The classic

[iswallowedabug (deleted)]

lonelybooknerd wrote: I'll tell you what i think soon enough, but first your going to have to explain your logic.

I think the logic is pretty clear.


lonelybooknerd wrote: It's a commenly accepted philisophical truth that somthing can only come from something else.

Ah, I think I heard this logic in "The sound of music." "Nothing
comes from nothing, nothing ever could..." But I hardly
thing that is a greatly reknowned philosphical work.


lonelybooknerd wrote: So, if two things were to cause each others existence then they would have to start out as only a fraction of what they would eventually become. Then they would work each other up to their current state. Even then there would have to of been something that started the ball rolling because there can't be 0 of anything and instently 0.0001 of something apears.

This is faulty logic. There are some things that are or aren't.

"Everybody dies instantly -- there's no other way you can die.
You're alive, you're alive, you're alive, then you're dead."
-- Steven Wright

For example, a person can become a parent, but is not a parent
until having a child. You can debate when life actually begins
for that child (conception, birth, etc.), but until that child is alive,
that person is not a parent. You can't be 1% a parent. You're
either a parent or you're not. The parent and the child come
into existence at EXACTLY the same time, by definition.

[lonelybooknerd]

So if i understand you right then before the creater and the created the creater was something else entirely. while this is both logical and possible, it opens the door to thousends of new questions. most notably
what was the entity's purpous at this time? and how was He/She/It created?

[deadlylace]

ooow ooow i think i know

I say it was THE EGG, because it was a genetic mutation that produced the chiken. so say the mummy and the daddy dinosur are brother and sister, and they decide to make babys, the baby then comes out of the egg deformed and being a CHICKEN :D

[surfinsushi (deleted)]

iswallowedabug wrote: lonelybooknerd wrote: That's pretty good. but it does have a flaw: How would you you support that view against a confirmed creationists?

The same logic applied to a literal interpretation of Genesis also
holds true, I believe. According to the text I've read, God created
the animals on the fifth day, first making "life that moves in the oceans
lakes and rivers" and THEN filling the sky with birds. Unless there is
some rare, aquatic chicken I am unfamiliar with, that means that
the egg-bearing life in the ocean STILL preceded the chicken.

Of course, you could invoke cowardly sea life, thereby using a play
on words to reduce the question back to its original form.

Okay, I've just gone and re-read a few different text versions, and
I suppose one could argue that until God said "be fruitful and multiply"
that only adult creatures existed, so that the adult chicken existed
before sea life eggs existed, however, before you point that out,
consider that in a literal interpretation, the adult life created would
have been created in its present form, and in many species, the
female already carries all the oocytes (eggs) she will ever have
in her life even before adulthood, so my initial logic still holds. As
soon as female sea life existed, even in adult form, there were eggs.

And what about Roe?

[(deleted)]

Is it getting hot in here or what _

[protozoa (deleted)]

`Eggs are for breakfast and chicken is for lunch or dinner, so the egg comes first. =^_^=

[spatulaman0]

`They originated at the same time. Duhh.

[alikakadri (deleted)]

lonelybooknerd wrote: If nobody else has one, then lets see what ya'll think of this:

It's a time tested paradox that philosophers before Socrates have been struggling with:

Which came first? the chichen or the egg?

And please try to come up with a solution thats you yourself came up with. Don't just repete Darwin or some other preestablished dogma. unless, of course, its for citation perposes.

I'll let a few of you tell me what you think first (so that way I don't somehow influence the results) then I'll come back share with you my oppinion on the subject.



meh... that one was solved such a long time ago.

the obvious answer is that the chicken probably mutated from some other creature that was not a chicken. Said creature probably already laid eggs (dinosaur laid eggs for example). Thus the egg came first and the chicken just happened to hatch from it as a result of some long-term natural mutation.

it's not even a brain teaser anymore... just another answerable question...

[offtandem]

`Iswallowedabug had the patience of the saint to continue this through.

I couldn't even finish reading.