Life is a perpetual game of "which comes first, chicken or the egg...." There are so many opportunities, but only if you've done something else first.
18
1
Terence Stigers's profile photoHernan Toro's profile photoThomas Dankerl's profile photoMd.Ashadul Alam's profile photo
64 comments
 
Both, The chicken was in the egg and an egg was in the chicken. The egg is also made of chicken DNA so it is technically a chicken
 
The egg rolls off of the chicken, lights up a smoke, looks over and says, "Well, looks like we finally answered that question!"
 
Egg came first. I cannot understand how people still thinks this is some kind of mystery suitable for a perpetual game.
 
I have eggs in the morning, and perhaps grilled chicken or a chicken sandwich in the evening. Did I win?
 
dinosaurs came before chickens, dinosaurs laid eggs, ergo the egg came first.
 
We can work our way all the way back through the evolutionary tree if you like. Tiny little spontaneously formed detergent bubble came first. Ha! :D
 
I think it was the aliens. Chickens helped build the pyramids for sure.
 
Avian species have eggs, dinosaurs, their ancestors, had eggs, so reptiles, amphibians, fishes, and the complete ancestry line.

Eggs are a much more primitive trait than the avian group.

Eggs preceded chicken for hundreds of millions of years.

Hope that helps you, +Luke Lewis
 
hahaha! You guys missed the whole point and branched off into a chicken or the egg debate! But I was making a comment about life in general. ;-)
Walt B.
 
Ain't that the truth? This is one of the first lessons I learned as a kid. I call it the"It takes money to make money conundrum"
 
'Aw, you don't have any money? Then you CAN'T HAVE ANY MONEY.'
or
the Kentucky Fried Facepunch.
 
Creationist: The chicken came first.

Evolutionist: The egg came first.
 
What exactly did the egg evolve from? A big bang of gas, a black hole vacuum or a chunk of rock? I'm a science geek who also happens to believe in adaption & creation over evolution.
 
+James Finstrom indeed hahah.
+Hernan Toro you failed to pick up the sarcasm in the conversation. I know I'm college educated in IT but I wasn't a total dunce in school lol. Then again that could easily be turned into a religious debate, yuck.
 
crap. I quit facebook to avoid such questions as this and all the stupid people that are wrong.
 
My issue with "evolution" as it is shoved down our throats is that when something evolves the previous state dies off. So if we evolved from monkeys then the monkeys should have died off.
 
James, no evolutionist worthy of the name believes we evolved from monkeys, and you can evolve from something else without the ancestor dying off. You are misinformed.
 
In desperate times, even an evolutionist will fall to his knees and pray to God, not Darwin. I'm a nurse....I've seen it with my own eyes, many times.
"There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle."
Albert Einstein
I feel sorry for those who don't 'see' the miracles. They make life worth living.
 
A belief in evolution does not necessarily entail atheism. Plenty of Christians and other theists believe evolution as the source of all life, but also believe in God. Einstein, if you read him in context, was at best a Deist and at worst, an atheist who liked using religious metaphors.

Everything is a miracle whether God exists or not. There is so much we don't know.
 
I'll correct myself, in desperate times...self-proclaimed atheists fall to their knees. It takes one, life-shattering event to bring us to our knees.
 
...and at other times, life-shattering events actually CAUSE people to become atheists. What's your point?
 
+craig bowes you quit facebook to avoid this stuff and yet you jump right into it? I've had many patients who turn to prayer because they have no other hope. I have not (yet) experienced the reverse. I think you understand my point, you seem like an educated man. Sorry +John Pozadzides - I'm checking out of this conversation, but you did start it! You're such a pot stirrer ;-)
 
(awkward silence) SO back to that chicken and egg thing..........
 
While wiping invisible egg off of my face, I'm marinating the chicken in Soy Vay island teriyaki sauce.
 
+Tammy Hill Rosenfeld News flash: a person who drops to their knees and prays to any god - at any time - is NOT an atheist. By definition.

Some of us are perfectly comfortable living in a universe devoid of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
 
Tammy, yes i'm a glutton for punishment.

Just because you yourself has not experienced the reverse doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I happen to know another nurse who became an atheist because of all the suffering she saw in the ER. Last minute death bed conversions aren't proof of God. They are just proof of bad atheists or people who claimed to be atheist that aren't. Its fine if you believe and I'm not an atheist myself. But your logic is flawed.
 
The scrambled egg came first.
 
So let's change the subject and I'll ignore the insult re my logic. You simply must try Soy Vay marinades; island teriyaki is my favorite. Have a nice day!
 
Soy Vay marinade is the work of the devil and a island teriyaki is a flawed paradigm rooted in willful ignorance. :)
 
What does the atheist stand to lose? Will he die and meet an absence of god who says: "You have forsaken me"?
 
Thou shalt not mock the Soy Vay (#11, I believe)
 
Indeed, that command is right next to "All saki shalt be servethed warm..."
 
+Terence Stigers Personally, even if there IS a god, I believe I will die and rot in the ground. I'm just not that important. Unless technology renders me immortal first. "I'm thinking about getting metal legs. It's a risky operation, but it'll be worth it."
 
+John Pozadzides I understand where you are coming from. You pose a problem (one which i currently have) where you wonder how someone can take advantage of an opportunity, when that opportunity requires relevant experience. You then attach a metaphor, which becomes the focus of the conversation... which somehow then changes into some sort of religious rant about saki? we need a -1GibbsSmack for comments.
 
Comic relief and a little dose of Roseanne Roseannadanna +Ryan Combs ~ sense of humor....anyone?
 
+John Pozadzides, professional smartass, you speak my primary language: sarcasm. Are you sitting in front of your computer eating popcorn & milk duds while enjoying the show?
 
+Tammy Hill Rosenfeld said:

"I'm a science geek who also happens to believe in adaption & creation over evolution."

Then you are not a Science Geek. It is epistemologically impossible to understand basic science and still being a creationist.

Sorry if you don't like it, but it's the truth.
 
+Tammy Hill Rosenfeld , I fell to my knees, the hard way... but not to worship an imaginary friend in times of desperation. It was the magnitude of the blow that put me there... and then I raised.

There is no posible way that anything worse will happen to me in the rest of my life. If that blow couldn't make me believe in fairy tales, nothing will.
 
+Hernan Toro my nurse & doctor friends, who also happen to believe in God, would disagree with you. One must have a love a science and mankind to enter into any medical field. Had I not gone into nursing, I'd would have gone into medical research or astronomy.....and my faith would remain 'intact'.

Never confuse faith with ignorance. My childhood toys were a microscope, telescope and chemistry set. I read encyclopedias in my spare time. I studied biology and psychology by choice. How arrogant of you to tell me what I am or am not. I forgive you.
 
+Hernan Toro "It is epistemologically impossible to understand basic science and still being a creationist."

Sorry, but that statement is absolute crap. Besides your basic misunderstanding of what 'epistemologically' means, your assertion presupposes that your own personal world view is the 'correct' one, and therefore anyone else's world view must be 'incorrect' unless it aligns with yours.

For someone who professes to understand science, you have a rather narrow view of things. The universe is a big place - there's room in it for more than one truth. There's even room for more than one Truth.
 
You also must not wait for the opportunities to come to you, take the initiative to look for opportunities and grab them when you find them. I think fear keeps people from moving forward, fear of failing. 
 
+Terence Stigers Sorry, Terence, truth is unique. When you have a "truth" and another person has a "different" truth, one of them is bullshit (or both).

Evolution is a fact. Creationism is bullshit. Anybody who embraces creationism, simply ignores tha basics of Biology.

And this is not a narrow view of science... on the contrary, you must have an open mind but not as open as to let your brain spill out.
 
+Tammy Hill Rosenfeld If no amount of evidence could change your belief, it's not science... if your beliefs are against evolution, then they are simply false. Period.

To deny evolution is as foolish as to believe that Earth is flat.

I also had a microscope, a telescope and educational physics/chemistry toy sets... I studied engineering... and I was a firm believer, son of a Catholic Priest married with Papal dispensation. I was raised by an ex-Catholic nun, I was as Christian as it is possible in my country. Then I studied Biblical Criticism, some Koine, some history of Early Christianity... and I stopped believing.

But never, never had the slightest doubt about the absurdity of Creation Tales.
 
+Tammy Hill Rosenfeld By the way, you don't have to forgive me... I haven't asked for it. I have the right to state clearly that Belief in Creationism is absurd. Sorry if you don't like natural facts because of your bullet-proof blind belief known as "Faith".
 
+Hernan Toro Don't you also have "bullet-proof blind belief" (faith) in "natural facts"?
 
+Hernan Toro Wrong again. Evolution is a THEORY, not a fact. Don't kick yourself over it, though - it's a mistake commonly made by those of you who worship at the altar of science.

See - you mistakenly believe that YOU get to set all the ground rules. You think that YOU get to decide what does and does not constitute "evidence" or "truth" or "fact".

You look at a creationist and say: "Prove creationism to me."

They say: "Okay" and hand you a Bible.

You respond: "No. You must prove it to me with science."

And when they look at you like you're some kind of idiot, it's NOT because you have 'proven' something. It's because you completely misunderstand the question.

Look at it another way. Try to "prove" the theory of evolution to a creationist, but do it using only Scripture as reference.

Evolution cannot disprove creationism, just as creationism cannot disprove evolution. They exist in completely different worlds.

And you don't seem to really understand the nature of science. Science is NOT - ever - about facts. Facts are for church. Science deals with theory.
 
yeahhhhhhhh not gonna waste my time readin' that anyways believe what you wanna believe and keep it the hell to yourself and leave science to curing and building stuff
 
+Terence Stigers said:


Wrong again. Evolution is a THEORY, not a fact.

HT:

Gravitation is a Theory that explains the FACT of the gravitational attraction between masses.

Germ Theory is an explanation of the FACT of the disease infection by germs.

Plate Tectonics Theory is an explanation of the FACT of the drift of Plates.

Special Relativity Theory is an explanation of the FACT that measures of distances, velocities and even time intervals ARE RELATIVE to reference frames.

Evolutionary Theory is an explanation of the FACT that populations evolve with time.

So I don't buy the ignoramus choir about "Evolution being ONLY a Theory", as if a SCIENTIFIC THEORY WERE NOT AN ACCUMULATION OF FACTS AND THEIR EXPLANATIONS, much more powerful that only a "theory" in the colloquial sense.

TS:

Don't kick yourself over it, though - it's a mistake commonly made by those of you who worship at the altar of science.

HT:

It's not a mistake. It's just that you have the naïve misconception propelled by Credulutionists about a Theory being a conjecture.

TS:

See - you mistakenly believe that YOU get to set all the ground rules. You think that YOU get to decide what does and does not constitute "evidence" or "truth" or "fact".

HT:

Bullshit.

TS:

Evolution cannot disprove creationism, just as creationism cannot disprove evolution.

HT:

Bullshit. Fairy tales are not real, no matter how much a believer wants to call them "my own reality".

TS:

They exist in completely different worlds.

HT:

In that case, I agree. Evolution exists in the real world. Creation exists in the imagination of blind believers.

TS:

And you don't seem to really understand the nature of science. Science is NOT - ever - about facts. Facts are for church. Science deals with theory.

HT:

Bullshit. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE SCIENTIFIC THEORY THAT ISN'T DEPENDENT ON OBSERVED FACTS.
 
+Hernan Toro You poor, misguided fool. You just don't understand science at all.

I am a scientist and an atheist (in fact, you could go so far as to call me a blasphemer and an unbeliever).

I would say that you have obviously received no real education and/or training in any scientific field, but I realize that it's also possible you were just educated or trained by idiots.

Facts do not exist in science. Data does. Data is often just a collection of observable phenomena. No scientist worth a damn would call a mere accumulation of observable phenomena a "fact". And you can be certain that no scientist would even THINK about discussing "truth".

If fact, science abhors "fact". "Fact" - like "truth" - is simply a by-product of sloppy thinking. Any fool that thinks the universe can be broken down into a series of component "facts" has either insufficient respect for the universe or a desperate need to believe in something.

See, science DOESN'T CARE. Science doesn't have an agenda. It doesn't give a rat's ass if the world is round or flat (and it has insisted on both at one time or another. And fools like you insisted that both were "facts").

The basic problem you're experiencing here is that you are carrying around a religion, but you insist on calling it science. What you call "science" is not what you think it is. Science doesn't pretend to disprove ideas by saying "bullshit". Science doesn't presume to have answers - it only has questions.

In short, science - unlike you - is NEVER certain. Science never reaches a point where it says: This is the way that the universe IS. Quite the opposite, in fact. Science is one long process of proving things WRONG. This is simply how the scientific process works. We will never be able to run so many experiments or make so many observations that we can declare ANYTHING to be a "fact". Instead, what we do is accumulate ideas that have been proven false, and use each one to get a little closer to an understanding of the way things work (despite knowing that we will never actually get there).

I don't know what kind of misguided belief system you've got going there, but I'll guarantee you this: It is NOT science.
 
TS:

"You poor, misguided fool. You just don't understand science at all".

HT:

You poor misguided fool... one of those "Ivory tower scientists" that crunch data without understanding that "data" is nothing more than the scientific label for facts. There are some assholes that even digging in the ground believe that their work is a platonic enterprise without earthly correlation.

TS:

I am a scientist and an atheist (in fact, you could go so far as to call me a blasphemer and an unbeliever).

HT:

Congrats. A real scientist!!! Ohh!!! I would LOVE to read any of your papers... How can I find them on Google Scholar, Science Direct, or any other Database?

TS:

I would say that you have obviously received no real education and/or training in any scientific field,

HT:

Yeah, I'm an asshole because you are an authority... Pure science argumentation, Huh?

TS:

but I realize that it's also possible you were just educated or trained by idiots.

HT:

Maybe.

TS:

Facts do not exist in science. Data does. Data is often just a collection of observable phenomena.

HT:

Semantics. In daily life, Data is called Facts.

TS:

No scientist worth a damn would call a mere accumulation of observable phenomena a "fact".

HT:

An observable phenomenon is a fact. Continents drift is an observable phenomena; a fact. So is evolution, and gravitational attraction, and all the other examples that you ignored.

TS:

If fact, science abhors "fact". "Fact" - like "truth" - is simply a by-product of sloppy thinking.

HT:

That's bullshit. It is a FACT that the earth is not a flat surface. It is a FACT that Genetic Pools of populations vary with time. It is a FACT that humans descended from other tetrapods. Etc. The stupid Post Modernist thought that there are no truths, or facts is a philosophical imposture.

TS:

Any fool that thinks the universe can be broken down into a series of component "facts" has either insufficient respect for the universe or a desperate need to believe in something.

HT:

Who has proposed such an imbecility? Are you constructing a Straw Man? It won't work.

TS:

See, science DOESN'T CARE. Science doesn't have an agenda. It doesn't give a rat's ass if the world is round or flat (and it has insisted on both at one time or another. And fools like you insisted that both were "facts").

HT:

So, big scientist, enlighten us... Is the earth flat, or not?

TS:

The basic problem you're experiencing here is that you are carrying around a religion, but you insist on calling it science.

HT:

No. The problem here is that I'm not so stupid to understand that Science models CORRELATE to reality. They are not aseptic ponderings that only exist and function in the world of pure ideas. Each scientific proposition has a correlation with the real world, even those of pure mathematics, at least in their original inspiration for the final abstraction.

TS:

What you call "science" is not what you think it is.

HT:

I don't believe your postmodernist assertion.

TS:

Science doesn't pretend to disprove ideas by saying "bullshit".

HT:

I'm not making science, here. So I can refer to your Bullshit, as it is: Bullshit.

TS:

Science doesn't presume to have answers - it only has questions.

HT:

That's plainly stupid. When science postulates a Theory to explain facts (or data, if you will), each of the facts explained by the theory are answers to questions.

e.g. where did hominids originated? answer: Africa. Is the genetic pool of a population constant over time? Answer: no.
(A question from my early childhood) Are there more planets in other stars? Answer: Yes. Each and every one of those sentences are scientific propositions. Answers.

You have to be a complete idiot to state that science ONLY have questions and not answers.

A completely idiotic philosophical imposture.

In short, it seems that french postmodernism can turn "scientists" into complete idiots.
 
+Hernan Toro Prove it. Prove any single assertion you have made. Prove it in such a way that I do not have to take your word for any one "fact" in order for your "proof" to actually be considered such. Prove - unequivocally - that your personal vision of reality is the "right" and "correct" one.
 
+Hernan Toro By the way - the Earth is indeed flat. Look out the window. Your own eyes will tell you that the Earth is flat. Believing anything else necessitates a leap of faith.
 
+Terence Stigers ... no, it's not flat. I can see mountains from here.

And... I'll prove them when you show me your peer-reviewed papers, Mr. Scientist. I won't waste time with someone who lacks the capacity to understand proofs.
;-/
 
+Hernan Toro Got it. We're on the playground now. Your arguments have fallen apart and now you think you can dodge the whole thing by shifting the burden of proof.

I have nothing to prove, to you or anyone else. Would you like to know why? Because I never made any claims about knowing "truth", "fact" or "reality". YOU are the one who made such ridiculous claims. If you expect anyone else to believe them, YOU have to prove them.
 
So, the self proclaimed Mr. Scientist has no peer reviewed papers? Tsk Tsk..

So, let me understand... It is ridiculous to refer to facts and reality?

So, if there is no such things as facts, reality, or truth value of statements, I suppose that there is no intelectual ground for a demonstration. Specially, since DEMONSTRATIONS OR PROOFS, are just showing that the Logical Value of an assertion is "TRUE".

I cannot prove nothing to a person that rejects to speak of truth and reality.

I'll keep on waiting for your papers, Kiddo.

;-/
 
+Hernan Toro Keep waiting. I think it makes you happy.

I do not reject to speak of truth and reality. I just refuse to let YOU define them for me.

See, the problem with your belief system is that it is built upon a foundation of "fact" and "truth" and "reality". Unfortunately, the nature of these "facts", "truths" and "realities" can only be proven to a person who has already bought into your belief system. You cannot convince me of plate tectonics unless I have first accepted the ideas that the Earth is round, that it has a molten core, and that I cannot believe the evidence of my own senses (the ground I'm standing on certainly isn't moving).

So in order to be convinced of the "truth" of your world view, I first have to share your world view. Of course, if this is already the case, I don't need to have anything proven to me at all, since I've already subscribed to your pack of lies.

Sounds a lot like religion to me....
 
+craig bowes - I am one of those who have earth-shattering moments, where I have NOT fallen to my knees and prayed to a myth. AND I am an atheist. I totally get your point.
 
+Terence Stigers .

TS:

Keep waiting. I think it makes you happy.

HT:

Yeah... I realized pretty soon that before your first peer reviewed paper, "Mr. Professional Scientist", I'll have to wait a looooong time.

TS:


I do not reject to speak of truth and reality. I just refuse to let YOU define them for me.

HT:

I'm not defining truth or reality. They stand by their own either you like it or not.

TS:

See, the problem with your belief system is that it is built upon a foundation of "fact" and "truth" and "reality".

HT:

Yeah! Can you imagine how stupid I am that I believe those stupid notions of reality, truth, and fact?

:/

TS:

Unfortunately, the nature of these "facts", "truths" and "realities" can only be proven to a person who has already bought into your belief system.

HT:

Yeah, those kind of assholes that believe that earth attract objects, that populations changes through time, that continents move with respect to each others, and all those "pseudofacts" that only ignoramuses like me accept.

:/

TS:

You cannot convince me of plate tectonics unless I have first accepted the ideas that the Earth is round, that it has a molten core, and that I cannot believe the evidence of my own senses (the ground I'm standing on certainly isn't moving).

HT:

Gee... And I was so stupidly convinced that continents drifted in scales of mm/yr or cm/yr, were clearly and directly measurable in rifts and faults, or even by laser interferometry from continent to continent.

Stupid me.

TS:

So in order to be convinced of the "truth" of your world view, I first have to share your world view.

HT:

Of course: in order to understand that a bus can mash the shit out of you if you cross a highway with eyes closed, you have to share my worldview. In order to believe that throwing yourself in free fall from the Petronas Towers head first, you end up "hurt" you have to share my beliefs. They are not facts...

Oh, yeah... we "scientificists" are so stupid to believe in objective facts when everything depends in the worldview or the consensus of your "academic" community, as Gaston Bachelard and Thomas Kuhn (and other postmodern assholes) proved...

TS:

Of course, if this is already the case, I don't need to have anything proven to me at all, since I've already subscribed to your pack of lies.


Sounds a lot like religion to me....

HT:

Sorry. I'll not repeat those stupid lies that there are facts that are the data for the scientific endeavour. In fact, the argument of authority demands me to yield to the high quality argumentation of such a Professional Scientist with such a prolific production of peer reviewed papers... and such a high SCI.

Poor dumbass.

:/
 
Ok. Mr. "Scientist". I'll rest. It has been so hard for me to discuss with such a High Profile Scientist!

;)
Add a comment...