61–70 of 104 posts
Many would argue this already occurred with Jesus, born from the virgin Mary.
Most Christians believe that that was not some biological process, but a true miracle where God himself bestowed this child on Mary. It would be technically correct that this was parthenogenesis, but it is a completely different... mechanism. Most non-Christians, even if they believe Jesus was a true historical figure, do not believe that his mother was a virgin.
Do you have any sort of statistics to back this up? A survey of some kind? From my own experience, most people who are Christian subscribe to the lifestyle and teachings, but do not accept 100% of the bible as truth.
Algolia shows the original submission date, at least for now:
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastMonth&page=0&prefix=fa...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most Christians believe that that was not some biological process, but a true miracle where God himself bestowed this child on Mary. It would be technically correct that this was parthenogenesis, but it is a completely different... mechanism. Most non-Christians, even if they believe Jesus was a true historical figure, do not believe that his mother was a virgin.
> Most Christians believe that Do you have any sort of statistics to back this up? A survey of some kind? From my own experience, most people who are Christian subscribe to the lifestyle and teachings, but do not accept 100% of the bible as truth.
[EDIT] It's part of the Nicene Creed, even. I think it's fair to say that if most church-goers at most Christian churches told a priest or pastor that they didn't believe that God miracle'd a baby into the Virgin Mary, it would, at the very least, give the priest or pastor a frowny face and/or evoke a "wait... what exactly do you think we're up to, here?" reaction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most Christians believe that that was not some biological process, but a true miracle where God himself bestowed this child on Mary. It would be technically correct that this was parthenogenesis, but it is a completely different... mechanism. Most non-Christians, even if they believe Jesus was a true historical figure, do not believe that his mother was a virgin.
this is complicated, nuanced and not literal; it is a typical thing for critics to latch on to, so let's be wise-cautious with the exposition here at YNews, please
One would think that YNews would be the most appropriate place for questioning blind faith in absurd claims.
There's a perfectly logical, very probable, quite natural explanation, but the "researchers" claiming that their impossible, ridiculous, unfounded explanation can't possibly be wrong because..."muh politics"
Is condor parthenogenesis a major political issue in the United States?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most Christians believe that that was not some biological process, but a true miracle where God himself bestowed this child on Mary. It would be technically correct that this was parthenogenesis, but it is a completely different... mechanism. Most non-Christians, even if they believe Jesus was a true historical figure, do not believe that his mother was a virgin.
> Most Christians believe that Do you have any sort of statistics to back this up? A survey of some kind? From my own experience, most people who are Christian subscribe to the lifestyle and teachings, but do not accept 100% of the bible as truth.
Condors. Condors are on the verge of extinction. If I was to create a flock of condors on this island, you wouldn't have anything to say. Also: > However, in a surprising twist, they found that neither bird was genetically related to a male—meaning both chicks were biologically fatherless; and accounted for the first two instances of asexual reproduction, or parthenogenesis, to be confirmed in the California condor s…
Apologies for the low-effort comment, but this really freaks me out. I had no idea birds could reproduce asexually! That's crazy! Feels like an unanswerable question, but: could we ever see something like this in mammals? A virgin birth, for lack of a better phrase?
According to wikipedia, it does occasionally happen that a human egg cell undergoes parthenogenesis and starts developing, but as far as has been recorded, the fetus is never viable and is usually regarded as a type of tumor called a teratoma; occasionally, this does lead to some fetus-like shape of the tumor, in which case it is known as a fetiform teratoma. Interestingly, there are a handful of cases of functioning…
Caution when clicking, the article also contains some photos of the teratoma, which are slightly disturbing!
https://meridian.allenpress.com/aplm/article/130/10/1552/459...