REF: virgin birth, what about Cloning ?
-
All I can quote is
9614 Does he not know that Allah sees to it that His Laws are enforced without exception?
3543 Their arrogance in the land and their evil schemes! Yet an evil scheme engulfs its designers. Are they waiting for anything but the way the ancients were dealt with? Yes! No change you will ever find in the Laws of Allah, and no deviation you will ever find in the Laws of Allah.
-
but max, according to "them," the word "Laws" in that verse doesn't mean "laws of the universe" it means other laws that God might want to create. whatever they may be. But they don't actually believe that, which explains the creation of this thread, which is all about proving that virgin birth doesn't break any laws. Well, it does break a lot of laws. And the quran says that god's laws cannot be broken. Which means that either the quran has a contradiccion, or their interpretation of baby Jesus' story is wrong.
I did read your post. What about it?
ok ok, I got it. So it is absolutely not possible. at all. got it.
-
No deviation... no change... this not only applies to the law itself, but is a promise from God that he will not intervene "unnaturally" He has his means/laws/mechanism by which he governs the universe. Not by arbitrary "thunderbolts".
20116 Recall when We said to the angels, ?Bow before Adam, they bowed except Iblis; he refused.? (Divine Laws in the Universe have been made of service to man but his selfish desire rebels against himself).
but max, according to "them," the word "Laws" in that verse doesn't mean "laws of the universe" it means other laws that God might want to create. whatever they may be. But they don't actually believe that, which explains the creation of this thread, which is all about proving that virgin birth doesn't break any laws. Well, it does break a lot of laws. And the quran says that god's laws cannot be broken. Which means that either the quran has a contradiccion, or their interpretation of baby Jesus' story is wrong.
I did read your post. What about it?
ok ok, I got it. So it is absolutely not possible. at all. got it.
-
Peace maxq, all,
Nice posts!
Unless you want to claim that Jesus was a woman, please stop asserting parthenogenesis as a means of his birth!
That's the problem(unanswered)...the means of his birth. It would be much simpler, and really end the debate, if people would just admit that what they believe is that God created Isa by sheer will, having nothing to do with science. If one wants to believe that God said "be" and Marium became instantly pregnant, there's really not much to argue. But to bring cloning/genetics into the picture while trying to maintain this (dare I say) supernatural event does nothing to draw the argument to a close. How did it happen? Perhaps Marium was flown to the skylab where her DNA was extracted and the cloning procedure began. Or maybe everyone in her lineage was carrying the dormant Isa-clone-DNA that coincidentally came to life when her womb was primed and ready. Or some unknown secret of nature that we'll come to understand in 1000 years. All explanation is conjecture at this point and that's why it's being left alone, so as not to weaken the stance of those calling others out on conjecture.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace all,
9614 Does he not know that Allah sees to it that His Laws are enforced without exception?
This is a mistranslation of this verse. The actual arabic does not say this. The literal translation of this verse is as follows
9614 Does he not know with that God sees/understands?
Maxq, stop inventing lies against God and have some fear of God.
No deviation... no change... this not only applies to the law itself, but is a promise from God that he will not intervene "unnaturally" He has his means/laws/mechanism by which he governs the universe. Not by arbitrary "thunderbolts".
The verse 3543 does not refer to ALL natural laws but only to the never changing law of God giving respite to evil for sometimes and then destroying it, which is clear from the verse and the context. Also, the word "kullu" is nowhere to be found in this verse so how did God's sunnat/way become ALL ways ? Good try maxq but this conjectural misinterpretation won't fly
By the way, maxq's statements about parthenogenesis, cloning and genetics show that he is also not educated about this subject, and he should get his facts straight before making inaccurate statements and then misleading others. It also shows that he has not read all my posts in which I have given examples of various possibilities ad nauseum and also explained about XY females.
I gave the exampe of cloning and parthenogenesis to disprove Arnold's assertions that virgin birth in general is impossible (due to his misinterpretation of 4913), and that pairs result only from sperms (due to his misinterpretation of "nutfatin" in 5345-46) and not to show that it exactly explains Jesus's birth (Tay, please note, cuz you have failed to note this in my past posts). That, however, is still possible by the cloning of an XY male out of an XY female, for example, Swyer's syndrome, by first repairing the SRY mutation in a certain somatic cell and then cloning it. That is not exactly how Jesus was created, but it just shows that it is humanly possible. It is impossible for humans to replicate the superior "be" technology of God
Parthenogenesis is virgin birth because offsprings are produced from a single parent without fertilization from a sperm. Parthenogenesis itself is derived from greek words meaning virgin birth. There are some species which are capable of BOTH sexual reproduction and parthenogenesis (e.g. honey bees, ants, komodo dragons)
Parthenogenesis is not an EXACT replication of DNA (male drones arising from unfertilized eggs of honey bees, and also other examples of off springs being different from the parent). Even cloning is not EXACT replication of DNA because of mitochondrial origin of some DNA from the recipient cell's mitochondria
"Dolly or any other animal created using nuclear transfer technology is not truly an identical clone of the donor animal. Only the clone's chromosomal or nuclear DNA is the same as the donor. Some of the clone's genetic materials come from the mitochondria in the cytoplasm of the enucleated egg. Mitochondria, which are organelles that serve as power sources to the cell, contain their own short segments of DNA. Acquired mutations in mitochondrial DNA are believed to play an important role in the aging process."
Above from
http//www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml
Also see
http//www.nature.com/ng/journal/v23/n1/full/ng0999_90.html
Also Parthenogenesis does not always result in females (honey bees, komodo dragons etc.)
Reference
http//maarec.cas.psu.edu/bkCD/HBBiology/breeding_genetics.htm
Peace
-
Peace maxq, you said ?No deviation... no change... this not only applies to the law itself, but is a promise from God that he will not intervene "unnaturally" He has his means/laws/mechanism by which he governs the universe. Not by arbitrary "thunderbolts".?
You need to tell us what the ?means/laws/mechanism? are before discussing the no deviation/no change to it. Have you a unified model that works in this situation? How did you come to this model and who validated the model? Have you observed all the laws/phenomenon of nature? Does your model lead to the truth about reality?
In order to have meaningful debate one must established these facts first. Please provide these facts and then we will either disprove your model or accept it. Thank you.
-
You need to tell us what the means/laws/mechanism are before discussing the no deviation/no change to it. Have you a unified model that works in this situation? How did you come to this model and who validated the model? Have you observed all the laws/phenomenon of nature? Does your model lead to the truth about reality?
It's a focused way of looking at it and might spawn more food for thought.
-
Peace Tanveer,
...not to show that it exactly explains Jesus's birth
Duly noted...which begs the question, if cloning does not explain Isa's birth, isn't this thread a waste of time? No offense bro. By now I hope you can see that I do respect you and your knowledge on the subject. But I'm a bottom-line kind of person and if the bottom line is still clouded in mystery, then all this scientific debate is fruitless.
If Isa's virgin-birth cannot be explained by science, then it must be considered unscientific and/or supernatural.
This is what I've been trying to convey all along. There's nothing wrong with this view. It is what it is.Peace,
Tay -
Also
Parthenogenesis does not always result in females (honey bees, komodo dragons etc.)Dear Tanveer,
The offspring of parthenogenesis will be all female if two like chromosomes determine the female sex (such as systems where XX is female and XY is male), but male if the female sex is determined by unlike chromosomes (such as systems where WZ is female and ZZ is male)
We are talking about XY for male and XX for female humans... this is the genome/design of the human and if you suggest anything else, that is NOT human. Please have some fear of God yourself. Respect his design...
-
Duly noted...which begs the question, if cloning does not explain Isa's birth, isn't this thread a waste of time? No offense bro. By now I hope you can see that I do respect you and your knowledge on the subject. But I'm a bottom-line kind of person and if the bottom line is still clouded in mystery, then all this scientific debate is fruitless.
Splendid reply Tay. I completely agree. -
Yes, and everyone CAN'T understand Al-Quran.(1746)
OK, then it is useless. That's just common sense, isn't it?
Only useless? Or useless horse shit?
Al-Quran is indeed impossible to understand for those who don't believe in the hereafter(1746). And you don't believe in the hereafter because it would be blind belief(according to you), right? So it is useless for you. And from now on, you will regard Al-Quran as horse s***, right? Or you already do?
wait...is it impossible to understand for everyone? or just people like me?
Only for people like you. You regard it as horse shit. I don't.
Yes, there really is no way around it now. Everyone cannot understand Al-Quran(1746). So, in a forum that has been created for the study and understanding of Al-Quran, you will regard it as useless horse s***. Right?
why the heck do we even have a forum for understanding the quran if we cannot understand it!!?
YOU can't understand it. So why are you even on the forum?!! To tell the forum members that the book they are studying is useless horse shit?!!
why do you even read the quran if you cannot understand it?
Why can't I understand it?