scientific logic dictaes that the chicken had to have come first. even if you believe in evolution, the species must have eveolved first b4 they could have offspring that looks just like them.
this is a bit abstract, but if you're devoutly religious you believe that Adam was the first Human, and there was no such thing as neanderthals or cromagnons. in that sense you could say, "what came first, the sperm or the man" all the while taking into consideration that the bible says god created adam from dust.
ONe thing about Evolution, Ive always found intriguing is why is it so implasuible that it could be one of the machinations of god?
Has anyone thought for one minute that maybe, just maybe, that whole big bang thing is how god chose to create the universe whenhe said let there be light?
just my thought of course
Re: Re: What came first, the chicken or the egg?
Originally posted by Fiery Eyes
🙂 The chicken came 1st is my opinion, Cuz God created animals 2 by 2, so he had to have created the chicken 1st. 😄
Noah put animals two by two onto the ark and saved them from the flood... I don't believe it says anywhere anything about God createing them 2 by 2.
I don't go to church and I don't really beleive in god, but I still know more about the bible than you.... damn 😂
Originally posted by The Omega
Darth> Yes! Let's get 'im. I'm sure it's TF in disguise... ! 😉
That's what annoyes me most about religious fanatics. That they scoff at thousands of scientists who've worked hard through the ages, made mistakes, corrected them, tested, experimented, thought and calculated...
To - among things - give us a lot of the tech we have today.Disbelieve Einstein is to say GPS is crap. If GPS works, then Einstein is right...
I've said this earlier and almost got dumped on like a "religion fanatic"... but I don't think that all the contributions that science has made have been positive. Science has created alot of shitty shit. Science created global warming, holes in the ozone layer, nuclear weapons, and a lot of the massive industry which creates millions of tons of trash and pollutants every year.
I personally think GPS is an interesting technology, but I could live my life perfectly happy without it.
I think that just as blindly as religious fanatics follow religion there are an equal, if not greater number of people who just blindly believe in Science. Just as some one needs to be somewhat skeptical of religion and religious organisations, one also should be skeptical of science and scientific organizations. Just because it is scientific doesnt mean that it is good. Nuclear weapons are scientific... doesnt mean anything though about the morality of nuclear policy (Mutually Assured Destruction). DDT? nearly made the American Eagle extinct. Science has created all kinds of negative creation.
I'm not advocating religion as an alternative... I'm suggesting people be more skeptical of system of beliefs. Relgions' motives need to be questioned, as do Scientists. Science isnt the objective beacon of truth that many people believe it is. It is all interpretations of the truth and which questions are asked. If there are scienctists working on a way to safely store radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants, I would ask them instead investing years of research and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars developing nuclear technology why we did not instead invest that same time and money into an environmentally safer alternative such as wind or solar. Think what would been different today if the US had invested its resources in wind and solar technology instead of nuclear power. Things would have been a lot different. Science is a result of political policy and improving business profits. It is not objective... and can often times it can be very subjective.