Doc's bishopric Sunday School (Noun or adjective? One word or two?)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 4.22 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-11-2013, 12:16 PM
RE: DOC'S FULLY AUTOMATIC SUNDAY SCHOOL-an affiliate of the National Religion Association
(23-11-2013 12:00 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(23-11-2013 11:56 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Bucky, (mumbling again and talking, generally being disruptive, and throwing spit balls in class) ....

The notion of "divine" in NO way equates with "equivalent with Yahweh" status. What does the Witch of Endor say when asked to describe the "shade" of Saul which she, (illegally) conjures ? "I see a divine being ...etc etc". So solly to make it all so fucking complicated. More mumbling. For centuries the "filioque" and "fully human, fully divine" argument went on. Clearly they were cooking up shit, and retroactively trying to justify it. The idea of the human nature being possible was based in the pre-scientific age, when the sperm was thought to contain ALL the information for the baby, and the woman's role simply to provide the "fertile ground" for the complete information paackage to germinate, and grow, (even though there were elements of "co-mingling" (of blood), which were thought to result in some traits in the baby.

The "sperm race" is not "won" by the first one getting to the oocyte. The acrosome of the first sperm cell injects enzymes which prepare the egg surface to accept one sperm, later. Sperm, on the way to the uterus undergo "capacitation". When a few HUNDRED reach the egg, their acrosomes release penetration enzymes, (hyaluronidase and acrosin, among others), that can penetrate the granulosa cells and zona pedicula, surrounding the oocyte. Only AFTER the path has been cleared by the first spermies to get there, is one allowed to bind to the zona pedicula. Then only the sperm head and midpeace enter, and the egg destroys the sperm mitochondria, (and only the maternal one is passed on). Frequently this process results in polyspermy, (the triploid state), ("intelligently designed, doncha know), and the egg self-destructs. There are exquisite chemical systems to prevent this, (Calcium exchange) but Bucky is busy looking out the window, at .... um, never mind, ... so this can be discussed in a further Birds And Bees Sunday School.

*Raises his hand*

"Hey if we got to listen to Bucky and his scientific mumbo-jumbo I say we give equal time to the Stork Theory. It is a far better explanation and one rooted in tradition. I mean if we are gonna read Genesis we might as well do this."

*Waving hand wildly at the back of the class*

"Yeah, and changelings, ya gotta explain changelings."

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
23-11-2013, 02:57 PM
RE: DOC'S FULLY AUTOMATIC SUNDAY SCHOOL-an affiliate of the National Religion Association
(22-11-2013 01:51 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  Chas, waving hand frantically from the back of the class: Or it could, like, y'know, all be bollocks. Sir.

Doc (unsure): Yes! It could all be bollocks! Marvelous, too in my opinion.

cjlr: If God just magicked up the Divine Sperm and shot it in, couldn't He have magicked up the Divine Egg to go with it?

Doc: Oh, no, no, no! Jesus had to come from David's line to fulfill the prophecy in Jer. 23:5. Both Matthew and Luke went to extraordinary lengths to prove that both Joseph and Mary came from David's line.

Oh. But sir!

We know that Joseph's descent cannot possibly have any bearing on Jesus's genome, because he was completely biologically unconnected to Jesus.

Why then should we suppose nominal descent through Mary to mean anything more than descent through Joseph did (ie nothing)?

Also, I tried to memorize the geneologies Matthew and Luke give us, but I can never keep it straight, since they give us lists of different numbers of different names in different orders. How do you keep it straight, teach?

(22-11-2013 01:51 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  cjlr: Assuming, then, that there was a divine spermatozoon with a 22 + XY configuration that fertilized Mary's 22 + XX ovum to create a 44 + XY male embryo (the future Jesus), then at what point did the embryo become divine? We know that Mary's ovum was not divine; therefore, it had to be the spermatozoon that contained the divine spark. If so, how did the divine spermatozoon differ from normal human sperm? If it was the genetic configuration of that particular spermatozoon that made it divine, then surely we can reproduce that specific combination in the laboratory (at least in principle). If it wasn't the genetic makeup, then what was it? There's not much else in a spermatozoon that divinity can rest in.

If the divinity was conferred upon the embryo after fertilization, this implies that Jesus's humanity and divinity were separate entities (a form of heresy known as Nestorianism), with one imposed upon the other, which conflicts with the orthodox teaching that Jesus was fully and simultaneously man and God, the so-called hypostatic union.

Doc: D'oh!

Sometimes the questions I ask impress even me!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2013, 03:21 PM
RE: DOC'S FULLY AUTOMATIC SUNDAY SCHOOL-an affiliate of the National Religion Association
Ding ding ding.
Time for lunch at DOC's Sunday School.
On the menu today : hypostatic onions.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
23-11-2013, 03:59 PM
RE: COD'S SEMI-AQUATIC SUNDAY SCHOOL (IMMERSED IN GOD'S WORD)
(23-11-2013 02:57 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Oh. But sir!

We know that Joseph's descent cannot possibly have any bearing on Jesus's genome, because he was completely biologically unconnected to Jesus.

Why then should we suppose nominal descent through Mary to mean anything more than descent through Joseph did (ie nothing)?

Also, I tried to memorize the genealogies Matthew and Luke give us, but I can never keep it straight, since they give us lists of different numbers of different names in different orders. How do you keep it straight, teach?


Doc: Christian scholars say that Matthew traced Jesus' descent from David through Joseph, while Luke did so through Mary. The descent through Mary gave him a biological claim to the throne while being the so-called son of Joseph gave him a legal claim.

cjlr: I see, is there any documentation to support your stance? Both gospel writers claim that their genealogy is strictly Joseph's.

Doc: Uh, no...

cjlr: And look at the differences between the two lists! Matthew has 42 names in his list while Luke has 77! For your convenience, I prepared a list:


.docx  Gen.docx (Size: 20.91 KB / Downloads: 40)

Doc: Can I get back to you on this?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like docskeptic's post
24-11-2013, 02:51 PM
RE: COD'S SEMI-AQUATIC SUNDAY SCHOOL (IMMERSED IN GOD'S WORD)
(23-11-2013 11:56 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The "sperm race" is not "won" by the first one to reach the ovum. When a few HUNDRED reach the egg, their acrosomes release penetration enzymes, (hyaluronidase and acrosin, among others), that can penetrate the granulosa cells and zona pedicula, surrounding the oocyte. Only AFTER the path has been cleared by the first spermies to get there, is one allowed to bind to the zona pediculai

Doc: Bucky, you go wash your mouth out with soap. Such talk! Besides, we must consider, did God simply create the sperm as a stand-alone product? If the latter, was it just a single spermatozoon or a packet of sperm that was created (presumably directly within Mary's uterine cavity or her fallopian tubes)? A packet of sperm would imply that there could have been alternate Christs (each with a distinct genetic makeup), which does not bear thinking about. It would have to be a single spermatozoon then.

Bucky: Even so, consider this: A normal human spermatozoon has a head covered with an acrosomal cap and a tail that wriggles furiously to propel the cell towards its goal. Its DNA content lies within the head and is highly condensed. Mitochondria, which provide the cell with energy but which also contain extranuclear segments of DNA called mitochondrial DNA, are also present

Doc: So?

Bucky: An interesting fact about mitochondrial DNA is that it is maternal in origin, with rare (usually pathologic) exceptions. Although sperm cells do contain mitochondrial DNA, it is degraded, recycled, and incorporated into the DNA of the developing embryo, ensuring that only maternal mitochondrial DNA is passed on. Mitochondria were no doubt present in the divine sperm cell, providing energy to the cell.

The question then becomes, what was the source of the divine sperm's mitochondrial DNA? Remember, all mitochondrial DNA is maternal in origin. If created de novo, what gene sequences were inserted into the mitochondria DNA and how were they chosen? What purpose did they serve if they simply disintegrated after fertilization? If there was no mitochondrial DNA, then there must not have been mitochondria, in which case what powered the divine spermatozoon?

Doc: Oooh! Look over there!

Bucky: What? Where? I don't see anyth....hey! Where'd he go?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes docskeptic's post
24-11-2013, 04:04 PM
RE: COD'S SEMI-AQUATIC SUNDAY SCHOOL (IMMERSED IN GOD'S WORD)
(24-11-2013 02:51 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  
(23-11-2013 11:56 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The "sperm race" is not "won" by the first one to reach the ovum. When a few HUNDRED reach the egg, their acrosomes release penetration enzymes, (hyaluronidase and acrosin, among others), that can penetrate the granulosa cells and zona pedicula, surrounding the oocyte. Only AFTER the path has been cleared by the first spermies to get there, is one allowed to bind to the zona pediculai

Doc: Bucky, you go wash your mouth out with soap. Such talk! Besides, we must consider, did God simply create the sperm as a stand-alone product? If the latter, was it just a single spermatozoon or a packet of sperm that was created (presumably directly within Mary's uterine cavity or her fallopian tubes)? A packet of sperm would imply that there could have been alternate Christs (each with a distinct genetic makeup), which does not bear thinking about. It would have to be a single spermatozoon then.

Bucky: Even so, consider this: A normal human spermatozoon has a head covered with an acrosomal cap and a tail that wriggles furiously to propel the cell towards its goal. Its DNA content lies within the head and is highly condensed. Mitochondria, which provide the cell with energy but which also contain extranuclear segments of DNA called mitochondrial DNA, are also present

Doc: So?

Bucky: An interesting fact about mitochondrial DNA is that it is maternal in origin, with rare (usually pathologic) exceptions. Although sperm cells do contain mitochondrial DNA, it is degraded, recycled, and incorporated into the DNA of the developing embryo, ensuring that only maternal mitochondrial DNA is passed on. Mitochondria were no doubt present in the divine sperm cell, providing energy to the cell.

The question then becomes, what was the source of the divine sperm's mitochondrial DNA? Remember, all mitochondrial DNA is maternal in origin. If created de novo, what gene sequences were inserted into the mitochondria DNA and how were they chosen? What purpose did they serve if they simply disintegrated after fertilization? If there was no mitochondrial DNA, then there must not have been mitochondria, in which case what powered the divine spermatozoon?

Doc: Oooh! Look over there!

Bucky: What? Where? I don't see anyth....hey! Where'd he go?

Bucky : Scribbling on black board on way out door.
Sheehsh. SO easy. Can't fool the Fullerene.
Divine Krebs Cycle

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
25-11-2013, 01:13 PM
RE: DOC'S SOPORIFIC SUNDAY SCHOOL
Doc (warily): Is Bucky still here? No? Oh, good! Lets get on with our lessons, shall we? Never mind all that guff about mitochondria. God could have created Jesus by inserting the necessary genetic component directly into Mary's ovum without the rigmarole of it being conveyed thither by means of a spermatozoon.

DLJ: Hold on! The penetration process is necessary to induce certain vital changes, such as the formation of the paternal and maternal pronuclei. Moreover, a part of the spermatozoon called the centrosome is necessary for the formation of the first division spindle of the newly formed zygote. Therefore, the presence of a complete spermatozoon was indispensable for the fertilization of Mary's ovum.

Doc: What about parthenogenesis then? God could have created Jesus from Mary's existing DNA complement.

DLJ: Where did he get his full complement of forty-six chromosomes, including the Y chromosome, then? After all, if he was born of a virgin, he could only have inherited his mother's twenty-three chromosomes, which would not have resulted in a viable human embryo.

Jesus could not have been a product of parthenogenesis on the part of Mary because, theoretically speaking, in species where female sex determination depends on the presence of two like chromosomes (such as XX for females in humans) the offspring of parthenogenesis must be female. Admittedly, in species where male sex determination rests on the presence of two like chromosomes (such as ZZ for males in some birds and reptiles), the offspring may be male, because only a single sex chromosome need be inherited and duplicated to form the male genotype. But, Jesus was no lizard.

We know that Jesus was most definitely a male because he was circumcised on the eighth day after his birth, which means he had to have had something to circumcise. As a male, then, Jesus had to be the product of normal male-female fertilization.

Doc: Hey, your shoelace is untied.

DLJ: But I'm wearing loafe... hey, where'd he go?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like docskeptic's post
25-11-2013, 10:50 PM
RE: DOC'S SOPORIFIC SUNDAY SCHOOL (ALERTING YOU TO GOD'S GOODNESS)
Sleepy When do we get to blow stuff up, Teach ?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
25-11-2013, 11:19 PM
RE: DOC'S SOPORIFIC SUNDAY SCHOOL (ALERTING YOU TO GOD'S GOODNESS)
(25-11-2013 10:50 PM)morondog Wrote:  Sleepy When do we get to blow stuff up, Teach ?

Get yourself an empty 2-liter bottle, a bottle of toilet bowl cleaner, and some aluminum foil... Evil_monster

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2013, 08:11 AM
RE: DOC'S SOPORIFIC SUNDAY SCHOOL (ALERTING YOU TO GOD'S GOODNESS)
Doc (now paranoid): Is DLJ or Bucky here? No? Oh, good. Let's carry on. Who wants to learn about God's love for us?

Morondog: Uh, Doc? I have a question. Since we're talking about genomes, did Jesus have junk DNA in his genome?

Doc: What's that?

Morondog: Junk DNA is non-coding DNA, which makes up approximately 98 percent of our total genome. This means that only about 2 percent of the approximately three billion base pairs in our (haploid) genome actually codes for something. Although some of the noncoding DNA do serve functions other than coding, such as transcriptional regulation of gene expression, large portions of the so-called junk DNA appear to have no discernible function whatsoever. In fact, mega deletions of junk DNA appear to have no ill effect on the phenotype of the organism.

Doc: Well, he was fully human, so he must have had, but it was probably called divine DNA or something like that. What is the significance of this issue?

Morondog: Well, one line of evidence for common descent from a shared ancestor is the sharing of identical sequences of noncoding DNA. Since noncoding DNA sequences tend not to affect the phenotypic outcome, there is a lack of selective pressure to weed out mutations. These mutations then survive to be transmitted to the next generation, thereby allowing one to trace the common ancestry of divergent species by comparing genetic sequences. Did Jesus have genetic sequences that would suggest a remote ancestor that he shared in common with the great apes?

Doc (outraged): I have had just about enough from you, young man! Report for...

Morondog: Hey, Doc, your epidermis is showing.

Doc, pirouetting frantically: What? Where? Hey! Where'd he go?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like docskeptic's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: