Recreation The chicken or the egg?

Huh, you want me to explain it clearer?
Your sentence confuses me!

You see, a chicken is a mutation, it's evolution.
Two non-chickens mated(they were very similar to modern chickens) and their offspring was the chicken we see today, to put it simply. Now it depends on whether they laid an egg or the chicken was born live. That decides on which came first in that respect.

It depends on the question.
When somebody says " Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
It depends on whether they mean eggs in general, chicken eggs, chickens or the chickens ancestors.

 

It also can depend on what you take as fact or as fiction, by harsh reality or by gentle persuasion. If I don't consider anything what you say valid that would make you non revelant right? That would mean by how I think. You can't go on for good about mutations or evolution cause it's still a theory, It's not absolute fact nor is it an absolute false hood same with a religion.

 

How can anything be fact so?
I would rather not lead a life of nonsense(imo) solipsism.

There are tests that are taken proving evolution, etc, I can't say the same for 'A' god. I am not saying that something is 100% right and wrong. In my opinion, there is evidence for evolution, there is evidence of how old the earth is, that does not fit in with how long religion say the earth has existed for.
Creationistism etc has no basis in science, their pseudoscience makes no sense from what I have studied of it.

How and ever, one cannot say that something is definitely true or not true, ever. I err on the side of logic, logic in my opinion.
Because evolution is right, does not mean religion is necessarily wrong.

If you have something about the theory of evolution that des not make sense, that you think is dodgy, feel free to field it.


So for the sake of it, either what I said is right or, 'god did it'.
Is that what you agree to?





ASIDE: For those that believe in creationism and not evolution, here are some of my problems with it.

I think the main reason I find ID and Creationism (although particularly ID) to be scientifically worthless isn't because they're religiously motivated, vague or rely on arguments that are, at best, non sequiturs.
Rather I find them worthless because they're boring scientifically and in reality aren't driven by a desire to understand the world.

The main strength of evolution is in it's ability to explain things. It can tell you why finding a fossil in such and such a place isn't unexpected. However, more to the point, this explanatory power is more than retroactive. Evolution can tell you what you should find in such a situation before you find it and when we do create or explore that situation we do find what was predicted.

Creationism and ID are nothing like this. Instead they follow evolution around saying "you missed a spot" and when somebody decides to look at the spot in detail it turns out to be vague pseudo-metaphysical whatiffery.
That doesn't matter to Creationism though, because the goal isn't explaining the natural world.

One of the most surreal examples of this is when Creationists bring up entropy. No matter how many times you say it doesn't apply to evolution(And to be very honest it doesn't, at all. It makes very little sense to use it in a biological context) they maintain it does. At this point I think the Creationist definition of entropy is "that which makes evolution impossible".

Not only is evolution like this, but so is cosmology, e.t.c.

Mainstream Science has given things like wave-particle duality, curved spacetime, plate tectonics, a knowledge of long extinct ecosystems, a picture of the Earth during its formation, told us why we get sick, why we age.....................e.t.c.

Creationism has given us a collection of 70-page threads of nonsense across the internet.

 

Well, I explained that by evolution. That or if you believe in religion, whatever your religion says.

 

I was giving you a compliment when I said that.

In my own opinion of all faith and logic, even though I have my own faith, I believe there is an explantion to everything, faith based or not. One example I could talk about was when Jesus walked on water. I believe there is an explantion for how he can do that. It could be one thing or another and we might not know the answer in our own life times but I do think that.

 

Ah, I could not tell which it was so I went with the option criticising me.

Do you believe in an explanation or is it that you believe there is one?

Oh right, you replied straight after I did and I missed the qute, apologies.

That's what I said!
People will believe either, I just err to the science side.

 

I believe there is one to everything.

 

Wait I know the ANSWER.

There is no egg. *walks away*

 

ME=(Rolling over the floor laughing)