[Do you have scientific reasons for rejecting Evolution?]
I dont know if this counts as science. But evolution cannot explain 'which came first the chicken or the egg?' Creationism however states that chickens came first.
52 comments
Actually, I believe that the egg probably evolved in other species before the modern chicken, so, I'd say the egg came first.
And, NO. Not science. At ALL. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Not even remotely. Like, it's actually shocking me how many ways that that isn't science. It's almost impressive.
It's a problem of linguistics. If you (partly) define an egg as something that came from a chicken, then it is the chicken. If you (partly) define a chicken as something that came from an egg, its the egg.
Unfortunately it is a more complicated issue than you are able to comprehend, so you are satisfied to accept a simple and impossible scenario. And no, that is in no possible way, science. Creationism states alot of goofy things that are quite laughable. People who follow goofy things are also quite laughable. Now go back to reading 'Highlights'.
Whatta 'tard. The whole 'what came first, the chicken or the egg?' was a 8 word encapsulation of the entire Evolution vs Creation debate.
Eggs and sexual reproduction evolved over a billion years ago, 500 million years before the Cambrian Explosion, before vertebrates, before fish. Corals release eggs and sperm for instance.
'which came first the chicken or the egg?'
I dunno - Ask some rooster.
Jokes aside, Creationism however states that chickens came first. , and wrongly so because the egg came first, thus, you lose.
"Creationism however states that chickens came first."
And the creationists are wrong yet again. The egg came first, but it came from a bird that was almost, but not quite, a chicken.
And there would be a chain of birds, leading back to a reptile that was almost, but not quite, totally unlike tea... err... the chicken.
"I dont know if this counts as science."
Judging by what follows, I doubt if you would recognize science if it bit you on your left behind.
"But evolution cannot explain 'which came first the chicken or the egg?'"
BZZZZZT! Wrong! It's the egg, which has been around billions of years longer than chickens. Thanks for showing yourself utterly ignorant of evolutionary theory (and logic as well).
"Creationism however states that chickens came first."
Which shows, once again, just how wrong creationism is, as well as how badly you failed to provide what your questioner requested: scientific reasons for rejecting evolution. Try reading a book or article by actual scientists once in a while -- and on a note of personal importance to me, please discover a marvelous creation known as the comma, and learn how to use it.
~David D.G.
You don't know if that is science? No,no,no, it's not.
This is another example of someone so desperate for certainty that s/he is willing to believe anything, even the absurd, so long as it offers a concrete answer. How sad that this person is willing to accept this level of "thinking."
And in a debate on evolution vs. creationism, what damn difference does it make which came first? If creationism is correct, then yes, the chicken probably came first, but there is no evidence at all that creationism is correct. The evidence lies with evolution, so it matters not one wit to me which came first. You, Bonhoffer, are still going to believe the fairytale of Goddidit regardless of the evidence and proofs provided.
Another example of creationist thinking, that having an answer or explanation is always better than not having one, whether it's known to be accurate or not. This is the same thinking that says "The big bang doesn't explain what caused the univers to be created but the bible does (god) therefor the bible's right."
That's funny, 'cause evolution DOES explain which came first: a not-quite chicken laid a chicken egg -> the egg came first. Not to mention that eggs have been dated millions of years before chickens, just as evolution would predict.
Eggs have been around a LOT longer than chickens.
Now, if you're talking about chicken eggs in particular, then I'd have to say the chicken, because:
1) A not quite chicken would have laid the egg.
2) Being that the egg contains the chicken (or at least the cellular structure that will later be a chicken), and that that's a vital part of what makes it an egg , then the egg could not come any sooner than the chicken.
It depends on how you define "chicken egg". If "chicken egg" is defined as an egg that came from a chicken, the chicken came first. It "chicken egg" is defined to mean and egg that hatches into a chicken the chicken came first.
Also, creationism doesn't answer which came first no matter how you define chicken egg. (Did god first zap a chicken or an egg into existence?)
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.