Quote# 36716

The immaculate conception of the historical man, Jesus Christ, has been scientifically shown to be possible!
On the contrary, it is not crap, it is called 'parthenogenesis'

landmark, FFI 59 Comments [3/26/2008 9:07:52 AM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: ixolite

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 3 | bottom

Mattural Selection

[citation needed]

Evidence, or it never happened.

3/26/2008 9:16:49 AM


You are confusing the immaculate conception with the virgin birth of Jesus. They are two different things. Learn your dogma.

3/26/2008 9:17:36 AM


Yes, but...then it's not a miracle...

3/26/2008 9:19:21 AM

Count Zapolai

Not wholly nonsensical- but wouldn't that explain away, not advocate, the spiritual side of it?

i.e. if it occurred it was a scientific fluke, not divine intervention?

3/26/2008 9:19:50 AM


I'm sure there are enough intelligent people on FFI (one) that someone would have smacked this pile of stupid down, so I won't bother here.

I will add that he is implying that Mary was a leasbian.

3/26/2008 9:22:43 AM


"The offspring produced by parthenogenesis almost always are female in species where the XY chromosome system determines gender". Deities apparently have WZ sex chromosomes.

3/26/2008 9:25:17 AM


Yeah - and do you know that parthenogenesis would have made Jesus female?

edit: beaten to the punch by atheistsforjesus

3/26/2008 9:29:54 AM


And jesus appears to be a woman!

3/26/2008 10:00:21 AM


So now parthenogenesis = knocked up by Yahweh? If that's true, your god's been sticking his holy love rod in some very strange places.

3/26/2008 11:32:07 AM


but parthenogenesis does work to explain the immaculate conception of MARY.

3/26/2008 11:37:23 AM


So XX can mutate into a XY? Otherwise, how else you would get Jesus being a guy?!!


You fail at Biology. Please actually pick up a textbook on basic biology.

3/26/2008 11:37:57 AM

Parthenogenesis happens in some types of life. It has been observed very rarely in sharks and birds, but not as far as I can find in mammals and certainly never even once in primates. There are also some animals that are all female and reproduce like this, like the whiptail species Cnemidophorus neomexicanus.

However, let's assume for a moment that it is possible in humans and we just don't know it, and that it was responsible for a virgin birth of Jesus. We then have to conclude that there is a plausible explanation for the virgin birth and, rather than being the divine son of God, Jesus literally had no father. He wasn't divine at all, just a fluke of evolution.

So then, are you sure that is your final answer?


3/26/2008 12:07:09 PM


But Parthenogenesis would produce only FEMALE offspring in mammals, as it would be the division of an OVUM/EGG. I guess that fact really fucks up your fantasy, doesn't it?

3/26/2008 12:14:45 PM

Jezebel's Evil Sister

So, not only was Jesus not a male; "he" wasn't even a mammal! Finally, we now know why so many xians decorate their automobiles with that fishy symbol.

3/26/2008 12:17:02 PM

Mister Spak

Cloning for Jesus!

3/26/2008 12:27:41 PM

Doctor Whom

What onoma said.

3/26/2008 12:28:22 PM

Parthenogenesis is a scientific concept applied to
a)biology, the reproduction of certain species(jellyfishes, some starfishes, etc................). Not mammals, of course
b)as a mythological concept. It happened to Athenea, the goddess you supposedly don't believe.
And finally, Mary had begotten a son thanks to the holy ghost and it was supposed to be a miracle. The inmaculate conception refers to HER, to Mary, who was sinless and conceived so. I guess that you haven't looked in a dictionary for AGES.

3/26/2008 12:30:26 PM


Mary was asexual? Joseph must have loved that. I don't believe she was fully human then, which would make the whole concept of a virgin birth even more off. Plants and some animals reproduce this way; how did a woman manage it 2000 years ago? What was she cross bred with?

Not to mention the fact that this being the reason for the virgin birth would eliminate any and all divinity. Therefore, you ruin your own argument.

Again, it's amazing how you people renounce science until you can dig up something that may support your cause. Unfortunately, science doesn't work that way.

The pieces have to fit into the puzzle. You can't just shuffle to puzzle to make it as you want it to be, jamming pieces in here and there just because you can.

3/26/2008 12:46:38 PM


Here's another cool term "psychotic break" Have your shrink explain it to you.

3/26/2008 1:49:58 PM

Who'd have thought it? Another fundie who has read just enough biology(and Catholic dogma) to make himself like stupid by totally misunderstanding it!

3/26/2008 2:00:35 PM

Mr Smith

On the contrary, it is not crap, it is called 'parthenogenesis'

Was that a word you heard a grown up use?

3/26/2008 2:03:55 PM


Here's an example of parthnogenesis:


It doesn't look quite like Jesus.

3/26/2008 2:14:42 PM

Septic Sceptic

So Jesus was born through this method, but went around claiming to be male?

Jesus Christ: First transman in history.

Poor guy. No reassignment surgery back then. :-(

3/26/2008 2:22:37 PM


I thought something like this was possible, but it always resulted in a female.


From Wiki:
"It is highly doubtful that artificial human parthenogenesis would be used to reproduce humans, due to technical (see imprinting below) concerns. Use of an electrical or chemical stimulus can produce the beginning of the process of parthenogenesis in the asexual development of viable offspring." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis

Oh nevermind.

3/26/2008 2:41:12 PM


I too have heard this .. on the history channel no less.

Apparently it would require Mary to be not only a mutant but a man or at least a hermaphrodite (since Jesus was supposed to be a man, Mary would have had to supply the Y chromosome) and a species of lizard (being the only vertebrates known to have ever reproduced this way.. though they are all females)

Needless to say, I watch that channel less now.

3/26/2008 2:49:32 PM

1 2 3 | top: comments page