Do You Believe We Came From Monkeys?

[Syriusly]

[Oh please....scientists consider evolution to be fact, period. No, you goobers are not presenting any actual challenge to the theory of evolution. Instead, you are embarrassing yourselves.

Evolution is not a fact or else we can all use it. Thus, you are wrong again. Atheists are usually wrong ha ha. We KNOW who the goober is.

The stories of the Bible are not a fact- which is why we all don't use them. Chreato-Christian cultists are always wrong.

Evolution is the scientific theory which best explains the diversity of life on earth. Not the fairy tales of the Bible.

The Bible is God's Word which is complete, inerrant, authoritative, reliable, and sufficient to meet our needs.

I absolutely understand that you have faith in your Bible and not in science.

The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.

That the Bible exists is historical fact. That the Bible sometimes references historical fact has been confirmed- but most of the Bible is totally unconfirmed.

But thanks for pointing out that your values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed and biased.

 

[Syriusly]

[Oh please....scientists consider evolution to be fact, period. No, you goobers are not presenting any actual challenge to the theory of evolution. Instead, you are embarrassing yourselves.

Evolution is not a fact or else we can all use it. Thus, you are wrong again. Atheists are usually wrong ha ha. We KNOW who the goober is.

The stories of the Bible are not a fact- which is why we all don't use them. Chreato-Christian cultists are always wrong.

Evolution is the scientific theory which best explains the diversity of life on earth. Not the fairy tales of the Bible.

The Bible is God's Word which is complete, inerrant, authoritative, reliable, and sufficient to meet our needs.

I absolutely understand that you have faith in your Bible and not in science.

but I argue the Bible, creation and atheist science against some of evolutionary thinking and ToE such as humans came from monkeys. .

The Theory of Evolution doesn't say that humans came from Monkeys.

That is the equivalent of me arguing that the Bible says that whites are superior to blacks.

 

[Syriusly]

[Oh please....scientists consider evolution to be fact, period. No, you goobers are not presenting any actual challenge to the theory of evolution. Instead, you are embarrassing yourselves.

Evolution is not a fact or else we can all use it. Thus, you are wrong again. Atheists are usually wrong ha ha. We KNOW who the goober is.

The stories of the Bible are not a fact- which is why we all don't use them. Chreato-Christian cultists are always wrong.

Evolution is the scientific theory which best explains the diversity of life on earth. Not the fairy tales of the Bible.

The Bible is God's Word which is complete, inerrant, authoritative, reliable, and sufficient to meet our needs.

I absolutely understand that you have faith in your Bible and not in science.

Have no prob with common ancestors within a clade, but not all clades come from a common ancestor.

so you agree that Gorillas and Chimpanzees and humans have a common ancestor- but not Gibbons and humans?

 

[Syriusly]

The stories of the Bible are not a fact- which is why we all don't use them. Chreato-Christian cultists are always wrong.

Evolution is the scientific theory which best explains the diversity of life on earth. Not the fairy tales of the Bible.

The Bible is God's Word which is complete, inerrant, authoritative, reliable, and sufficient to meet our needs.

I absolutely understand that you have faith in your Bible and not in science.

The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.

Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.

I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book. After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo. For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg. That's a fact. What parts do you think is myth?

Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

The stories of the Bible are not a fact- which is why we all don't use them. Chreato-Christian cultists are always wrong.

Evolution is the scientific theory which best explains the diversity of life on earth. Not the fairy tales of the Bible.

The Bible is God's Word which is complete, inerrant, authoritative, reliable, and sufficient to meet our needs.

I absolutely understand that you have faith in your Bible and not in science.

The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.

Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.

I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book. After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo. For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg. That's a fact. What parts do you think is myth?

I think the creation story and the flood are both mythical - folklore passed down verbally from generation to generation. As far as the chicken before the egg, I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Before we had birds, we had various kinds of reptiles, which were also egg layers, so I'd say the egg came before the chicken.

Here is a reference to one theory about the great flood

Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia

The Ryan/Pitman book is very good.

Edit:

Saying the flood story is a myth is incorrect. There very likely was a large scale event with many ancient peoples displaced by flooding. Tales of that flooding are parts of a number of cultures, and the tale has been included in the Bible.

 

[LittleNipper]

Evolution is not a fact or else we can all use it. Thus, you are wrong again. Atheists are usually wrong ha ha. We KNOW who the goober is.

The stories of the Bible are not a fact- which is why we all don't use them. Chreato-Christian cultists are always wrong.

Evolution is the scientific theory which best explains the diversity of life on earth. Not the fairy tales of the Bible.

The Bible is God's Word which is complete, inerrant, authoritative, reliable, and sufficient to meet our needs.

I absolutely understand that you have faith in your Bible and not in science.

The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.

Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.

Hardly, I don't see GOD driving the sun around in a chariot or eating HIS children. I do see very poignant observations regarding a thoughtful view of creation unparalleled by any pagan story developed by other cultures. The fact alone that most call the "writers" of the Bible mere sheepherders only makes the revelation that much more astounding.

Job 9
8 He alone spreads out the sky
and walks on the waves in the sea.
9 He made the Great Bear, Orion, the Pleiades
and the hidden constellations of the south.
10 He does great, unsearchable things,
wonders beyond counting.
11 He can go right by me, and I don’t see him;
he moves past without my being aware of him.

 

[james bond]

The Bible is God's Word which is complete, inerrant, authoritative, reliable, and sufficient to meet our needs.

I absolutely understand that you have faith in your Bible and not in science.

The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.

Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.

I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book. After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo. For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg. That's a fact. What parts do you think is myth?

I think the creation story and the flood are both mythical - folklore passed down verbally from generation to generation. As far as the chicken before the egg, I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Before we had birds, we had various kinds of reptiles, which were also egg layers, so I'd say the egg came before the chicken.

Here is a reference to one theory about the great flood

Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia

The Ryan/Pitman book is very good.

Edit:

Saying the flood story is a myth is incorrect. There very likely was a large scale event with many ancient peoples displaced by flooding. Tales of that flooding are parts of a number of cultures, and the tale has been included in the Bible.

How can a non-fiction book be mythical? You can say it's historical. And if you do not understand the chicken came first, then you do not understand longtime science mysteries. Too many people believed evolution which taught that the egg came first, but the secular (atheist) scientists were wrong. The egg can't fertilize itself. One needs a chicken and rooster. Also, the chicken produces the protein that coats the egg. We all know that one needs a cell to produce protein. It can't pop into existence at the molecular level.

There's evidence of global flooding is that the earth is 3/4 covered with water and we see that mountains came up from beneath the seafloor. People think the water can't get as high as Mt. Everest, which I can understand, but it could if Everest was lower and then became higher from the earthquake in the seafloor. Scientists think there are oceans of water hidden in the earth's mantle.

And why do you bring up a local flood?

 

[james bond]

The Bible is God's Word which is complete, inerrant, authoritative, reliable, and sufficient to meet our needs.

I absolutely understand that you have faith in your Bible and not in science.

The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.

Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.

I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book. After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo. For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg. That's a fact. What parts do you think is myth?

Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken.

Syriusly you believe in myths.

There's also the problem of infinite regression. If there was a proto-chicken and proto-rooster, then where did they come from? The proto-proto-chicken? And where did the proto-proto-chicken come from? The proto-proto-proto-chicken? Ha ha.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

I absolutely understand that you have faith in your Bible and not in science.

The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.

Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.

I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book. After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo. For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg. That's a fact. What parts do you think is myth?

I think the creation story and the flood are both mythical - folklore passed down verbally from generation to generation. As far as the chicken before the egg, I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Before we had birds, we had various kinds of reptiles, which were also egg layers, so I'd say the egg came before the chicken.

Here is a reference to one theory about the great flood

Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia

The Ryan/Pitman book is very good.

Edit:

Saying the flood story is a myth is incorrect. There very likely was a large scale event with many ancient peoples displaced by flooding. Tales of that flooding are parts of a number of cultures, and the tale has been included in the Bible.

How can a non-fiction book be mythical? You can say it's historical. And if you do not understand the chicken came first, then you do not understand longtime science mysteries. Too many people believed evolution which taught that the egg came first, but the secular (atheist) scientists were wrong. The egg can't fertilize itself. One needs a chicken and rooster. Also, the chicken produces the protein that coats the egg. We all know that one needs a cell to produce protein. It can't pop into existence at the molecular level.

There's evidence of global flooding is that the earth is 3/4 covered with water and we see that mountains came up from beneath the seafloor. People think the water can't get as high as Mt. Everest, which I can understand, but it could if Everest was lower and then became higher from the earthquake in the seafloor. Scientists think there are oceans of water hidden in the earth's mantle.

And why do you bring up a local flood?

Because it is very likely the source of the biblical flood story.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

I absolutely understand that you have faith in your Bible and not in science.

The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.

Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.

I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book. After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo. For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg. That's a fact. What parts do you think is myth?

Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken.

Syriusly you believe in myths.

There's also the problem of infinite regression. If there was a proto-chicken and proto-rooster, then where did they come from? The proto-proto-chicken? And where did the proto-proto-chicken come from? The proto-proto-proto-chicken? Ha ha.

The proto-chicken and proto-rooster evolved from egg laying reptiles.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.

Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.

I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book. After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo. For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg. That's a fact. What parts do you think is myth?

Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken.

Syriusly you believe in myths.

There's also the problem of infinite regression. If there was a proto-chicken and proto-rooster, then where did they come from? The proto-proto-chicken? And where did the proto-proto-chicken come from? The proto-proto-proto-chicken? Ha ha.

The proto-chicken and proto-rooster evolved from egg laying reptiles.

Duh.i mean,come on people,small children get this stuff. These guys are embarrassing themselves.

 

[Syriusly]

I absolutely understand that you have faith in your Bible and not in science.

The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.

Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.

I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book. After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo. For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg. That's a fact. What parts do you think is myth?

I think the creation story and the flood are both mythical - folklore passed down verbally from generation to generation. As far as the chicken before the egg, I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Before we had birds, we had various kinds of reptiles, which were also egg layers, so I'd say the egg came before the chicken.

Here is a reference to one theory about the great flood

Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia

The Ryan/Pitman book is very good.

Edit:

Saying the flood story is a myth is incorrect. There very likely was a large scale event with many ancient peoples displaced by flooding. Tales of that flooding are parts of a number of cultures, and the tale has been included in the Bible.

How can a non-fiction book be mythical? You can say it's historical.

The Bible is considered a religious book- and is classified with all of the other books of religions- including Koran, and books about Greek and Roman religions (Dewey Decimal 200-299)

 

[james bond]

The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.

Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.

I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book. After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo. For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg. That's a fact. What parts do you think is myth?

I think the creation story and the flood are both mythical - folklore passed down verbally from generation to generation. As far as the chicken before the egg, I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Before we had birds, we had various kinds of reptiles, which were also egg layers, so I'd say the egg came before the chicken.

Here is a reference to one theory about the great flood

Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia

The Ryan/Pitman book is very good.

Edit:

Saying the flood story is a myth is incorrect. There very likely was a large scale event with many ancient peoples displaced by flooding. Tales of that flooding are parts of a number of cultures, and the tale has been included in the Bible.

How can a non-fiction book be mythical? You can say it's historical. And if you do not understand the chicken came first, then you do not understand longtime science mysteries. Too many people believed evolution which taught that the egg came first, but the secular (atheist) scientists were wrong. The egg can't fertilize itself. One needs a chicken and rooster. Also, the chicken produces the protein that coats the egg. We all know that one needs a cell to produce protein. It can't pop into existence at the molecular level.

There's evidence of global flooding is that the earth is 3/4 covered with water and we see that mountains came up from beneath the seafloor. People think the water can't get as high as Mt. Everest, which I can understand, but it could if Everest was lower and then became higher from the earthquake in the seafloor. Scientists think there are oceans of water hidden in the earth's mantle.

And why do you bring up a local flood?

Because it is very likely the source of the biblical flood story.

Your story is more recent than the Bible's reporting. These flood stories and hypothesis from all around the world, like Gilgamesh, came about the same way. From the real global flood. Even Bill Nye provided the evidence (inadvertently).

 

[Syriusly]

I absolutely understand that you have faith in your Bible and not in science.

The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.

Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.

I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book. After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo. For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg. That's a fact. What parts do you think is myth?

I think the creation story and the flood are both mythical - folklore passed down verbally from generation to generation. As far as the chicken before the egg, I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Before we had birds, we had various kinds of reptiles, which were also egg layers, so I'd say the egg came before the chicken.

Here is a reference to one theory about the great flood

Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia

The Ryan/Pitman book is very good.

Edit:

Saying the flood story is a myth is incorrect. There very likely was a large scale event with many ancient peoples displaced by flooding. Tales of that flooding are parts of a number of cultures, and the tale has been included in the Bible.

And if you do not understand the chicken came first, then you do not understand longtime science mysteries. Too many people believed evolution which taught that the egg came first, but the secular (atheist) scientists were wrong. The egg can't fertilize itself. One needs a chicken and rooster. Also, the chicken produces the protein that coats the egg. We all know that one needs a cell to produce protein. It can't pop into existence at the molecular level.

I love how you 'secular scientists' are wrong- when you could have just been more succinct and said 'scientists'.

I am not surprised that you Creato-Christian cultists refuse the science of evolution- or that the egg came first.
Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken.

Want another example?

Which came first a baby Liger or an adult Liger?

 

[james bond]

The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.

Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.

I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book. After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo. For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg. That's a fact. What parts do you think is myth?

Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken.

Syriusly you believe in myths.

There's also the problem of infinite regression. If there was a proto-chicken and proto-rooster, then where did they come from? The proto-proto-chicken? And where did the proto-proto-chicken come from? The proto-proto-proto-chicken? Ha ha.

The proto-chicken and proto-rooster evolved from egg laying reptiles.

No evidence of a proto-chicken-rooster, and we can apply infinite regression to egg laying reptiles.

 

[Syriusly]

I absolutely understand that you have faith in your Bible and not in science.

The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.

Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.

I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book. After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo. For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg. That's a fact. What parts do you think is myth?

I think the creation story and the flood are both mythical - folklore passed down verbally from generation to generation. As far as the chicken before the egg, I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Before we had birds, we had various kinds of reptiles, which were also egg layers, so I'd say the egg came before the chicken.

Here is a reference to one theory about the great flood

Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia

The Ryan/Pitman book is very good.

Edit:

Saying the flood story is a myth is incorrect. There very likely was a large scale event with many ancient peoples displaced by flooding. Tales of that flooding are parts of a number of cultures, and the tale has been included in the Bible.

There's evidence of global flooding is that the earth is 3/4 covered with water and we see that mountains came up from beneath the seafloor. People think the water can't get as high as Mt. Everest, which I can understand, but it could if Everest was lower and then became higher f

Sorry- that is not evidence of 'global flooding' but of misguided Creato-Christian thinking.

Yes- the Earth is 3/4 covered with water- but there is absolutely no evidence- zilch- that it was ever covered 100% by water. Instead the evidence shows the reverse- that the earth was never 100% covered by water.

But I am amused that you think that Everest in the last 4,000 years has become dramatically higher.

 

[Syriusly]

I absolutely understand that you have faith in your Bible and not in science.

The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.

Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.

I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book. After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo. For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg. That's a fact. What parts do you think is myth?

Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken.

Syriusly you believe in myths.

There's also the problem of infinite regression. If there was a proto-chicken and proto-rooster, then where did they come from? The proto-proto-chicken? And where did the proto-proto-chicken come from? The proto-proto-proto-chicken? Ha ha.

Oh I am sure there is some myth I believe in that I am not even aware of.

There is no problem of 'infinite regression' - there is just evolution and that you find the concept of evolution to be in conflict with your narrow view of your holy book.

 

[james bond]

The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.

Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.

I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book. After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo. For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg. That's a fact. What parts do you think is myth?

I think the creation story and the flood are both mythical - folklore passed down verbally from generation to generation. As far as the chicken before the egg, I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Before we had birds, we had various kinds of reptiles, which were also egg layers, so I'd say the egg came before the chicken.

Here is a reference to one theory about the great flood

Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia

The Ryan/Pitman book is very good.

Edit:

Saying the flood story is a myth is incorrect. There very likely was a large scale event with many ancient peoples displaced by flooding. Tales of that flooding are parts of a number of cultures, and the tale has been included in the Bible.

And if you do not understand the chicken came first, then you do not understand longtime science mysteries. Too many people believed evolution which taught that the egg came first, but the secular (atheist) scientists were wrong. The egg can't fertilize itself. One needs a chicken and rooster. Also, the chicken produces the protein that coats the egg. We all know that one needs a cell to produce protein. It can't pop into existence at the molecular level.

I love how you 'secular scientists' are wrong- when you could have just been more succinct and said 'scientists'.

I am not surprised that you Creato-Christian cultists refuse the science of evolution- or that the egg came first.
Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken.

Want another example?

Which came first a baby Liger or an adult Liger?

Eyeroll. It's a FACT now that the chicken came first. You keep dodging the question, so I'm going to ignore yours. If the egg came first, then how did the protein which only the chicken can produce end up on the shell?

 

[james bond]

The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.

Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.

I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book. After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo. For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg. That's a fact. What parts do you think is myth?

I think the creation story and the flood are both mythical - folklore passed down verbally from generation to generation. As far as the chicken before the egg, I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Before we had birds, we had various kinds of reptiles, which were also egg layers, so I'd say the egg came before the chicken.

Here is a reference to one theory about the great flood

Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia

The Ryan/Pitman book is very good.

Edit:

Saying the flood story is a myth is incorrect. There very likely was a large scale event with many ancient peoples displaced by flooding. Tales of that flooding are parts of a number of cultures, and the tale has been included in the Bible.

There's evidence of global flooding is that the earth is 3/4 covered with water and we see that mountains came up from beneath the seafloor. People think the water can't get as high as Mt. Everest, which I can understand, but it could if Everest was lower and then became higher f

Sorry- that is not evidence of 'global flooding' but of misguided Creato-Christian thinking.

Yes- the Earth is 3/4 covered with water- but there is absolutely no evidence- zilch- that it was ever covered 100% by water. Instead the evidence shows the reverse- that the earth was never 100% covered by water.

But I am amused that you think that Everest in the last 4,000 years has become dramatically higher.

LOL. We agree. The earth was not covered by water. It had water vapors and some water, but not 3/4 covered by water. It just goes to show you do not understand the Bible and the science behind it.

 

[james bond]

The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.

Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.

I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book. After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo. For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg. That's a fact. What parts do you think is myth?

Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken.

Syriusly you believe in myths.

There's also the problem of infinite regression. If there was a proto-chicken and proto-rooster, then where did they come from? The proto-proto-chicken? And where did the proto-proto-chicken come from? The proto-proto-proto-chicken? Ha ha.

Oh I am sure there is some myth I believe in that I am not even aware of.

There is no problem of 'infinite regression' - there is just evolution and that you find the concept of evolution to be in conflict with your narrow view of your holy book.

Do I have to just spit it out ha ha? The myth you believe in is evolution. I've compared both evo and the Bible and still am studying each. Evo is taught in schools while creation isn't. The interested students do not think evolution tells the whole story and parts of it are wrong. Even educated adults think this way. This is why creation teaching, as another theory, needs to be taught.