if there are miracles, they are part of nature. god, if he exists, is part of nature. in fact, god's existence would be the most important scientific fact. i don't think you should put "regular genetics" in one bucket and "the DNA of jesus" in another bucket.

you don't think a geneticist would love to take a peek at jesus and mary's DNA? you don't think collins would be hoping that jesus' DNA would be so remarkable and unusual that it renders the entire field of genetics completely void?

scientists would love to study god and miracles but there's nothing there for them to study. if god exists, scientists are utterly blind to the way the world actually works.

it's not natural laws and then god's interventions. the interventions would be part of natural law.

of course, if scientists did get to examine jesus' DNA, it would look just like normal DNA, and religious folks would say that god set it up that way. he is mysterious after all.

Nobody has yet asked an obvious question: where did Yeshua get his Y-chromosome from? Miryam had 46 chromosomes with just two X-chromosomes ( okay, essentially the Y- came from "YHWH", the "Father"! ). Was that the only difference between Miryam's and Yeshua's DNA? ( I would think only half of Yeshua's chromosomes came from Miryam. ) That Eve came from Adam seems less of an accomplishment ( and perhaps some Muslim can elaborate on the Quran 21:91 ).

how could this thread be anything but empty speculation? We don't even have reason to believe the miracles attributed to jesus happened, let alone HOW they happened. Take, say, walking on water. This is physically not possible, as we understand it, so something somewhere had rules of physics suspended. Was it gravity? EM? Was it some super special DNA that magically allowed this? Who knows. But I don't think there is anything meaningful to be said about it

In logic, this is known as a contradiction.

Yes, if you use the commonly accepted definition of a miracle which is:

act of God: an event that appears to be contrary to the laws of nature and is regarded as an act of God

Harrumph! Splendour (accurately) correcting NotReady. What is this world coming to?

the common definition of miracle seems incoherent to me.

if we think a rule governs a certain aspect of our world, and the truth is that the rule usually governs the aspect of our world, but sometimes doesn't, then our rule is not true and is not a rule.

the goal of science is to understand our world. if god intervenes in our world, then he and his interventions are part of our world.

if jesus didn't have a dad, our doctors do not fully understand human reproduction. we can't say that we understand it, except for when someone is born to a virgin. the "except for..." must become part of the understanding.

if it turns out that god can change the laws of nature at will, that fact automatically becomes the most important law of nature. it wouldn't be some obscure exception to the rule. it would become the most important rule.

a32: What correction?
augie: You're just denying miracle. Fine. If it wasn't miraculous then he had the DNA of his parents. If it was miraculous, then we don't know. In either case, I wasn't saying anything about genetics in general.

I think bodies are like bio organic computer suits designed "in heaven's lab", and then souls are placed into them.

So.....I'd imagine some angel just somehow hooked Marry up with the necessary ingredients to make a body, then the Arch Angel Michael gets placed into that body just as we are, after the body is born.

My money's on yes. Additional dna was needed to complete the suit. (fwiw, probably not much)

Obviously, whoever knocked her up in that sexytime incident she subsequently pretended didn't happen.

Was more of a clarification on something which could of been erroneous if an appropriate definition wasn't used.

I try to give Splendour points anytime I can; I agree with her so rarely.

You're not really familiar with how DNA works, are you?

The point I'm trying to make is that there is nothing especially special about his body imo. (all the awesomeness is in the soul part)

Some angel had to complete that egg or whatev with the necessary ingredients for that body to grow.

But yea, I don't think I'm going to be working for Pfizer anytime soon .

Like...idk, when Jesus healed the guy born blind from birth (born without eyes?), he took some dirt and spit in it, then rubbed that into dudes eyes.

It's like He was crafting eyeballs or the necessary components that the guy was lacking.

It's like...the story was made up (or exaggerated).

I feel this is different. I wouldn't have posted the question otherwise, because I know you can end any conversational inquiry with the simple claim of *magic* and be done with it.

Most miracles require the suspension of natural laws and could be done by most good magicians (the appearance of walking on water, turning water into wine, etc.). If Jesus is missing a father's DNA (or has no DNA at all), it means he lived his entire time on earth as a walking, talking, breathing accumulation of cells made up of what? This suggests that he just as easily been made up of any material (such as molten lave) and the molecules were just continually transforming into human flesh and organs (ala a Terminator movie).

This is what I didn't like about their answer. Even religious people should reach a point where magic doesn't suffice as an acceptable answer. I don't mind them saying, "I don't know", but then they should also say "I don't know" about the virgin birth claim.