F
fin
Guest
Like I said, I have not watched the video clip. I do not know if it is accurate.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A
AlbertDerGrosse
Guest
Maybe you should stop passing things off as credible before you even read/watch it yourself, let along fact check it.
F
Frend
Guest
Well, from this we can assume that Mary either had “A negative” or “B negative” blood type and that God supplied the rest.
This is a really good article I suggest everyone reads.
Last edited:
F
fin
Guest
Well did you watch it yourself? Before you accuse me, maybe you should have viewed it to know if it is credible. You area already writing off what you haven’t even seen.
Last edited:
U
undead_rat
Guest
A
AlbertDerGrosse
Guest
Yeah, I did.
First thing that seemed off is that the occupation of the person speaking is listed as “archaeologist”. Archaeologists are not biologists so I was confused why this guy is given any credibility at all in terms of a question about DNA. I then googled his name: Ron Wyatt. Lo and behold he’s not even an archaeologist! He’s a nurse anesthetist who became an armchair quarterback of an “archaeologist” chasing whatever pseudoscience is currently popular among Evangelical Christians. The guy is a charlatan.
Couple that with the fact that the video immediately starts talking about a sample of “dead blood” without any reference to how this blood was obtained and why it’s reasonable to assume that it belonged to a very specific Jew from 1st century Palestine and you begin to see that this has about as much scientific credibility as Indiana Jones. I won’t even begin to start dissecting his erroneous biological assumptions like “you can see whole chromosomes but not DNA” and then goes on to say that all of the autosomal chromosomes were identical to their sister chromosomes, something you wouldn’t be able to tell without actually… sequencing the DNA!
This is a joke, and you look incredibly foolish posting it. Even more so when you admit that you yourself didn’t even watch it before passing it off!
First thing that seemed off is that the occupation of the person speaking is listed as “archaeologist”. Archaeologists are not biologists so I was confused why this guy is given any credibility at all in terms of a question about DNA. I then googled his name: Ron Wyatt. Lo and behold he’s not even an archaeologist! He’s a nurse anesthetist who became an armchair quarterback of an “archaeologist” chasing whatever pseudoscience is currently popular among Evangelical Christians. The guy is a charlatan.
Couple that with the fact that the video immediately starts talking about a sample of “dead blood” without any reference to how this blood was obtained and why it’s reasonable to assume that it belonged to a very specific Jew from 1st century Palestine and you begin to see that this has about as much scientific credibility as Indiana Jones. I won’t even begin to start dissecting his erroneous biological assumptions like “you can see whole chromosomes but not DNA” and then goes on to say that all of the autosomal chromosomes were identical to their sister chromosomes, something you wouldn’t be able to tell without actually… sequencing the DNA!
This is a joke, and you look incredibly foolish posting it. Even more so when you admit that you yourself didn’t even watch it before passing it off!
A
AlbertDerGrosse
Guest
It’s a dogma of the Faith that Jesus’ entire humanity came from Mary since God the Father is utterly incorporeal. This doesn’t necessarily deny the possibility of divine intervention in his heredity, especially when we consider that his sex determination must’ve come from somewhere outside of Mary (assuming she was a 46-XX female). That Y chromosome couldn’t have come from her unless something even more miraculous happened: she had a Y chromosome herself that was totally silenced in every single cell of her body. If we’re allowing for miracles such as virgin births why not allow for further miracles? Rather than a truly parthenogenic birth (where the child is essentially a clone of the mother) God could’ve stepped in and shuffled up the autosomal DNA in the developing Jesus Fetus making it appear as if he had a human paternal influence in his DNA. If he’s providing a non-hereditary Y chromosome why not a whole set of non-hereditary autosomal chromosomes?
In other words: we have no idea. The possibilities are endless once we invoke a miraculous conception.
In other words: we have no idea. The possibilities are endless once we invoke a miraculous conception.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.