbits and several other small mammals. I won't go into detail, but I doubt the rabbit was in favor of it and
I do not see it occuring naturaly.

The interesting thing about the birth of Isa(as) is that he is male. The result of any natural pathogenesis has to be female as no male chromosomes are involved. so, even if parthogenesis were a routine event in humans, the birth of Isa(as) would still be a miracle.

The virgin birth is not a new concept. Christianity stole it from past pagan religions.

http://www.entheology.org/POCM/pagan_origins_virgin_birth.html

http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/ChristianOrigins/

 

[beespreeteam]

thanks for replies

interesting!

 

[Philosopher]

Source: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/sex2.htm

Even if we assume that the virgin birth is possible with humans, it is very unlikely that the offspring would live over 30 years. Most offsprings observed died soon after birth. The virgin birth was copied from past pagan traditions.

 

[Woodrow]

The virgin birth is not a new concept. Christianity stole it from past pagan religions.

http://www.entheology.org/POCM/pagan_origins_virgin_birth.html

http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/ChristianOrigins/

At one time I also believed that.

Keep in mind that as a Muslim I also believe it did occur with Isa(as).

I am very much aware of the pagan concepts of it happening and am also aware that until the advent of explorers some Polynesian Islanders were unaware as to how pregnancy occurred and that they believed it was a spontaneous event that occurred in women.

Those stories and beliefs have no bearing on the Birth of Isa(as) as that particular birth was accompanied by other miracles along with an advance announcement through an Angel.

 

[Philosopher]

At one time I also believed that.

Keep in mind that as a Muslim I also believe it did occur with Isa(as).

I am very much aware of the pagan concepts of it happening and am also aware that until the advent of explorers some Polynesian Islanders were unaware as to how pregnancy occurred and that they believed it was a spontaneous event that occurred in women.

Those stories and beliefs have no bearing on the Birth of Isa(as) as that particular birth was accompanied by other miracles along with an advance announcement through an Angel.

So because you're a Muslim now, the virgin birth is valid??

 

[beespreeteam]

Lol, stop trolling.

Anyway, the main point was basically it's a good read for those who keep thinking science totally disproves religion - you don't know what's around the corner.

What if it starts naturally happening in Mammals (due to changes in the environment, such as those that led to it happening in the Shark)?

We never know, and it's possible we'll never know.

And Allah knows best.

 

[Strzelecki]

So because you're a Muslim now, the virgin birth is valid??

Umm, dude.
I think Woodrow's conversion in itself says he believes that the virgin birth is valid.
In fact I think he said it ealier in this thread.

Keep in mind that as a Muslim I also believe it did occur with Isa(as).

Ahh yep! There it is.

[I'm not saying Woodrow ever did reject the concept of virgin birth before he converted but...]
Even though someone may have rejected the concept of virgin birth in the past does not mean that things cannot change.

 

[abdussattar]

Intresting! science co-incides with so many aspects of quraan!

 

[جوري]

philosopher was indeed a troll.. atheists are all so up in your face about the impossibility of this and the impossibility of that but so colorful when it comes to the origins of life where allegedly no 'mother' or 'father' to get the process going but a lake with some shady ingredients, a cloud, some miasma and a sprinkle of sunshine et voila life in a perpetual fashion, and a very forward direction...

as sick I am of them as I am of the other hateful heathens!

 

[Alpha Dude]

but so colorful when it comes to the origins of life where allegedly no 'mother' or 'father' to get the process going but a lake with some shady ingredients, a cloud, some miasma and a sprinkle of sunshine et voila life in a perpetual fashion, and a very forward direction...

Lol. Hilarious double standard, right?

They'd probably come out and say something like 'well, science is ever evolving and doesn't say it has the answer to everything unlike religion blah blah'. The fact remains, though, that their position is just based on nothing but blind hope.

I reckon most atheists are just insecure about their faith, that's why they are so cynical and troll-like. They also like to feign intellectualness.

 

[atheistbynature]

Lol. Hilarious double standard, right?

It's not double standards at all. 'Virgin birth' amongst humans is observed to be impossible and there is no proof it did ever happen. Abiogenesis is an hypothesis to explain the origin of life, it has not yet been proven. But saying that it is a possible explanation and waiting for more evidence is much more valid than believing something 100% when there's not only no evidence but it's proven impossible by all current observations.

I reckon most atheists are just insecure about their faith, that's why they are so cynical and troll-like. They also like to feign intellectualness.

That's just irrelevant ad hominem attacks.

 

[جوري]

Lol. Hilarious double standard, right?

They'd probably come out and say something like 'well, science is ever evolving and doesn't say it has the answer to everything unlike religion blah blah'. The fact remains, though, that their position is just based on nothing but blind hope.

I reckon most atheists are just insecure about their faith, that's why they are so cynical and troll-like. They also like to feign intellectualness.

agreed ...........
further not only are their own 'theories' not observed, they are equally impossible to replicate or prove, and the saddest part is classifying it under science rather than faith!

 

[Alpha Dude]

'Virgin birth' amongst humans is observed to be impossible and there is no proof it did ever happen.

i. I wasn't referring to virgin birth. Rather atheists in general.
ii. Virgin birth is impossible in the absence of a miracle. Hence why it is regarded as such. No hard to understand, really.

But saying that it is a possible exlanation and waiting for more evidence is much more valid than believing something 100% when there's not only no evidence but it's proven impossible by all current observations.

Failure to understand simple concept. Read up the definition of 'miracle', please.

That's just irrelevant ad hominem attacks.

I disagree. It's more of a 'hypothesis' that explains the behaviour of atheists.

Just that this hypothesis has not been proven conclusively as of yet. Hopefully in future my theory that atheists are insecure, cynical and troll-like will be established firmly.

I mean, surely we don't need to be certain about something before we promote and argue against everything else so vehemently..

 

[Trumble]

Just that this hypothesis has not been proven conclusively as of yet. Hopefully in future my theory that atheists are insecure, cynical and troll-like will be established firmly.

Try not to forget "feign intellectualness", hmm ?...