Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Virgin births in animals are no longer rare

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 126 posts

Re: Virgin births in animals are no longer rare

#41

Post by baddox »

duaneb wrote: post #35
SilasX wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not surprising. The German word for virgin is ... youngwoman (Jungfrau).

There's quite a bit of evidence that virginity only became a "thing" after lines traced paternally—i.e. a mother is pretty damn sure a kid is hers, but the father wants stronger guarantees because even in appearance there's a lot of room for cuckolding. So, given that some early germanic culture was matrilineal (e.g. the Suebi, attested by IIRC Suetonius), it's ALSO not surprising that the word for "virgin" is actual…

I would have expected that to be a "thing" long before humans were writing books. Given that males provided protection and resources during child rearing, I suspect there would have been strong selective pressure for males that tried to ensure that the children they supported were their own.

Re: Virgin births in animals are no longer rare

#42

Post by nocman »

functional_test wrote: post #31
nocman wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Lunatic and Legend are far far far more likely options, which require no appeal to supernatural claims." I respectfully disagree. I believe that Jesus is exactly who He said he was -- the Great I Am -- God in the flesh. I have staked my life and all of eternity on Him, and I am fully confident of who He is, and of His faithfulness to His promise to me, that all who believe in Him freely receive eternal life.

Based on what? This is a genuine question, not snark. Serious claims like this require equally serious evidence (and if you have some, I'm quite interested).

Based on what God has revealed. I am convinced by the scriptures (the Bible) which includes eyewitness testimony of the things Jesus said and did.

If anyone is genuinely interested, I would suggest you read the gospel of John, and decide for yourself if you believe what it says.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201%20&ver...

Re: Virgin births in animals are no longer rare

#43

Post by nocman »

xerophyte12932 wrote: post #36
functional_test wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on what? This is a genuine question, not snark. Serious claims like this require equally serious evidence (and if you have some, I'm quite interested).

I do not share his Faith, but I understand his views to be a Leap of Faith. While science is nice and all but as humans taking such leaps and trusting other people despite evidence to the contrary, is every day business, is it not? Of course it is rather hard to believe that such a vast majority of people take such Leaps on not just ONE person, but a whole chain of people spanning over 2000 years!! But he must have h…

No.

My views are not based on any "leap of faith". A "leap of faith" implies that a person is believing in the absence of any evidence -- and that is by no means true of me.

Eyewitness testimony is used every day in courts of law. It is one of the most common forms of evidence used to determine the truth about things that happened in the past. I am convinced that the New Testament contains multiple eyewitness accounts of Jesus, the things He said, and the things He did.

My faith in Him is based on those accounts. I believe it is God who made sure those accounts were recorded. I was convinced by the evidence given in those accounts. I understand that there are many who have either never read the accounts, or read them and were not convinced by them to believe in Jesus.

Again, to anyone who is interested in knowing what Jesus said and did, I would invite you to draw your own conclusions after reading the book of John: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201%20&ver...

Re: Virgin births in animals are no longer rare

#44

Post by nocman »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #34
nocman wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Lunatic and Legend are far far far more likely options, which require no appeal to supernatural claims." I respectfully disagree. I believe that Jesus is exactly who He said he was -- the Great I Am -- God in the flesh. I have staked my life and all of eternity on Him, and I am fully confident of who He is, and of His faithfulness to His promise to me, that all who believe in Him freely receive eternal life.

Disagree all you like. You are still, most likely, wrong.

And similarly, with all due respect to you, I am convinced that you are definitely wrong.

(I'm not being snarky, here. The "with all due respect" phrase in entirely sincere).

Re: Virgin births in animals are no longer rare

#45

Post by mithrilskeleton »

nocman wrote: post #42
functional_test wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on what? This is a genuine question, not snark. Serious claims like this require equally serious evidence (and if you have some, I'm quite interested).

Based on what God has revealed. I am convinced by the scriptures (the Bible) which includes eyewitness testimony of the things Jesus said and did. If anyone is genuinely interested, I would suggest you read the gospel of John, and decide for yourself if you believe what it says. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201%20&ver...

Why do you believe the Christian Bible is the Word of God when other texts(The Quran, etc) similarly purport to be the One Truth? These other texts also include "eyewitness testimony."

Re: Virgin births in animals are no longer rare

#46

Post by xivzgrev »

ebiester wrote: post #13
fnayr wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His main argument was actually the Lord Liar Lunatic one, where you need to prescribe one of those descriptions to him (He argues).

That argument came from C.S. Lewis, and the primary counter I know is that it assumes "lunatic" is a binary condition -- someone is either delusional or not. We, today, know that this isn't the case. There are people who have truly bizarre beliefs that don't otherwise hinder logical functioning.

Then wouldn't that person be a liar?

All and all Jesus said he was the Lord. So I think it is actually rather tight - he was correct, he was incorrect and aware of it (liar), or he was incorrect and not aware of it (lunatic).

Re: Virgin births in animals are no longer rare

#47

Post by apta »

mithrilskeleton wrote: post #45
nocman wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on what God has revealed. I am convinced by the scriptures (the Bible) which includes eyewitness testimony of the things Jesus said and did. If anyone is genuinely interested, I would suggest you read the gospel of John, and decide for yourself if you believe what it says. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201%20&ver...

Why do you believe the Christian Bible is the Word of God when other texts(The Quran, etc) similarly purport to be the One Truth? These other texts also include "eyewitness testimony."

FWIW, the Quran does not include eyewitness testimony in the sense you are speaking of. It is taken literally as the word of God. Although some parts in it ascribe certain quotes to certain people (e.g. Jesus said so and so, Mary said so and so, etc.), but the witness here is God Himself.

Re: Virgin births in animals are no longer rare

#48

Post by apta »

nocman wrote: post #42
functional_test wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on what? This is a genuine question, not snark. Serious claims like this require equally serious evidence (and if you have some, I'm quite interested).

Based on what God has revealed. I am convinced by the scriptures (the Bible) which includes eyewitness testimony of the things Jesus said and did. If anyone is genuinely interested, I would suggest you read the gospel of John, and decide for yourself if you believe what it says. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201%20&ver...

Genuinely curious, how do you put so much acceptance into the Bible, when all four books (John, Matthew, Luke, and Mark) have anonymous authors?

Re: Virgin births in animals are no longer rare

#49

Post by mithrilskeleton »

apta wrote: post #47
mithrilskeleton wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you believe the Christian Bible is the Word of God when other texts(The Quran, etc) similarly purport to be the One Truth? These other texts also include "eyewitness testimony."

FWIW, the Quran does not include eyewitness testimony in the sense you are speaking of. It is taken literally as the word of God. Although some parts in it ascribe certain quotes to certain people (e.g. Jesus said so and so, Mary said so and so, etc.), but the witness here is God Himself.

Regardless, eyewitness testimony is not reliable[0]. Many people have claimed to seen UFO's, Aliens, and crimes that people did not commit.

0. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-i...

Re: Virgin births in animals are no longer rare

#50

Post by xivzgrev »

xerophyte12932 wrote: post #36
functional_test wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on what? This is a genuine question, not snark. Serious claims like this require equally serious evidence (and if you have some, I'm quite interested).

I do not share his Faith, but I understand his views to be a Leap of Faith. While science is nice and all but as humans taking such leaps and trusting other people despite evidence to the contrary, is every day business, is it not? Of course it is rather hard to believe that such a vast majority of people take such Leaps on not just ONE person, but a whole chain of people spanning over 2000 years!! But he must have h…

Also just to follow up on nocman, you can read "who moved the stone", where the biblical account of final hours of christs life is examined in context of what we know about the time period...does it read more like someone writing an emotional story or someone trying to relate something that actually happened?
Post reply on HN