Which came first?
Zolfie™
2012/06/12 20:55:53
|
|
|||||
|
29 votes
|
|
34% | ||
|
28 votes
|
|
33% | ||
|
28 votes
|
|
33% | ||
The Chicken or the Egg
Top Opinion
-
Amy ♥ HELL HATH NO FURY ♥ 2012/06/14 16:37:35The chicken
+4In the beginning everything was created in its natural form and the reproduced.. my question is... who first watched the egg come out of the chicken and decide they wanted to eat it...
As far as the theory of Evolution goes, there never was a non-chicken which laid a chicken egg.
And then you say that there never was a non-chicken which laid a chicken egg,,,
My question to you is this - it says that there was a non chicken which laid a chicken egg in a book, and you can't prove that there wasn't,,, why believe one and not the other?
Further to that - what are your reasons for believing in god? There is no proof... I can only assume that your beliefs are based entirely on personal gain and self gratification with such prospects such as "eternal life" , "heaven". and the ability to free yourself of guilt and accountability by "repenting" ..... would that be far from the truth?
What book says there was a non-chicken who laid a chicken egg?
He told you that several books are true did he? If he's really that willing to come down and reveal himself, why doesn't he? Does an all powerful omniscient being not have time for such trifling issues? or are you simply more important than the rest of the world?
As for your one and only question, the book is called "origin of species" by charles darwin..
Since you have answered neither of my questions I am going to once again ask you -
"it says that there was a non chicken which laid a chicken egg in a book, and you can't prove that there wasn't,,, why believe one and not the other?
Further to that - what are your reasons for believing in god? There is no proof... I can only assume that your beliefs are based entirely on personal gain and self gratification with such prospects such as "eternal life" , "heaven". and the ability to free yourself of guilt and accountability by "repenting" ..... would that be far from the truth?"
"Origin of the Species" never says that a non-chicken laid a chicken egg.
I believe what God tells me to believe, and you have not shown that any book said otherwise.
I wanted to know the truth, and was willing to obey that truth - whatever that might be - and God showed me the way.
And you still haven't answered my questions.. instead you're basically saying, I believe so it must be true, nice defense... I could say I don't believe so it can't be true... but i don't, instead i present logical arguments and reasoning for why he can't exist, if you really want to justify your objections to my beliefs you should try presenting a logical argument backed up by evidnece as to why evolution is wrong, or alternatively by showing me conclusive proof of gods existence.
There is no logical argument that God cannot exist.
And there is much more than logic to be considered.
Evolution is a gradual process which happens over many generations, what you need to bear in mind is where the line is drawn which distinguishes between one species and the next, the scientific definition of what seperates species during evolutionary phases is "when the mutations of the offspring of a species cause it to no longer be able to successfully reproduce with the original version of that species to produce an offspring which is capable of reproduction" And most scientists would agree on that ..this is supported by creatures such as mules which are incapable of reproduction.. they are the offspring of a horse and a donkey which shows that both horses and donkeys both stem from the same evolutionary pathway.... a mule would be considered an abomination in accordance with creationism,
There is a very logical argument,... take for instance, the fact that there is no logical argument for the existence of a god.
What is there to consider when determining whether or not something exists, other than logic and evidence or proof?
People who have actually seen, touched, or even ridden a mule, know a lot more about them than those who believe what others say about them, no matter how much data they may possess.
The point i was making is that I can see a mule, and I am therefore justified in believing in its existence...
Mules fly in the face of creationism and hugely support evolution, I dont think even you can deny that...
So what i'm saying is - if you know mules exist, how can you explain their existence with creationism? ...You can't as they are incapable of reproducing, and therefore can't have been there in the beginning, otherwise they would be extinct.. they are purely a product of cross species breeding which pretty much proves evolution to be fact.. unless , of course you believe that god intended for horses to mate with donkeys, and lions to mate with tigers to produce infertile offspring xD.
In the face of all of this how can you be in any way justified in believing creationist myths? and without creationism, what need is there for the existence of a god?
Evolution pretty much requires cross-breeding to work, since what chance is there that two individuals would have the same kind of beneficial mutation so they could breed successfully?
God exists whether creationism, evolution, or something else is the explanation.
You seem to be missing the point that evolution is a gradual process which happens over many generations, I covered this in quite some depth earlier... all the mutations are small...and over time as a reult of this, the offspring of a species will have many inherited mutations making it massively different from a member of the same species without any of these mutations,, to the extent where it cannot reproduce with an offspring of the same species which has not inherited any of these mutations.. there doesn't need to be two creatures with Identical mutations for these mutated offspring to reproduce,, the only requirement is that their mutations are are still genetically similar enough for them to reproduce... this in turn causes even greater differences between the new offspring and the original species....the offspring can still reproduce with each other, but not with an unmutated form of the species if there is too much difference in their DNA.. its a complicated thing to explain in so few...
You seem to be missing the point that evolution is a gradual process which happens over many generations, I covered this in quite some depth earlier... all the mutations are small...and over time as a reult of this, the offspring of a species will have many inherited mutations making it massively different from a member of the same species without any of these mutations,, to the extent where it cannot reproduce with an offspring of the same species which has not inherited any of these mutations.. there doesn't need to be two creatures with Identical mutations for these mutated offspring to reproduce,, the only requirement is that their mutations are are still genetically similar enough for them to reproduce... this in turn causes even greater differences between the new offspring and the original species....the offspring can still reproduce with each other, but not with an unmutated form of the species if there is too much difference in their DNA.. its a complicated thing to explain in so few words so rather than ramble, im gonna suggest you do some thorough research
once again simply stating that god exists without any sort of proof or evidence, s not a valid argument especially in the face of all the evidence i have provided to show that what happened in the bible isn't what really happened.... so heres your chance to prove that he does, unless you present an actual solid argument (that means one which isn't based on thing which you can't prove to me) you have lost this debate... i will not reply to any more hearsay or lame uneducated statements posing as arguments... this is your one and only chance to prove to me that god exists, so make it count!
My point was meant to be:
If a mutation changes the species, then the new species could not mate with anyone unless there were two such mutations.
Hence, a non-chicken cannot lay a chicken egg.
I already covered that in my last answer, can you not read? or was it simply too much to understand?.. you clearly don't have much knowledge of evolution, do your research, You're simply dismissing it without understanding it fully.and im not gonna repeat myself.
Can and did.
And yes some scientist do say animals lay eggs and because of evolution the animal in the egg isn't 100% the same and could be different.
No animal that reproduces sexually is 100% of the parent since it shares the DNA of two parents. Unless the egg is implanted with some other animal's DNA, it will definitely be the same kind of animal as the parent.
And your mistaken... one Lizard has changed in such a way that they have both male and female parts and can mate with themselves and make clones. They can also mate with others.
And you yourself are arguing.
Even if that means not getting a balanced poll (then again does anyone care about a balanced poll?) I've seen political polls where it's one sided because the person has basically blocked everyone from the other side (and I've seen that from both sides). Which is why normally I don't talk politics, cus there is a lot of hate that comes with talking politics on some questions and that's the reason why I try to keep people off certain subject while on my polls.
You should not have brought up a subject which goes right into religion and science then.
Wrong, I should do what I what with in legal and moral lines :) and I started it as a joke... I wasn't expecting people to take it so serious. And you should stop trying to put this on me. I didn't blame you two for starting, i just asked you two to stop.
evidence to support evolution lies in the similarities between the bone structures of fossils and living creatures.. where is there any evidence to support the existence of a god?
I will also note that you have yet to answer my original questions with any conclusive answer....
and if it is my choice to believe what i want, why did you question my beliefs in the first place? You said "Defend them if you can, but I know God exists, so atheism has no chance with me." Is this you admitting defeat?