You cannot "create" a CREATOR.

Seun:

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

how did the chicken get there? Do you have fossils of the world's first chicken?

cgift:

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

I don't think it's much of a disturbance - at least not on my end. I'm guessing you were there when your God created chickens ex nihilo to lay eggs, yes? That, or could you provide some tangible evidence, please?

mrpataki:

What a dumb question indeed.

Try answer this:

Which came first, Man or Sperm?

Sperm.

Purist:

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

I agree.

@ KAG

What/Who created the predecessors of chickens?

Created? No one. They evolved naturally.

KAG:

I don't think it's much of a disturbance - at least not on my end. I'm guessing you were there when your God created chickens ex nihilo to lay eggs, yes? That, or could you provide some tangible evidence, please?

Sperm.

Created? No one. They evolved naturally.

I'm guessing you were there when sperm or predecessors of chickens suddenly evolved naturally, yes? That, or could your provide some tangible evidence, please? Surely since u are so sure that God did not create them you must be able to also evolve a chicken too, no?

davidylan:

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?

There are fossils of different types of eggs; in particular, dinosaur eggs. Their veracity has already been tested in labs.

Who put these eggs there in the first place? The big bang?

If I had to guess, I'd say the animal laying - or preparing to lay, as the case may be - the eggs probably put them there. Just a guess. The Big Bang on the otherhand is a cosmological model of the Universe and has no business laying eggs.

Atheists are deluded.

Well, just as long as we aren't forcibly denuded, it's all good.

Seun:

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?

Neither of those are right. Animals were already laying eggs before chickens. Also, some things can exist without causes - they just tend to be counter-intuitive. One example is virtual particles.

debosky:

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.

I like how your post was devoid of anything resembling a coherent argument.

davidylan:

You cannot "create" a CREATOR.

Sure you can. Even by your belief attests to that: The Christian Creationist believes humans were created by YHVH; Humans create. By the way, humans have created creators too.

how did the chicken get there? Do you have fossils of the world's first chicken?

No. Do you?

davidylan:

I'm guessing you were there when sperm or predecessors of chickens suddenly evolved naturally, yes?
That, or could your provide some tangible evidence, please?

No, I wasn't there; however, the fossil record and the processes of evolution point to a certain conclusion.

Two googlelized examples of egg laying dinosaurs:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4446769.stm
http://www.stonecompany.com/dinoeggs/study/eggstudy.html

Surely since u are so sure that God did not create them you must be able to also evolve a chicken too, no?

Nope, but then again, reproducing what took nature several billion years to accomplish has never been requisite for science or the evidence it presents.

KAG:

No, I wasn't there; however, the fossil record and the processes of evolution point to a certain conclusion.

Two googlelized examples of egg laying dinosaurs:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4446769.stm
http://www.stonecompany.com/dinoeggs/study/eggstudy.html

You still havent answered the question, how did the egg-laying dinosaurs appear? How did they evolve and from what? If they evolved from unicellular organisms as they always lie to us in biology, how did those organisms get there and what gave them life?

davidylan:

You still havent answered the question, how did the egg-laying dinosaurs appear? How did they evolve and from what?

I didn't know there was a question I missed. I suppose, I expected it to have been covered by the basic premise of evolution. In any case, egg laying dinosaurs evolved from archosaurs. They evolved from them most likely through mutations and selection.

If they evolved from unicellular organisms as they always lie to us in biology, how did those organisms get there and what gave them life?

Lie to you in biology? How quaint. In any case, I guess your question - with all the tassels and sequins removed - boils down to how life may have started. In a sense, it's inconclusive at the moment; however, competing theories in abiogenesis are showing that life could have arisen naturally. At the moment, it's understandably difficult to state which path the origins of life took.

KAG:

I didn't know there was a question I missed. I suppose, I expected it to have been covered by the basic premise of evolution. In any case, egg laying dinosaurs evolved from archosaurs. They evolved from them most likely through mutations and selection.

How do we know this is 100% true? For all the noise making, evolution is merely a premise and not an establishe fact except for scientists who like to delude themselves.

KAG:

Lie to you in biology? How quaint. In any case, I guess your question - with all the tassels and sequins removed - boils down to how life may have started. In a sense, it's inconclusive at the moment; however, competing theories in abiogenesis are showing that life could have arisen naturally. At the moment, it's understandably difficult to state which path the origins of life took.

how ridiculous, and this coming from people who keep asking us to produce CONCLUSIVE evidence that God created life. They cant even prove their own competing theories of life. What a deluded bunch these atheists are turning out to be.

davidylan:

How do we know this is 100% true?

We don't. Science doesn't do proofs.

For all the noise making, evolution is merely a premise and not an establishe fact except for scientists who like to delude themselves.

Don't be silly. Evolution at its most basic is an established fact. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, which seeks to explain the influences of evolution, is a science theory not just a premise. By the way, would it be wrong to assume that the delusion of scientists who like to delude themselves is pretty much the same delusion of atheists?

how ridiculous, and this coming from people who keep asking us to produce CONCLUSIVE evidence that God created life.

Well, since I'm not one of the people who keep asking you (or to be frank, anybody) to produce "COCLUSIVE evidence that God created life" I'll have disregard this section of your post. Maybe you should take it up with them?

They can't even prove their own competing theories of life.

Nor are they setting out to prove any theories: proof is for maths and alcoholics that are watching their figures.

What a deluded bunch these atheists are turning out to be.

That's the third time you've used deluded. Are you sure you're not projecting?

KAG:

however, competing theories in abiogenesis are showing that life could have arisen naturally.

perhaps you could help those theorists know about this prize; Origin-of-life prize, it could help thier research considerably

KAG:

Evolution at its most basic is an established fact.

If you're referring what is now termed 'microevolution', perhaps no-one would dispute that. If you're referring to macroevolution, i disagree.

ricadelide:

perhaps you could help those theorists know about this prize; Origin-of-life prize, it could help their research considerably

I'm pretty sure they already know about it. It's a pity they can't fulfill the criterai of the prize, though, as the theories dealing with abiogenesis are tentative at the moment. I hear that should change in ten years (give or take a few).

ricadelide:

If you're referring what is now termed 'microevolution', perhaps no-one would dispute that. If you're referring to macroevolution, i disagree.

No, I was referring to change in the genetic structure of a population over time. I'm curious, though, what do you mean by microevolution and macroevolution, and what makes one possible and the other not.

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

To prevent equivocating on the word 'egg', i'm guessing the author of this thread referred to a chicken egg not just eggs in general (not that i beleive that eggs in general came before chickens though).
If that is the case, the question would then be, did the reptilean ancestor of the chicken lay an egg that hatched into a chicken? (while it itself still remained a reptile or reptilo-avian?) Or let's say there is an avian intermediary between the dinosaur ancestor and the chicken; did it grow up different from a chicken and then laid a chicken egg?
I'm sure you'd say it was a very gradual process - something which is totally lacking in the fossil record.

KAG:

No, I was referring to change in the genetic structure of a population over time. I'm curious, though, what do you mean by microevolution and macroevolution, and what makes one possible and the other not.

I'm almost sure you've heard the terms before (at least with all your reading). Obviously, everyone knows that the genetic makeup of populations change over time; that is not to be disputed. However, those kinds of changes (which we have continually and repeatedly witnessed) cannot be extrapolated to justify nor imply the TOE, because it (the latter) is mechanistically not feasible from former ie the kind of changes that we see.
Suffice it to say that by macroevolution i refer to some broader aspects of the TOE especially as it relates to a universal common ancestor. Broader because there's no need for petty debates about what constitutes a species and all that.

ricadelide:

To prevent equivocating on the word 'egg', i'm guessing the author of this thread referred to a chicken egg not just eggs in general (not that i beleive that eggs in general came before chickens though).

I doubt it would have made a difference either way - although I did take it to mean, at the very least, amniotic eggs.

If that is the case, the question would then be, did the reptilean ancestor of the chicken lay an egg that hatched into a chicken? (while it itself still remained a reptile or reptilo-avian?) Or let's say there is an avian intermediary between the dinosaur ancestor and the chicken; did it grow up different from a chicken and then laid a chicken egg?

It's unlikely that it occured like the scenarios you've presented above. Remember, populations not individuals. It's likely the changes were seamless from generation to generation, to put it in simple terms at some point it became organisms with characteristics that we call chickens.

I'm sure you'd say it was a very gradual process - something which is totally lacking in the fossil record.

For the evolution of chickens, yes. Generally, no.

ricadelide:

I'm almost sure you've heard the terms before (at least with all your reading).

Yes; however, many Creationists I've encountered have had different definitions for the terms.

Obviously, everyone knows that the genetic makeup of populations change over time; that is not to be disputed.

You'd be surprised at the number of people that have asserted that such is not the case.

However, those kinds of changes (which we have continually and repeatedly witnessed) cannot be extrapolated to justify nor imply the TOE, because it (the latter) is mechanistically not feasible from former ie the kind of changes that we see.

Why not?

Suffice it to say that by macroevolution i refer to some broader aspects of the TOE especially as it relates to a universal common ancestor.

That's an interesting and not so clear definition. Could you clarify it a little more? What broader aspects? How little broader in relation to micro-evolution?

Broader because there's no need for petty debates about what constitutes a species and all that.

I don't think having at least a vague idea of what constitutes a species is petty.

KAG:

I doubt it would have made a difference either way - although I did take it to mean, at the very least, amniotic eggs.

from your next statement its obvious it makes a difference

KAG:

It's unlikely that it occured like the scenarios you've presented above. Remember, populations not individuals. It's likely the changes were seamless from generation to generation, to put it in simple terms at some point it became organisms with characteristics that we call chickens.

now you have a whole load of unfounded speculation here. How do we know that in this case it involves populations? in the case of humans for example, the common consensus is that all modern day humans came from a single individual (or is it pair? ). So why can't that be the case with chickens? Your third statement (about seamless change) is also speculation, however on getting to the second part of your statement you cannot categorically say that the 'full' chicken came at the level of the hatched chick (or chicken) or at the level of the next egg-laying.

KAG:

For the evolution of chickens, yes. Generally, no.

Horse and human (both very disputable - and perhaps a few others) must make for very good generalizations

ricadelide:

from your next statement its obvious it makes a difference

How so?

now you have a whole load of unfounded speculation here.

Extrapolation.

How do we know that in this case it involves populations? in the case of humans for example, the common consensus is that all modern day humans came from a single individual (or is it pair? ). So why can't that be the case with chickens?

Evolution occurs in populations not individuals - it's highly unlikely that chickens would be different in that regard. In the case of humans, you don't have it exactly right. The genetic make-up of modern humans can be traced back to two humans (who didn't exist at the same time); however, those individuals did live ina population of other humans - the lineage of the others have ceased to exist.

Your third statement (about seamless change) is also speculation,

No, it's more extrapolation.

however on getting to the second part of your statement you cannot categorically say that the 'full' chicken came at the level of the hatched chick (or chicken) or at the level of the next egg-laying.

I'm sorry? I didn't understand that (sorry, I'm slightly knackered). Could you please clarify what you mean.

Horse and human (both very disputable - and perhaps a few others) must make for very good generalizations

They refute the claim that evidence for a gradual process is lacking in the fossil record.

Yes; however, many Creationists I've encountered have had different definitions for the terms.

ok

You'd be surprised at the number of people that have asserted that such is not the case.

i might not blame them

Why not?

Because it's mechanistically implausible/improbable (i probably would address it in detail later)

That's an interesting and not so clear definition. Could you clarify it a little more? What broader aspects? How little broader in relation to micro-evolution?

Example: Reptile to Birds
And; universal common ancestor to all organisms

I don't think having at least a vague idea of what constitutes a species is petty

I didnt say that. Having an idea of what constitutes a species does not mean there can't be unwarranted arguments about the exact definition (and perhaps boundaries) of one.

no body created God.
But the chicken exsisted far b/4 d eggs, cause accordin 2 evolution, birds came first!

ricadelide:

oki might not blame them

You might not blame them for choosing to believe "the genetic makeup of populations change over time"? Well, I guess it does depend on the level of the person's education.

Because it's mechanistically implausible/improbable (i probably would address it in detail later)

It most certainly would help a great deal if you do address it in detail. Also, what makes macroevolution mechanistically improbable yet leaves microevolution unscathed?

Example: Reptile to Birds
And; universal common ancestor to all organisms

Okay. So, should I assume that when you mean macroevolution, you mean, roughly, evolution betwen classes and beyond that? In any case, there are lines of evidence of those you mentioned occuring.

I didnt say that. Having an idea of what constitutes a species does not mean there can't be unwarranted arguments about the exact definition (and perhaps boundaries) of one.

That's fair enough and I agree.

stingersmi:

no body created God.
But the chicken exsisted far b/4 d eggs, cause accordin 2 evolution, birds came first!

According to evolution, eggs came before birds.

No birds b4 eggs,
According 2 creation theory of the book of Genesis,
The birds also came ist!

stingersmi:

No birds before eggs,

Once again, no, according to the theory of evolution and the evidence that has been found, there were egg laying animals before birds came on the scene.

According 2 creation theory of the book of Genesis,
The birds also came ist!

I'm not aware of any "creation theory of the book of Genesis".

It seems that there are those who are assuming that the original question:

Which came first--the chicken or the egg?

makes reference to only a specific type of egg, i.e., a chicken egg. This is egregiously fallacious reasoning at its most deplorable. As has been noted by KAG and others, many animals (e.g., reptiles, fishes and even insects) laid eggs before the existence of chickens.

What is difficult about this?

men! you biologist, evolutionist,scientist,avianist et al are something

quite intriguing!,

If I say that you should read out this sentence through your own goggles "Godisnowhere" where would you place the spaces or the emphasis in the sentence?  You will definitely read it as "God is nowhere".  But if I should read the same sentence using my own goggles I will read it as "God is now here".  You will realise that we used the same evidence, material or words but with different spaces, emphasis or  presuppositions, hence we arrived at different conclusions.

According to my own goggles I read in the book of Genesis that Adam was the first man to be created.  If you were to be transported back in time and space to that day using your goggles to determine the age of Adam then I am sure that you would say that he was about 30 years old  even though he was just some seconds old.  That is why your determination of the ages of the fossils or rocks would be defective because you where not there and your knowledge as to the events that took place around that time would be limited.  The bottomline is that God who created the universe and the earth has revealed to us the highlight of events in the creation of the universe, and this can be deciphered from the Truth book, and the earlier we take it as the truth the better it will be for us to keep us healthy spiritually, mentally, morally, socially, physically and emotionally.

God created every living thing after there own 'kind' therefore the chicken was created fully matured male and female before they began to lay eggs that took after their own kind, today we may have different species but they are all after their own 'kind'.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4417news12-21-2000.asp

If God can exist without being created, then why can't the universe exist without being created?

What if the big bang is the creator? What if "in the beginning, the big bang created the universe"?

Seun:

If God can exist without being created, then why can't the universe exist without being created?

What if the big bang is the creator? What if "in the beginning, the big bang created the universe"?

The question is first of all an abstract which has no basis in reality.  Secondly, the question of God being created is oxymoronic, that means that you cannot ask a  person born blind to describe the colour of red, or for a seeing person to describe the smell of red.

To begin with the first question, everything that has a beginning must have an end.   The universe has a beginning and therefore must have an end.  God does not have[b] a beginning[/b] and does not have an end.  God is living outside of time, space and matter, this means that He can see the past, present and future in one stretch because He created it.  That is why I can be confident in His revealed counsels that tells us how He created the universe - by divine imperative (Ex-Nihilo) and His prediction of when it is going to be consumed by fire in the future Gen.1; 2Pet.3.   God lives in 'eternity' which is the life time of the never dying God.  He is the Alpha and Omega, The beginning and The End, The First and The Last Rev. 22:13.  I believe this information is too big for the finite mind to comprehend.  The Truth Book is the contact point between The infinite God and the finite man, and that is why we should humble ourselves to receive the divine revelations of His mind and bow to the King of Kings and Lord of lords.




http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/universe.asp

OLAADEGBU:

If I say that you should read out this sentence through your own goggles "Godisnowhere" where would you place the spaces or the emphasis in the sentence? You will definitely read it as "God is nowhere". But if I should read the same sentence using my own goggles I will read it as "God is now here". You will realise that we used the same evidence, material or words but with different spaces, emphasis or presuppositions, hence we arrive at different conclusions.

Ae you sure it isn't "God I snow here"? That makes the most sense. Incidentally, I did read it as "God is now here" - for whatever it is worth. However, when it comes to things like science theories versus Creationism, or even religion against non-religion, it most often isn't a case of interpreting the evidence differently using the same materials, etc, it's usually a case of one claiming "God is now here", but the letters are invisible or there's no need for letters anyway.

According to my own goggles I read in the book of Genesis that Adam was the first man to be created.

According to mine, Oceanius had a hand in the birth of the Earth. Go figure.

If you were to be transported back in time and space to that day using your goggles to determine the age of Adam then I am sure that you would say that he was about 30 years old even though he was just some seconds old. That is why your determination of the ages of the fossils or rocks would be defective because you where not there and your knowledge as to the events that took place around that time would be limited.

Would I also say that he has tooth missing from a fight he got into when he was 16? And, he had an appendix removed when he was 12, hence the missing appendix at age 30? What about memories of his favorite barber - who for some bizarre reason has kept most of Adam's hair - and his hospital having records of when and where his placenta was removed?

The point is, if you haven't gotten it, the Earth has a history - radiometric dating is only one aspect of dating the Earth's age. While, it certainly is possible that a God or Being created the Earth last Thursday (see "last Thursdayism": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism) with embedded history ad stuff, it's hardly parsimonious. Besides, a being that does that is either deceitful or mischievious.

The bottomline is that God who created the universe and the earth has revealed to us His mind and purpose in the Truth book and the earlier we take it as the truth the better it will be for us to keep us healthy spiritually, mentally, morally, socially, physically and emotionally.

You Lovecraft peddlers are all the same: always calling him God and a collection of his books, the Truth book. Look, let me tell you something, I already have a copy and it hasn't kept me healthy and stuff and, also, I'm no longer scared of being eaten because I have the Dianetics.

God created every living thing after there own 'kind' therefore the chicken was created fully matured male and female before they began to lay eggs that took after their own kind, today we may have different species but they are all after their own 'kind'.

Hmm, so what is a "kind"?

OLAADEGBU:

The question is first of all an abstract which has no basis in reality. Secondly, the question of God being created is oxymoronic,

Not really, no.

that means that you cannot ask a blind person to describe the colour of red,

Actually, you can. Their description, though, if any, may vary from yours and from person to person - depending on their circumstances.

or for a seeing person to describe the smell of red.

Once again, you can. Colour synaethesia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grapheme-color_synesthesia

To begin with the first question, everything that has a beginning must have an end the universe has a beginning and therefore must have an end.

In my opinion, it's probably best to state instead that based on our experiences and intuition, things that have a beginning must have an end. Furthermore, there's a possibility that the Universe didn't have a beginning - at least in the classical sense of the word.

God does not have[b] a beginning[/b] and does not have an end. God is living outside of time, space and matter, this means that He can see the past, present and future in one stretch. God lives in eternity which is the life time of the never dying God. He is the Alpha and Omega, The beginning and The End. I believe this is too big for the finite mind to comprehend, that is why we should humble ourselves and bow to the King of Kings and Lord of lords.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/universe.asp

So, um, do you have any evidence for that or will you at some point - in this lifetime! - have some evidence for any of that?

This thread is going great!  Well thought-out exchanges!  And it's happening without flaming, baiting and unneeded personal attacks!

It is interesting that we are asked to believe that the world--indeed, the cosmos, itself--is overseen by a deity.  Some call that deity God.  Some know that deity by other names.  Some suggest that multiple deities oversee the cosmos. 

If such is the case, then which of these theistic sensibilities would be the  correct one(s)?  That is to say, who--or, perhaps more importantly--how should we believe in such circumstances?  In the existence after this one (however that might be defined), will there be a separation of "believers" according to the nature of their respective faiths?  Will there be a "heaven"/"paradise"/"insert-afterlife-designation-of-your-choice-here" for each or will there be one that is divided among all?



@KAG:
"God I snow here"--Good catch!