Speaking up against our would be soviet overlords.

Ever wondered what the answer is to the question "what came first, the chicken or the egg?"

Well, wonder no more.

There are two answers, which one you accept depends on your world-view.

For the creationist: God created chickens in Genesis, not eggs, chickens. He created fully formed men, animals, fish, plants, etc, all adult. Thus the chicken came first. Could it have been an inaccuracy and god actually created eggs instead? well, no... because chicken eggs die unless they are incubated by the body heat of an adult chicken. Thus creating merely eggs would have resulted in a bunch of dead eggs, not chickens. There might be some religions in which both were created simultaneously, but you cannot have just eggs.

For the scientist: Evolution is the process of the formation of species (not life, species!). It is rather more of a continuum, but at some point there is one singular mutation that made a large enough difference for you to draw the arbitrary line saying "this is a chicken" and not its dinosaur precursor... No matter where you decide to draw that line, it will always be a mutation in a new individual. A mutant sperm or egg will form a zygote that will form a new individual with DNA that differs from its parent. Thus the egg came first.


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Dec 31, 2010

KFC Kickin For Christ
I have nothing to lose.  IF there's no God then I've lived a good life doing good things to please this non-existent God and I'll take my long nap into eternity with everyone else. 


BUT if there is a God, which I absoultely know in my spirit and flesh exists, then I've gained everything including an eternal life living with the God who has revealed himself to me while on earth.  So I will continue to do what I believe I was created to do in the first place. 

Here's an excellent YouTube video describing why Pascal's gambit is quite wrong: Betting on Infinity. (You might want to ignore the first bit about contradicting claims. The actual wager is also discussed.)

 

Regarding the chicken & egg problem. Yes, assuming the egg came first seems to be in accordance with evolution (the observable biological fact, not just the theory).

on Dec 31, 2010

it's quite simple really... without a chicken there would be no egg. 

So simple even a child can get it.    Like I said the evolutionists have nothing on the creationists when it comes to origins. 

 

 

on Jan 01, 2011

that's actually what is called blasphemy which is attributing something to God that isn't true.   Did you know that all sin is forgiven but blasphemy?  Basically blasphemy is rooted in unbelief.  So all sin, but unbelief, is forgiven.

Isn't taking god's name in vain blasphemy?

Isn't believing the wrong denomination blasphemy?

If it can not be forgiven ever, no matter how repentant you are, then every Christian is going to hell.

on Jan 01, 2011

Isn't taking god's name in vain blasphemy?

Isn't believing the wrong denomination blasphemy?

sort of to the first, no to the second.   "Wherefore I say to you all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven to men but the blasphemy AGAINST the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven to men."  Matt 12:31. 

Blasphemy is a form of sin representing the most extreme sin.   Blasphemy is defiant irreverence, the uniquely terrible sin of intentionally and openly speaking evil against a Holy God or mocking him.   Paul confessed that he was a former blasphemer, persecutor and violent aggressor  against God but was neverthless shown mercy because he acted ignorantly in unbelief.  God's grace is bigger than our sin.  Peter even blasphemed Christ with curses and was forgiven.  

So even a believer can blaspheme since any thought or word that defames God's name constitutes blasphemy.  But to acknowledge that sin and go to the one who forgives is the key.   

To question God's goodness, wisdom, fairness, truthfulness, love or faithfulness is also a form of blasphemy but all forgiveable. 

There is one exception.  Blasphemy against the spirit shall NOT be forgiven.  It's more serious.  It reflects determined unbelief, the refusal after having seen all the evidence necessary to complete understanding even to consider believing in Christ.  It reflects determined rejection of Jesus as the Messiah against every evidence and argument.  It's knowingly rejecting Him and condemning Him.  In the scripture context above it was those who spoke against the Holy Spirit who saw His divine power working in and through Christ but willfully refused to accept the implications of that revelation and in some cases attributed that power to Satan.  They saw things like never before but refused to believe.   In the face of every possible evidence of His messiahship they said no.  God could do nothing more for them and they would therefore remain eternally unforgiven.    That's why I said the only unforgiveable sin is unbelief. 

Has nothing to do with denomination.  There are true genuine Christians scattered about in many diff denominations.  It's about relationship not religion. 

[quote]If it can not be forgiven ever, no matter how repentant you are, then every Christian is going to hell.[/quote

Every Christian WAS going to hell before they were saved from it. That's what the whole idea of "saved" or "Savior" comes from.  Saved from what?  Eternal hell where we all deserve to go.    The only difference between a Saint and a Sinner is a Savior.   That's what it means to say "there go I but by the grace of God." 

 

on Jan 04, 2011

KFC Kickin For Christ
it's quite simple really... without a chicken there would be no egg.

Do you actually understand how evolution works? 

Wikipedia - Chicken or the egg
The modern chicken was believed to have descended from another closely related species of birds, the red junglefowl, but recently discovered genetic evidence suggests that the modern domestic chicken is a hybrid descendant of both the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl.[8] Assuming the evidence bears out, a hybrid is a compelling scenario that the chicken egg, based on the second definition, came before the chicken.

So basically a red junglefowl and a grey junglefowl got busy and laid a chicken egg.

on Jan 04, 2011

Do you actually understand how evolution works?

do you? 

So basically a red junglefowl and a grey junglefowl got busy and laid a chicken egg.

because wikipedia said so you believe this?  Notice the "was believed" part. 

so you have to ask yourself..where did the junglefowl come from?  Which came first?  The junglefowl or the egg the junglefowl hatched from? 

 

on May 27, 2011

My apologies for the late reply, I don't really visit these forums often and have yet to figure out if it features some kind of reply/quote notification system. Anyway ...

KFC Kickin For Christ

Do you actually understand how evolution works?

do you? 


So basically a red junglefowl and a grey junglefowl got busy and laid a chicken egg.

because wikipedia said so you believe this?  Notice the "was believed" part. 

so you have to ask yourself..where did the junglefowl come from?  Which came first?  The junglefowl or the egg the junglefowl hatched from? 

 

Yes I do understand evolution. Not on a professional level, but I followed biology in secondary school. (Nowadays I just get thought Evolutionary Computation.)

The "was believed" part was in reference to the theory that the chicken was solely descendant from the red junglefowl. And the belief is past tense because it was replaced by the genetic evidence that shown it was actually descendant from both the red & the grey junglefowl.

The reason i believe Wikipedia is because it documents it sources very well. In this case they reference a peer reviewed scientific paper. (Identification of the Yellow Skin Gene Reveals a Hybrid Origin of the Domestic Chicken) So this isn't just believing, this is as close to knowing as you can get without doing the research yourself. All references in a Wikipedia article are listed at the bottom, numbers in superscript surrounded by square brackets mark a reference in the actual text.

Regarding the descendents of the junglefowls. Some clicks though wikipedia teaches me that the oldest know to man fowl lived (now extinct) in the time of the dinosaurs (paper). Going further back than that will take you through a good part of evolutionary history of life in inverse chronological order. After that we get abiogenesis (a field of science that hasn't found a conclusive answer yet). So ultimately I don't know where chickens come from, but what I do know is that the egg was there first.

on Jun 02, 2011

So basically a red junglefowl and a grey junglefowl got busy and laid a chicken egg.

Hybridization is tangential to evolution and not related to the discussion at hand.

2 Pages1 2