What came first, The chicken or The egg? Science vs Religion

[ChesBayJJ]

it shouldn't take that many words. and no one is going to read that.

but it would obviously make sense that religion came first -- whether Baal or Mithras or whatever... because that is how people explained things they didn't understand.

But we do know that you can't have an egg without a chicken. So the chicken had to come first. The first created chicken then laid some eggs. Simple.

unless some reptilian thing laid an egg and it looked like a chicken... in which case the egg came first.

So, you're saying that a lizard turned into a chicken?

you know birds evolved from reptiles, right?

No. They didn't.

Yes they did

The origin of birds

 

[ChesBayJJ]

To be clear, it's not intellectually honest to compare a gut feeling to an established scientific theor
What a bunch of meaningless pap. Which "scientific theories" are those? And are they rejected on ethical or legal grounds, or because of inefficacy? You're not the most articulate guy. You vomit this nonsense, and then rational adults have to sift through it and play 20 questions just to figure out what the hell you are trying to say.

Regarding evolution: you're an adult now. Nobody cares what you believe regarding accepted scientific theories. Maybe if you were in 7th grade science class, the teacher would give you F after F and send a letter home regarding his concern that you are failing badly and clearly not making any effort to learn the material. I feel no such compulsion to correct your errors and misunderstandings, because you are a dishonest person who isn't trying to learn anything.

So you're a scientist who actually discusses evolution with scientist with years of experience and thousands of patients which have led them to the conclusion that evolution is real.

Irrelevant red herring. The things I am saying are facts. You can look them up yourself. It doesn't matter who says them.

See, I think that's the thing you are not understanding:

You have such a complete and fundamental misunderstanding of science, that you are stuck on the basic ideas that are quickly related in about the first chapter of a science course. You seriously know less than nothing about any of this.

I'm looking at the same evidence you are looking at.
It's just that I also know people in the medical and science fields and after years of experience all they see from mutations is illness and disease, not survival.

Are not both types of mutations possible? Beneficial and damaging?

I don't know any medical professionals, including several veterinarians, who have ever seen a positive mutation.
I think the X-Men, or is that X-People, are cool, but have you ever heard of one in real life?

You have to think in a long term Darwinian sense. There are virtually an infinite possible number of mutations that might occur and most would be subtle and undetectable. Perhaps a change to the coating on a seed that improves survivability, or a small change to a bird's beak that allows it to eat seeds with a harder coat.

 

[jillian]

But we do know that you can't have an egg without a chicken. So the chicken had to come first. The first created chicken then laid some eggs. Simple.

unless some reptilian thing laid an egg and it looked like a chicken... in which case the egg came first.

So, you're saying that a lizard turned into a chicken?

you know birds evolved from reptiles, right?

No. They didn't.

Yes they did

The origin of birds

don't you adore loony science deniers?

luckily, as Neil DeGrasse Tyson always says, science exists whether you believe in it or not.

 

[Indeependent]

So you're a scientist who actually discusses evolution with scientist with years of experience and thousands of patients which have led them to the conclusion that evolution is real.

Irrelevant red herring. The things I am saying are facts. You can look them up yourself. It doesn't matter who says them.

See, I think that's the thing you are not understanding:

You have such a complete and fundamental misunderstanding of science, that you are stuck on the basic ideas that are quickly related in about the first chapter of a science course. You seriously know less than nothing about any of this.

I'm looking at the same evidence you are looking at.
It's just that I also know people in the medical and science fields and after years of experience all they see from mutations is illness and disease, not survival.

Are not both types of mutations possible? Beneficial and damaging?

I don't know any medical professionals, including several veterinarians, who have ever seen a positive mutation.
I think the X-Men, or is that X-People, are cool, but have you ever heard of one in real life?

You have to think in a long term Darwinian sense. There are virtually an infinite possible number of mutations that might occur and most would be subtle and undetectable. Perhaps a change to the coating on a seed that improves survivability, or a small change to a bird's beak that allows it to eat seeds with a harder coat.

Hilarious.
Those long time things worked out real well after the species died off.

 

[RWNJ]

But we do know that you can't have an egg without a chicken. So the chicken had to come first. The first created chicken then laid some eggs. Simple.

unless some reptilian thing laid an egg and it looked like a chicken... in which case the egg came first.

So, you're saying that a lizard turned into a chicken?

you know birds evolved from reptiles, right?

No. They didn't.

Yes they did

The origin of birds

But we do know that you can't have an egg without a chicken. So the chicken had to come first. The first created chicken then laid some eggs. Simple.

unless some reptilian thing laid an egg and it looked like a chicken... in which case the egg came first.

So, you're saying that a lizard turned into a chicken?

you know birds evolved from reptiles, right?

No. They didn't.

Yes they did

The origin of birds

OK. I read your article. It's nothing but supposition, with nothing but some old bones as evidence. That's not science. You do realize that even atheist scientists think the fossil record is a joke, right? There is not one shred of scientific evidence to support your conclusion that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Might also might want to ask yourself how those dinosaurs developed the completely different respiratory system required for flight. If you don't know about that, Google avian respiratory systems.

 

[RWNJ]

unless some reptilian thing laid an egg and it looked like a chicken... in which case the egg came first.

So, you're saying that a lizard turned into a chicken?

you know birds evolved from reptiles, right?

No. They didn't.

Yes they did

The origin of birds

don't you adore loony science deniers?

luckily, as Neil DeGrasse Tyson always says, science exists whether you believe in it or not.

What science am I denying? There is no scientific evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

 

[RWNJ]

So you're a scientist who actually discusses evolution with scientist with years of experience and thousands of patients which have led them to the conclusion that evolution is real.

Irrelevant red herring. The things I am saying are facts. You can look them up yourself. It doesn't matter who says them.

See, I think that's the thing you are not understanding:

You have such a complete and fundamental misunderstanding of science, that you are stuck on the basic ideas that are quickly related in about the first chapter of a science course. You seriously know less than nothing about any of this.

I'm looking at the same evidence you are looking at.
It's just that I also know people in the medical and science fields and after years of experience all they see from mutations is illness and disease, not survival.

Are not both types of mutations possible? Beneficial and damaging?

I don't know any medical professionals, including several veterinarians, who have ever seen a positive mutation.
I think the X-Men, or is that X-People, are cool, but have you ever heard of one in real life?

You have to think in a long term Darwinian sense. There are virtually an infinite possible number of mutations that might occur and most would be subtle and undetectable. Perhaps a change to the coating on a seed that improves survivability, or a small change to a bird's beak that allows it to eat seeds with a harder coat.

Rubbish. Evolution is a joke. It is not supported by real science, and does not even use the scientific method. So is it really science? I think not.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

don't you adore loony science deniers?

Hmmm......no.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The chicken came first. Go back to the first life on Earth 3.5 billion years ago, all simple single celled organisms with no nucleus or organelles like mitochondria, who reproduce by dividing. This evolves over 2.5 billion years to eukaryote cells with a nucleus and organelles. These continue to evolve to multi-celled organisms, which, over time, evolve the ability to lay eggs. Egg laying developed long after multi-celled organisms evolved.

Which came first the chicken or the egg is a false conundrum. It's interesting to discuss it but presenting it as a valid argument that has no solution only appears as such because the argument picks a point in time far distant from the point when organisms developed egg laying.

Yes at a party if you said any of this everyone there would view you as boring as watching paint dry and a real Debbie/Donny Downer. Again it is a whimsical discussion to have but the answer is perfectly clear.

 

[RWNJ]

The chicken came first. Go back to the first life on Earth 3.5 billion years ago, all simple single celled organisms with no nucleus or organelles like mitochondria, who reproduce by dividing. This evolves over 2.5 billion years to eukaryote cells with a nucleus and organelles. These continue to evolve to multi-celled organisms, which, over time, evolve the ability to lay eggs. Egg laying developed long after multi-celled organisms evolved.

Which came first the chicken or the egg is a false conundrum. It's interesting to discuss it but presenting it as a valid argument that has no solution only appears as such because the argument picks a point in time far distant from the point when organisms developed egg laying.

Yes at a party if you said any of this everyone there would view you as boring as watching paint dry and a real Debbie/Donny Downer. Again it is a whimsical discussion to have but the answer is perfectly clear.

What a bunch of BS. You believe that all life evolved from a common ancestor, and that random mutations are responsible for the millions of diverse species. Here's a simple fact I want you to contemplate. Mutations do not create new information. They destroy it. Believing in evolution is like making random changes in your PC's OS and expecting it to run better.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The chicken came first. Go back to the first life on Earth 3.5 billion years ago, all simple single celled organisms with no nucleus or organelles like mitochondria, who reproduce by dividing. This evolves over 2.5 billion years to eukaryote cells with a nucleus and organelles. These continue to evolve to multi-celled organisms, which, over time, evolve the ability to lay eggs. Egg laying developed long after multi-celled organisms evolved.

Which came first the chicken or the egg is a false conundrum. It's interesting to discuss it but presenting it as a valid argument that has no solution only appears as such because the argument picks a point in time far distant from the point when organisms developed egg laying.

Yes at a party if you said any of this everyone there would view you as boring as watching paint dry and a real Debbie/Donny Downer. Again it is a whimsical discussion to have but the answer is perfectly clear.

What a bunch of BS. You believe that all life evolved from a common ancestor, and that random mutations are responsible for the millions of diverse species. Here's a simple fact I want you to contemplate. Mutations do not create new information. They destroy it. Believing in evolution is like making random changes in your PC's OS and expecting it to run better.

Ignorance is the air you breath.

 

[RWNJ]

The chicken came first. Go back to the first life on Earth 3.5 billion years ago, all simple single celled organisms with no nucleus or organelles like mitochondria, who reproduce by dividing. This evolves over 2.5 billion years to eukaryote cells with a nucleus and organelles. These continue to evolve to multi-celled organisms, which, over time, evolve the ability to lay eggs. Egg laying developed long after multi-celled organisms evolved.

Which came first the chicken or the egg is a false conundrum. It's interesting to discuss it but presenting it as a valid argument that has no solution only appears as such because the argument picks a point in time far distant from the point when organisms developed egg laying.

Yes at a party if you said any of this everyone there would view you as boring as watching paint dry and a real Debbie/Donny Downer. Again it is a whimsical discussion to have but the answer is perfectly clear.

What a bunch of BS. You believe that all life evolved from a common ancestor, and that random mutations are responsible for the millions of diverse species. Here's a simple fact I want you to contemplate. Mutations do not create new information. They destroy it. Believing in evolution is like making random changes in your PC's OS and expecting it to run better.

Ignorance is the air you breath.

No. Ignorance is believing that mutations are responsible for all the different species. It is a scientific fact that the vast majority of mutations are harmful or neutral. You cannot point to one single mutation that is beneficial.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The chicken came first. Go back to the first life on Earth 3.5 billion years ago, all simple single celled organisms with no nucleus or organelles like mitochondria, who reproduce by dividing. This evolves over 2.5 billion years to eukaryote cells with a nucleus and organelles. These continue to evolve to multi-celled organisms, which, over time, evolve the ability to lay eggs. Egg laying developed long after multi-celled organisms evolved.

Which came first the chicken or the egg is a false conundrum. It's interesting to discuss it but presenting it as a valid argument that has no solution only appears as such because the argument picks a point in time far distant from the point when organisms developed egg laying.

Yes at a party if you said any of this everyone there would view you as boring as watching paint dry and a real Debbie/Donny Downer. Again it is a whimsical discussion to have but the answer is perfectly clear.

What a bunch of BS. You believe that all life evolved from a common ancestor, and that random mutations are responsible for the millions of diverse species. Here's a simple fact I want you to contemplate. Mutations do not create new information. They destroy it. Believing in evolution is like making random changes in your PC's OS and expecting it to run better.

Ignorance is the air you breath.

No. Ignorance is believing that mutations are responsible for all the different species. It is a scientific fact that the vast majority of mutations are harmful or neutral. You cannot point to one single mutation that is beneficial.

Of course we can . in the not too distant past, a gene mutation that led to greater tolerance of lactose allowed humans raising animals to gain a new food source. These communities flourished more well, leading to the spread of this gene.

That's one off the top of my head known by everuone who has ever taken a high school biology course. A rational adult would be embarrassed of his own error and ignorance. But not you, Jaysus-boy. No sir. The idea of believing ridiculous nonsense without a shred of evidence is a badge of honor for a person like you.

 

[ding]

The egg. But what squirted out the egg wasn't a chicken.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The chicken came first. Go back to the first life on Earth 3.5 billion years ago, all simple single celled organisms with no nucleus or organelles like mitochondria, who reproduce by dividing. This evolves over 2.5 billion years to eukaryote cells with a nucleus and organelles. These continue to evolve to multi-celled organisms, which, over time, evolve the ability to lay eggs. Egg laying developed long after multi-celled organisms evolved.

Which came first the chicken or the egg is a false conundrum. It's interesting to discuss it but presenting it as a valid argument that has no solution only appears as such because the argument picks a point in time far distant from the point when organisms developed egg laying.

Yes at a party if you said any of this everyone there would view you as boring as watching paint dry and a real Debbie/Donny Downer. Again it is a whimsical discussion to have but the answer is perfectly clear.

What a bunch of BS. You believe that all life evolved from a common ancestor, and that random mutations are responsible for the millions of diverse species. Here's a simple fact I want you to contemplate. Mutations do not create new information. They destroy it. Believing in evolution is like making random changes in your PC's OS and expecting it to run better.

Ignorance is the air you breath.

No. Ignorance is believing that mutations are responsible for all the different species. It is a scientific fact that the vast majority of mutations are harmful or neutral. You cannot point to one single mutation that is beneficial.

Of course we can . in the not too distant past, a gene mutation that led to greater tolerance of lactose allowed humans raising animals to gain a new food source. These communities flourished more well, leading to the spread of this gene.

That's one off the top of my head known by everuone who has ever taken a high school biology course. A rational adult would be embarrassed of his own error and ignorance. But not you, Jaysus-boy. No sir. The idea of believing ridiculous nonsense without a shred of evidence is a badge of honor for a person like you.

And that is the problem isn't it. Even when given evidence they choose to ignore it because it undercuts their entire worldview. There IS a connection between these people voting for Trump and their great ability to choose fantasy over reality.

Evolution to anyone that has studied, even moderately, the fossil record is known fact. Only to those who are alive today that are terrified of life look to an invisible daddy to make it all better.

 

[RWNJ]

The chicken came first. Go back to the first life on Earth 3.5 billion years ago, all simple single celled organisms with no nucleus or organelles like mitochondria, who reproduce by dividing. This evolves over 2.5 billion years to eukaryote cells with a nucleus and organelles. These continue to evolve to multi-celled organisms, which, over time, evolve the ability to lay eggs. Egg laying developed long after multi-celled organisms evolved.

Which came first the chicken or the egg is a false conundrum. It's interesting to discuss it but presenting it as a valid argument that has no solution only appears as such because the argument picks a point in time far distant from the point when organisms developed egg laying.

Yes at a party if you said any of this everyone there would view you as boring as watching paint dry and a real Debbie/Donny Downer. Again it is a whimsical discussion to have but the answer is perfectly clear.

What a bunch of BS. You believe that all life evolved from a common ancestor, and that random mutations are responsible for the millions of diverse species. Here's a simple fact I want you to contemplate. Mutations do not create new information. They destroy it. Believing in evolution is like making random changes in your PC's OS and expecting it to run better.

Ignorance is the air you breath.

No. Ignorance is believing that mutations are responsible for all the different species. It is a scientific fact that the vast majority of mutations are harmful or neutral. You cannot point to one single mutation that is beneficial.

Of course we can . in the not too distant past, a gene mutation that led to greater tolerance of lactose allowed humans raising animals to gain a new food source. These communities flourished more well, leading to the spread of this gene.

That's one off the top of my head known by everuone who has ever taken a high school biology course. A rational adult would be embarrassed of his own error and ignorance. But not you, Jaysus-boy. No sir. The idea of believing ridiculous nonsense without a shred of evidence is a badge of honor for a person like you.

And that is the problem isn't it. Even when given evidence they choose to ignore it because it undercuts their entire worldview. There IS a connection between these people voting for Trump and their great ability to choose fantasy over reality.

Evolution to anyone that has studied, even moderately, the fossil record is known fact. Only to those who are alive today that are terrified of life look to an invisible daddy to make it all better.

BWAHAHAHA! Evolution is a joke, and you know it. The only evidence that could be called hale-way credible is the so-called fossil record. News flash. The fossil record has been completely discredited.

Refuting Evolution 2 chapter 8: Argument: The fossil record supports evolution - creation.com

 

[ChesBayJJ]

I give up

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What a bunch of BS. You believe that all life evolved from a common ancestor, and that random mutations are responsible for the millions of diverse species. Here's a simple fact I want you to contemplate. Mutations do not create new information. They destroy it. Believing in evolution is like making random changes in your PC's OS and expecting it to run better.

Ignorance is the air you breath.

No. Ignorance is believing that mutations are responsible for all the different species. It is a scientific fact that the vast majority of mutations are harmful or neutral. You cannot point to one single mutation that is beneficial.

Of course we can . in the not too distant past, a gene mutation that led to greater tolerance of lactose allowed humans raising animals to gain a new food source. These communities flourished more well, leading to the spread of this gene.

That's one off the top of my head known by everuone who has ever taken a high school biology course. A rational adult would be embarrassed of his own error and ignorance. But not you, Jaysus-boy. No sir. The idea of believing ridiculous nonsense without a shred of evidence is a badge of honor for a person like you.

And that is the problem isn't it. Even when given evidence they choose to ignore it because it undercuts their entire worldview. There IS a connection between these people voting for Trump and their great ability to choose fantasy over reality.

Evolution to anyone that has studied, even moderately, the fossil record is known fact. Only to those who are alive today that are terrified of life look to an invisible daddy to make it all better.

BWAHAHAHA! Evolution is a joke, and you know it. The only evidence that could be called hale-way credible is the so-called fossil record. News flash. The fossil record has been completely discredited.

Refuting Evolution 2 chapter 8: Argument: The fossil record supports evolution - creation.com

How about, you take ONE argument from your linked article and summarize it for us?

I bet you can't.

 

[RWNJ]

I give up

I graciously accept your unconditional surrender.

 

[IsaacNewton]

I give up

It is a lot like trying to describe how a V-8 engine works to a 5 year old. They aren't capable of understanding and the attempt to educate them is futile. Same here. Just because these people appear to be adults with a grasp on reality, many of them don't. They in fact are so scared of reality they reject it out of hand and will follow anyone that supports their fantasy world.