Order, or the ability to keep it is what most historians tie the earth's continual existence to. So in the order of creation (or appearance as you may wish to call it), which do you think came first: the Chicken or the Egg?
Hey, think  b/4 you answer this

Legendary:

Order, or the ability to keep it is what most historians tie the earth's continual existence to. So in the order of creation (or appearance as you may wish to call it), which do you think came first: the Chicken or the Egg?
Hey, think b/4 you answer this

it's the feather that came first, dumb question

It is undeniably evident that the egg came first.  Long before there were chickens, many animals laid eggs.

Legendary:

Order, or the ability to keep it is what most historians tie the earth's continual existence to. So in the order of creation (or appearance as you may wish to call it), which do you think came first: the Chicken or the Egg?
Hey, think  b/4 you answer this

'Sikin' of cause

;d

I suppose it would be circular logic to suggest that the animals came from the eggs, so I won't do so.

The egg was a development (and a darn fine one, at that!) which allowed animals a better opportunity to develop in a secured environment. So, while there were animals who laid eggs before chickens were doing so, not all animals needed to lay eggs. But, for those that developed the ability to do so, it was a stupendous move in the right direction.

drrionelli:

It is undeniably evident that the egg came first. Long before there were chickens, many animals laid eggs.

QFT

"QFT," KAG?

drrionelli:

"QFT," KAG?

Sorry. QFT = Quoted for truth.

drrionelli:

It is undeniably evident that the egg came first. Long before there were chickens, many animals laid eggs.

Undeniably evident? its easy to make statements that can't be defended.

ricadelide:

Undeniably evident? its easy to make statements that can't be defended.

I don't know it can't be defended, especially if you consider the fact that several fossilised eggs predate chickens by millions of years.

KAG:

I don't know it can't be defended, especially if you consider the fact that several fossilised eggs predate chickens by millions of years.

Have you, consistent with your mindset, critically examined the dating methods and the underlying assumptions, not to mention the numerous inconsistencies?

the egg, but wat laid the egg, the hen then

ricadelide:

Have you, consistent with your mindset, critically examined the dating methods and the underlying assumptions, not to mention the numerous inconsistencies?

Yes.

KAG:

Yes.

Good for you. I have, and it doesn't do for my critical mind - i dont find it easy to swallow the many 'claims'. And please don't say that's cognitive dissonance.

ricadelide:

Good for you. I have, and it doesn't do for my critical mind - i don't find it easy to swallow the many 'claims'. And please don't say that's cognitive dissonance.

Okay, I wont call it cognitive dissonance, I'll call it "Morton's Demon". In my opinion, I doubt you've studied or taken the time to understand radiometric dating, natural phenomena that can give scientists an inkling of time passed, and why geologists (practically all of them) can make the claims they have. Just my opinion.

KAG:

1. Okay, I wont call it cognitive dissonance, I'll call it "Morton's Demon". 2. In my opinion, I doubt you've studied or taken the time to understand radiometric dating, natural phenomena that can give scientists an inkling of time passed, and why geologists (practically all of them) can make the claims they have. Just my opinion.

1. LOL . . . . . call it whatever you like. I would not claim to be without bias on the issue, however, neutral people can (and perhaps do) share my reservations if adequately exposed to the process and the data generated.
2. Because i don't buy the inconsistencies and underlying assumptions then i've not understood it? what a cheap way to explain skepticsm away. History has repeatedly taught me that popular agreement (even by so-called specialists) does not validate a claim - although it may buy the claim some time. This applies on either side of the debate. The 'little' i've read and the inconsistencies i've heard just about does it for me. Even the most logical mind is reduced to a fool if his proposition is based off of faulty and unjustifiable assumptions.
just my opinion as well.

ricadelide:

1. LOL . . . . . call it whatever you like. I would not claim to be without bias on the issue,

"Morton's demon" is more than simply being biased. It's a lot more deeper and subtler than that.

however, neutral people can (and perhaps do) share my reservations if adequately exposed to the process and the data generated.

As someone who was once neutral on the issue, I disagree.

2. Because i don't buy the inconsistencies and underlying assumptions then i've not understood it? what a cheap way to explain skepticsm away.

I didn't say that. My opinion was based on the impression I've gotten from past debates and discussions with you and other Young Earth Creationist - endorsing Hovind helps with the impression. In any case, what are those inconsistencies and unpalatable underlying assumptions and how do they affect radiometric dating, the dates that have been found?

History has repeatedly taught me that popular agreement (even by so-called specialists) does not validate a claim - although it may buy the claim some time. This applies on either side of the debate. The 'little' i've read and the inconsistencies i've heard just about does it for me. Even the most logical mind is reduced to a fool if his proposition is based off of faulty and unjustifiable assumptions.
just my opinion as well.

Indeed, however, history has shown that many times the majority is right if they go to great pains to not only show their work but also attempt to falsify their work. Furthermore, the chances of being wrong are made even less when the majority use different methods to do the measurements and tests.

"Morton's demon" is more than simply being biased. It's a lot more deeper and subtler than that.

perhaps i should read about it. the term hardly attracts me though .

As someone who was once neutral on the issue, I disagree.

you know you're still an individual.

I didn't say that. My opinion was based on the impression I've gotten from past debates and discussions with you and other Young Earth Creationist - endorsing Hovind helps with the impression. In any case, what are those inconsistencies and unpalatable underlying assumptions and how do they affect radiometric dating, the dates that have been found?

ok, that may suffice. no need to bring up the past in the case in question though; like many humans i'm dynamic.
Was expecting the question and pardon me i really can't go into an argument about that right now; i have my hands full here and i show up in nairaland in spurts. However i could provide links to some articles i've read. Ok? here's one http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html
*edited* here's another [url]http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Carbon[/url]

Indeed, however, history has shown that many times the majority is right if they go to great pains to not only show their work but also attempt to falsify their work. Furthermore, the chances of being wrong are made even less when the majority use different methods to do the measurements and tests.

indeed as well. High probabilities however always remain probabilities. the few occasions to the contrary precludes from making valid genaralizations.
the cup could either be half empty or half full . . . .

ricadelide:

perhaps i should read about it. the term hardly attracts me though .

You should. Here's a link: http://www.answersincreation.org/mortond.htm

By the way, Glenn Morton is a Christian.

you know you're still an individual.

I know, but I suspect I was no different from the majority that also accept the fact that the findings of geologists are legitimate.

ok, that may suffice. no need to bring up the past in the case in question though; like many humans i'm dynamic.

Fair enough.

Was expecting the question and pardon me i really can't go into an argument about that right now; i have my hands full here and i show up in nairaland in spurts. However i could provide links to some articles i've read. Ok? here's one http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html
*edited* here's another [url]http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Carbon[/url]indeed as well.

I can sympathise with that. In any case, here's a link that attempts to correct several of Plaisted's misconceptions and wrong arguments: http://www.tim-thompson.com/plaisted-review.html

I'll also provide what I consider one of the best and easily understandable write-ups on radiometric dating available on the web: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

High probabilities however always remain probabilities. the few occasions to the contrary precludes from making valid genaralizations.
the cup could either be half empty or half full . . . .

In this case, it's almost certain that it isn't that dichotomy: the cup is brimming.

Funny though, If the egg comes ist, then what laid the egg?
If its the chicken, then how does it come about, cause there can be egg without chicken and chicken without egg.

So i put back the question to KAG to prove that logicaly that the egg came first!

stingersmi:

Funny though, If the egg comes ist, then what laid the egg?
If its the chicken, then how does it come about, cause there can be egg without chicken and chicken without egg.

So i put back the question to KAG to prove that logicaly that the egg came first!

The predecessors of chickens laid eggs. Basically, prior to the existence of chickens there were eggs - amniotic eggs; ergo, eggs came before chickens.

This is all trash. Listen: God creatd chicken to lay eggs. So the chicken came first. You guys should not disturb yourselves.

No,
Cause science basically proved through the evolution theory of evolution.

stingersmi:

No,
Cause science basically proved through the evolution theory of evolution.

scince proved what now?

What a dumb question indeed.

Try answer this:

Which came first, Man or Sperm?

No, I do think this is a pertinent question, and is actually good for enquiring minds in their quest for knowledge.

@ KAG

KAG:

The predecessors of chickens laid eggs.

What/Who created the predecessors of chickens?

KAG:

The predecessors of chickens laid eggs. Basically, prior to the existence of chickens there were eggs - amniotic eggs; ergo, eggs came before chickens.

and you know this how? Did you see these eggs? Do you have fossils of these eggs? Can we test the veracity of your claim in the lab?
Who put these eggs there in the first place? The big bang?

Atheists are deluded.

The chicken came first. But it decided to lay it's eggs instead of keeping them inside till maturity.

By the way: who created God? Afterall nothing can exist without a cause. So who created God?

nothing can exist without a cause because the Creator - God made it so, the Creator was not created, he has always been and will always be.