Chicken or the egg which came first.

[PandorasCustoms]

There are many mixed threories between Christianity (I use this as the basis since it fights Evolution head on most frequently) and evoltion.

Dinosaurs, Monkeys, Missing Link... All things we may or may not find.

Personally, an idea or question such as this is Philosophy. It is simply theory since history was not recorded back in these eras.

I have taken several Religion and Evolution courses in college and have learned some interesting things that sort of disprove both.

Primary example, Carbon Dating... I have studied slightly on this and I think somewhere along the lines it stated that an item can only have a max 1/2 life of 14,000 years. So, this would put the oldest item capable of being dated would be 28,000 years old. How is it then that they use this method to say the material is millions of years old? My biggest peave with evolution is the idea that nothing is still evolving. If man came from Monkeys, how do monkeys still exist? In the Fifteen Thousand years of recorded history, no one has ever seen a monkey change over to a human. They state that it takes "millions of years". Okay, I get it. But, the likely hood that everything evolved fluidly and nothing is going to evolve in 15,000 years is harder to believe than someone of a greater power created the earth.

Until evolution is proven, it will still be a theory. And to take a thoery as fact is belief and faith. Wait, isn't that what Christians do? Have faith in a theory that God's son was crucified? Sound awfully similar in the scientific idea that neither can be proved.

But, back to the OP's original question.

What kind of egg? Are we talking about a Baby Chicken?

In an evolutionary stand point, the egg would have to of come first. As, the mutations were formed in the DNA during reproduction. But, what if the chicken was mutated from a live birth scenario?

From a religious stand point, Chicken would have been first as God created all living beings on Day 6 (Gen. 1:25).

Evolution is a FACT, and also a Theory. "Theory" In the scientific sense, refers to a set of laws that explains Facts. Not the common usage of the word which means Ideas based on evidence.

And Man did not evolve from modern day monkeys. We evolved from a common ancestor to chimps. And further back, monkeys. So all apes and monkeys evolved from the same ancestor at some point, which does not exist anymore.

And evolution still happens, it is proven, we can see it, we have evidence, we have tens of thousands of missing links and transitional forms on file.

Humans are now evolving to not grow wisdom teeth, and the appendix is shrinking more with each generation. This is a Fact.

Evolution is not philosophy, it is Scientific FACT.

and Evolution does not always happen fluidly, thats why there is mutations and failed species that end up extinct.

Now, chickens evolved from small dinosaurs that laid eggs, that's the answer.

This is exactly why 99% of the time I refuse to debate topics such as these. Close-minded people who simply PUSH their views and beliefs on others just ruin it. I was not forceful in the listing of either side, and I chose to walk the line by stating a few ideas that have disproved the idea of evolution.

Have you ever seen evolution occur? Have you ever been able to provide enough "evidence" of its existence? No scientist or person who studies it has. This is why it takes just as much faith to "prove" evolution as any other eligion.

You misquote yourself there though.

Evolution is a FACT, and also a Theory. "Theory" In the scientific sense, refers to a set of laws that explains Facts. Not the common usage of the word which means Ideas based on evidence.

Then you turn to say:

Evolution is not philosophy, it is Scientific FACT.

So it is a theory in the scientific sense and a fact in the scientific sense? Great work.

I have no argument that mutations have occured, but none of these mutations have been significant enough to cross the Biological classification of the life being breeded. You can change breeds but not species. A defect is something that is a negative effect to a breed. By your logic, a person born with Down Syndrome will 100% of the time breed another being with Down Sybdrome. If this were the case, the entire world would have it by now.

Has a fly ever mated with a wasp? Or a snake with a worm? Lets stay together, snakes and lizards? You don't see it. And even if you did the base DNA doesn't change.

List a few of these features of evidence and I can list a few historical events written in the books of the King James Bible.

It is not something that can be proven, by either side, and this is why I avoid bringing it up.

[T3FREAK]

can you imagine the thought in the mind of the person who saw the first egg and said hmmph that should be good to eat? and how he ate it? lol just for thought as well...

[PandorasCustoms]

can you imagine the thought in the mind of the person who saw the first egg and said hmmph that should be good to eat? and how he ate it? lol just for thought as well...

For real...

[HHR Ed]

There are many mixed threories between Christianity (I use this as the basis since it fights Evolution head on most frequently) and evoltion.

Dinosaurs, Monkeys, Missing Link... All things we may or may not find.

Personally, an idea or question such as this is Philosophy. It is simply theory since history was not recorded back in these eras.

I have taken several Religion and Evolution courses in college and have learned some interesting things that sort of disprove both.

Primary example, Carbon Dating... I have studied slightly on this and I think somewhere along the lines it stated that an item can only have a max 1/2 life of 14,000 years. So, this would put the oldest item capable of being dated would be 28,000 years old. How is it then that they use this method to say the material is millions of years old? My biggest peave with evolution is the idea that nothing is still evolving. If man came from Monkeys, how do monkeys still exist? In the Fifteen Thousand years of recorded history, no one has ever seen a monkey change over to a human. They state that it takes "millions of years". Okay, I get it. But, the likely hood that everything evolved fluidly and nothing is going to evolve in 15,000 years is harder to believe than someone of a greater power created the earth.

Until evolution is proven, it will still be a theory. And to take a thoery as fact is belief and faith. Wait, isn't that what Christians do? Have faith in a theory that God's son was crucified? Sound awfully similar in the scientific idea that neither can be proved.

But, back to the OP's original question.

What kind of egg? Are we talking about a Baby Chicken?

In an evolutionary stand point, the egg would have to of come first. As, the mutations were formed in the DNA during reproduction. But, what if the chicken was mutated from a live birth scenario?

From a religious stand point, Chicken would have been first as God created all living beings on Day 6 (Gen. 1:25).

Evolution is a FACT, and also a Theory. "Theory" In the scientific sense, refers to a set of laws that explains Facts. Not the common usage of the word which means Ideas based on evidence.

And Man did not evolve from modern day monkeys. We evolved from a common ancestor to chimps. And further back, monkeys. So all apes and monkeys evolved from the same ancestor at some point, which does not exist anymore.

And evolution still happens, it is proven, we can see it, we have evidence, we have tens of thousands of missing links and transitional forms on file.

Humans are now evolving to not grow wisdom teeth, and the appendix is shrinking more with each generation. This is a Fact.

Evolution is not philosophy, it is Scientific FACT.

and Evolution does not always happen fluidly, thats why there is mutations and failed species that end up extinct.

Now, chickens evolved from small dinosaurs that laid eggs, that's the answer.

This is exactly why 99% of the time I refuse to debate topics such as these. Close-minded people who simply PUSH their views and beliefs on others just ruin it. I was not forceful in the listing of either side, and I chose to walk the line by stating a few ideas that have disproved the idea of evolution.

Have you ever seen evolution occur? Have you ever been able to provide enough "evidence" of its existence? No scientist or person who studies it has. This is why it takes just as much faith to "prove" evolution as any other eligion.

You misquote yourself there though.

Evolution is a FACT, and also a Theory. "Theory" In the scientific sense, refers to a set of laws that explains Facts. Not the common usage of the word which means Ideas based on evidence.

Then you turn to say:

Evolution is not philosophy, it is Scientific FACT.

So it is a theory in the scientific sense and a fact in the scientific sense? Great work.

I have no argument that mutations have occured, but none of these mutations have been significant enough to cross the Biological classification of the life being breeded. You can change breeds but not species. A defect is something that is a negative effect to a breed. By your logic, a person born with Down Syndrome will 100% of the time breed another being with Down Sybdrome. If this were the case, the entire world would have it by now.

Has a fly ever mated with a wasp? Or a snake with a worm? Lets stay together, snakes and lizards? You don't see it. And even if you did the base DNA doesn't change.

List a few of these features of evidence and I can list a few historical events written in the books of the King James Bible.

It is not something that can be proven, by either side, and this is why I avoid bringing it up.

I did not contradict myself, I was merely attempting to educate. Evolution is a fact in the sense that it happens. Then there is the Theory of Evolution that explains how it all works.

And yes, I have seen evidence that proves it, so has just about every biologist on earth. It is a proven fact, there is no debate about that.

And closed mindedness is usually on the creationists side. A scientist reviews evidence and believes in the truth. The one thing we do not know, and we are happy to say that we dont know things, is that we dont know how a Bio-Genesis started. that is, how life started on earth. Sure we have some hypothesis' and good ideas based on fundamental laws and how biology and chemistry works. But nothing proven. So Scientists simply say that we dont know, but we are finding out. Creationist say, we dont know, so it must be god. This is called God of the Gaps. And there is no evidence to support such a claim.

If a scientist finds evidence that points to God, they will say, it is probably that God did it, if they see no evidence at all either way they may say that God is a possibility, but so are many many other possibilities.

A creationists wont even entertain the idea that God may not have done it.

You call it faith, I call is stubborn ignorance.

And my logic says nothing of the sort of your syndrome example. Even those with down syndrome still have the genes to make a perfect human being, they also have mutated genes so there is a chance they can have down syndrome babies. And its a biological and genetic matter that mutations rarely cross species. They would have the chance to cross to older species in the evolutionary lineage. Like a person born with a tail, which happens. But we do not share genes with a dog besides a common ancestor in the earliest days of mammals 100s of millions of years ago, so we cannot mutate into a dog, we just dont have the genes.

Learning science is fun, before you argue against facts, its a good idea to read up on them first.

[TeamHT]

[Namosh]

Ed, come on now....don't act like scientists don't make shit up to fill in their gaps....missing link? dark matter?

It is obvious to me that species mutate and evolve, but the theory of evolution as a whole takes WAY too many leaps to be defended as arrogantly as it is by the scientific community. There is no need for creationists to be demonized and belittled the way they are. It's about faith...what is so bad about that?

[PandorasCustoms]

Again, I have no argument that genetic abnormailties occur, but you are still stating that it has been proven that abnormality has become regularity.

That is where I choose to disagree.

I do agree that many Religious peope today are incredibly closed minded, but many of those close-minded people have studied the ideas and sciences more than we know. I have no right or cause to say they, you, or any one else is right or wrong until I can see what can be proven to me. This is why it is conitnued to be a "theory".

And, You are correct, I haven't studied these topics in five-six years, so I may not be the best person to aruge the topic today. But, you still did not provide evidence of your claims. I do not believe blindly, and I have studied teachings of many scientists and theorists of the past, but none have honestly proven anything to me as a person. I chooses to follow what I do because I like to believe that their is a higher power and there is an opporunity to work towards a goal. And, personally, I don't like to think of death as the end. But, I can not prove any of my claims, and can honestly barely back up any of my own beliefs, which is sad on my part.

My final question on the topic.... If evolution were really matter of factely provable, why didn't it come into scientific world until Darwin? If it were notated from the point "humans" began recording history, why wouldn't we see it? Did the cave men not think it was important enough? I am simply curious. And, every debate always brings an added sense of learning and knowledge to the table, as long as both parties continue to be open-minded.

I really do not appreciate religious bashing though, creationists or not, we are still humans and should act like them...

[Decaf]

evolution.

two non "chicken" birds (junglefowls iirc) mated and in that egg was the chicken. a mutation that can occur in nature and with the manipulation of science.

[cc_audio]

I would go so far as to say 100% of religious people are close minded. They chose their beliefs to (hopefully) better their life, and that is perfectly fine. But there is not a spec of fact behind it, and you can argue your religious philosophy til your face turns blue without ever accomplishing anything. Religious folk only bother me when they start attempting to press their beliefs unto others. If I had to be honest, I would say religion keeps the stupid people from killing everybody, which makes me a happy person. Synthetic guilt I suppose, for those that can't handle all of reality. But religion started as man used to be very unintelligent. Even today, very small percentage of the worlds population is worth a damn intellectually. Religion was an answer to questions unknown, or it gave hope and promise to those enduring persecution or hardship, and it allowed those of higher intelligence to manipulate those of lower intelligence. Some people are raised in a church, good for them and their god, I was raised using logic to help guide me through life. That's all I need, at least scientists make an effort to uncover reality. Whereas religious folk answer is "god did it", and proceed to invent a story of how he did it. I would never ever expect a Christian or any religious person to open their mind, because if you've taken a religious philosophy class you would know not even Christians get along together. Again, no getting on the defensive. Believe what you need to get through your life, but if your going to attempt to impose your beliefs unto others than I've got a problem with you. Your wrong, I'm not going to pretend to be right, and everybody dies so none of it really matters in the end.

Oh and again, egg came first.

I hate religious debates, like arguing over whether big macs are better than whoppers. When clearly whoppers are better.

[JEMT8]

We will never know until we die. I'm just happy chickens exist. Case closed.