I never said my viewpoints were somehow exempt. I never claimed creationism was true because lots of people adhere to it. Don't act like I was.

3. I don't think you understand.... genderless life forms developing gender makes absolutely no sense. Not needing gender to reproduce makes an animal more likely to survive than if it requires a mate.

2. Give me an example of a beneficial mutation then.

1. So what? This would be the start of the theory of evolution. You had to somehow get inorganic material to become organic and all labratory attempts to replicate this have resulted in proteins being produced in to extremely toxic environments that would have killed any resulting life.

4. Yup. Same with penguins and ostriches. It's very possible that these animals ended up in environments where they no longer needed wings. I'm not arguing that animals can't develop traits within their own animal type that differ. I'm pointing out with this point that there are very complex systems that exist within animals that would require multiple things to change at the same time. The better example is bat sonar but there are probably more examples I can't think of. Another point is that why would the forearms change to develop wings in the first place? Sure the end result is probably better for the animal but what caused the need to fly in the first place? Where is the stimulus for the change?

You're not really answering any of my questions Ziggy. I agree that believing in evolution does not exclude believing in God. I believe in certain aspects of evolutionary theory. What I don't agree with is the absence of God in the theory.

well, since it is impossible to prove or disprove G-d's existance, nothing regarding him/her/it can be included in a scientific theory, and i don't think that the theory of evolution says that god didn't do anything (i mean, how else did the primeval atom come into existence)

1. i mean, atoms constantly move around, bonding with different things. eventually, something bonded just right to make a living organism. it took billions of years for the first life forms to exist, so scientists obviously can't get it done so quickly

2. mutations can cause a new say fur color to exist in a creature. that color just might camouflage the creature so it can be stealthier and catch/escape from pray more easily

3. i'm not an expert, but i know that there was some benefit to the existence of gender. maybe it was a bad mutation? i don't know myself but i'm sure the answer could be found with enough research

4. about sonar, first came the hearing, then the sound (i assume). all of those flightless birds also could be those middle stages

If God did infact create all the animals on the 6th day then he would of created a Male and a Female of each kind (or maybe two of each gender!) Thus, the chicken came first... And the Rooster... And the egg is the result of said creation.

who cares? it OBVIOUSLY is the cow

yes i agree, it was the cow.
i was thinking this belonged in a different board then crazy for the last while

same, but still... saying that the cow didn't come first is udderly ridiculous

i say the egg becuase of the sun warming the egg up either that or i would say it was the cow .

theres one way to settle this.
what came first, the chicken or the egg? Chuck norris

what about the half chuck norris half chicken half egg half cow?

Because thats 150% of.. stuff... and you cant have more than 100% of anything... see if that was true the world would not only fall in on its self and implode but we would all die...

The explosion.
( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQHXDGVdfGs )

I'd have to say the chicken

@IceWave: actually it's 200%, but that's not the point

@Benny: Wow, that was awesome. It's just sitting there then all of a sudden...

It doesnt matter if you are a creationist(believe god created everything) or an evolutionist. If you are a creationist, you believe god created man and all the animals on earth. It wouldn't make alot of sense for God to create an egg, so the chicken came first. After all, if God created the egg first, there would be no hen to hatch it or to take care of the baby chicken. If you are an evoultionist, you believe that animals evolve into a "different species" over a very long period of time. Therefore, the chicken must have evolved from a chickenlike creature. At some point in time this creature laid an egg that hatched into a modern chicken. It couldnt have been a chicken egg, because there was no such chicken yet. The first chicken egg could have only been laid by the first chicken Simple as that-the chicken came first.

Technically speaking it has to evolve from an egg first, not like it can grow instantly and pass the egg stage so the egg came first. If that is how they are born and evolve then that would make most logic.

It would be a chicken egg because the content of said egg would become the first chicken. it's basically creationism vs. evolution. creationism believes as blackjack stated, while evolution would state that the egg came first because some creature laid an egg that eventually grew up to be a chicken

I see I've been beaten to this answer, but the egg came first.

Things laid eggs before chickens existed, silly. Plus, things that don't lay eggs still have eggs internally before giving birth.

Originally posted by ziggy

---

It would be a chicken egg because the content of said egg would become the first chicken. it's basically creationism vs. evolution. creationism believes as blackjack stated, while evolution would state that the egg came first because some creature laid an egg that eventually grew up to be a chicken

---

i think the 2 theorys arnt mutally exclusive. one could state that even under creationism god could have been the one to "evolve" the creatures.
but thats a story for another time, but yes, i have worked out a way that both what the bible says AND what darwin says can be truth at the same time.

anyway, the egg came first.
under evolution: the creature that was the chickens parent (not a chicken) laid an egg which hatched a chicken.
under creation: god had an idea of a creature (the chicken), that idea itself was the egg from which the chicken hatched (was created).

game set match. contest the ruling if you want

wait, was that in response to me? I know the "egg" came first; my post was just responding to what was said before me

no it was actually in response to the evo vs create part.
you know, just to annoy
and good answer rocksome, trust a lady to figure out that it isnt nessicary for it to be an egg in relation to the chicken while us guys are squabbling symantics

if this was supposed to be taken seriously, then it would be in debate and logic discussion. besides, the answer is in this video