quicksand Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 Frequently. when defending homosexuality, non-christians (and even many christians) will cite examples of homosexuality in nature from other species, in order to show that homosexuality is not unnatural but a natural, regular occurrence in nature. Similarly, I now have the same proof, from nature, that the Virgin Mary was really a virgin and that it is entirely possible for her to have gotten pregnant. Read Here. So you see if you never mind that this reproduction has never been observed in humans, Mary had parthenogenetically reproduced. (Kind of like Southpark's Cartman.) Of course, this still negates god's divine intervention and probably means that Mary was a Komodo Dragon. But concrete proof at last, if you follow my reasoning above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smellincoffee Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 I posted a similar article at a forum for asexual humans. There's another species of lizard -- the LivesScience article might have mentioned them -- where the males have been evolved out, the remaining female lizards reproduce asexually...but still have the "must have sex!" behavioral programming, so they've turned into a bunch of homosexual lizards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 LiveScience does mention it: Parthenogenesis, in which an unfertilized egg develops to maturity, has been found in 70 species of vertebrates, including captive snakes and a monitor lizard species. In most of these reptile cases, this process is their only method of reproduction. In some whiptail lizards, males have become somewhat of an accessory, and all individuals are female. The type of asexual reproduction in whiptail lizards generates all-female offspring. Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKR Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 Similarly, I now have the same proof, from nature, that the Virgin Mary was really a virgin and that it is entirely possible for her to have gotten pregnant. you really haven't proven it at all. all you've proven is that it's possible for an animal to impregnate themselves. i didn't read the story, but it really doesn't matter. for all we know, mary got knocked up by jo jo and they blamed it on the holy spirit. or maybe she didn't exist at all. i see no reason to try to rationally explain stories in the bible that we have no reason to believe have any truth in them whatsoever. do we need to prove jesus turned water into wine by natural means? or that he healed the blind by natural means? or that moses parted the water through natural means? no. regardless of the claims made in the bible, there is no need to explain how these things COULD have happened naturally, as they probably didn't even happen at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 Similarly, I now have the same proof, from nature, that the Virgin Mary was really a virgin and that it is entirely possible for her to have gotten pregnant. The problem with that argument is that we know that lizard exists. There is no evidence that the biblical Mary ever existed. You could use the same type argument to prove that Joseph was Mary since some species actually change sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 ....regardless of the claims made in the bible, there is no need to explain how these things COULD have happened naturally, as they probably didn't even happen at all. Be careful. People around here get mad at me for making such rational replies to their biblical arguments. It seems they need to spend a lot of time discussing the bible even though they don't believe a word of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Helmet Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 Even if it was possible in humans, if Mary had been able to inpregnated herself the parthogenesis argument is bunk since she could only have produced a female (chromosomes XX) from her chromosomes, not a male (XY) since her DNA does not contain the Y chromosome. Give me a break, or will they argue jesus was actually a girl? Or maybe she evolved the Y chromosome by accident... it's a miracle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 I think it was tongue in cheek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Helmet Posted December 25, 2006 Share Posted December 25, 2006 I know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts