My Biggest Problem With Atheism...

Post Reply New Topic

Uh, no Sweetleaf. The first chicken hatched from an egg that had a mutation in it but that egg was not laid by a chicken but by the immediate ancestral species of bird that was to develop into the chickens of today. So the egg came first logically. Also, eggs are laid by fish which evolved into reptiles which evolved into birds, so eggs came first hundreds of millions of years before there were chickens.

The way one answers this question can almost be used to divide those who accept evolution and those who don't. The people who mistakenly believe that all animals were created separately (in denial of the genetic evidence and the fossil record) would say of course a chicken came first. Those who accept the fact of evolution realize the first chicken came from an egg that was laid by something that was not quite a chicken yet (an almost-chicken).

Hmmm never heard of that, but that is intresting...even so that does not count as a chicken egg....so technically chickens would still come before a chicken egg was ever laid....but then it could be said eggs came before chickens.

I can see that if one defines "chicken egg" as an egg that is laid BY a chicken, that what you say is true. But if one defines chicken egg as one from which a chicken hatches, then what I say is true. Semantics... But eggs came long before chickens as you now realize. The first chicken hatched from an egg that was laid by something that was almost but not quite a chicken yet, so I still would say the egg comes first logically.

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 23 Jun 2014, 9:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

wasn't fast enough on my editing...

so many arguments are because people disagree on definitions and sometimes (maybe even usually) don't realize they are disagreeing about the definitions.

So if this discussion ever comes up again, I will be sure to ask the person what it means to them to say that something is a chicken egg. Does it mean an egg that a chicken hatches from, or an egg that is laid by something that is already a chicken. There is a difference!

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 23 Jun 2014, 10:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

The truth never has any obligation to be pleasant.

True, but in the case of evolution it is simply a case of not understanding the basic concepts of the theory. If people who claim evolution to be disputable would only bother to actually learn about it and understand the fundamental concepts then we would not have these debates. The problem is the yecs, ID and old earth creationists do not bother to learn from people who actually study the subject. instead they learn from each other and have developed their own, almost completely inaccurate understanding of the Theory.

Yeah, IF evolution were the way the creationists present it, of course it would be ridiculous and unsubstantitated. But creationists apparently are ignorant of the actual evidence for evolution because their sources ignore the most important evidence and deny or distort what they do not ignore. They present strawman caricatures of evolution in thier arguments that have nothing to do with the actual theory. And creationist sources are also notorious for the blatantly dishonest practice called "quote mining." Really, for them to try to claim the moral high ground on this issue when it is their side that is presenting nothing but distortions and falsehoods is pretty sickening. They make all Christians look stupid and evil.

But it is playing into their LIES to say this about evolution in a thread about atheism, because one of the biggest lies they tell is that this is a choice between science and God, and if you accept the fact evolution happens then you are automatically rejecting God. Millions of Christians in non-fundamentalist denominations would disagree. And if a literal reading of Genesis IS the only correct way to read the Bible, then God is lying to us either in His Book or in the evidence of His Creation that clearly shows evolution happens. So Biblical literalists if they insist on reading Genesis that way are calling God a LIAR one way or the other even if they don't realize that is what they are doing.

I think the chicken/egg question is not really the right question if you ask it these days, with our current knowledge of evolution. There is not a single event when a proto-chicken had chicken offspring. The chicken/egg question implies that once there were no chickens and no chicken eggs, and the next day there were. The question does not leave room for the gradual change from proto-chicken to chicken. If we picked a chicken and lined her up with all her ancestors up to the feathered dinosaurs, we would not be able to pick out the first chicken. We would draw an arbitrary line with chickens on one side, and non-chickens on the other.

Yes I know. It is very important to understand that individual organisms don't evolve, POPULATIONS evolve! Many Creationist strawman arguments fall apart because they apparently don't understand this. Still, in principle, mutations in the gene pool of a population of proto-chickens led to those traits being expressed more in later generations because they apparently conferred some advantage for the environment they were in (or at least were neutral). The chicken egg question is a metaphysical problem more than a biological one.

Creationists like Ken Ham and Ray Comfort scowl at evolution! They also lack intellect when it comes to applied science!

Honestly, I don't really have much hope, if any for the human race. At the rate things are going, we're either going to suck all of the resources out of our planet transforming it into an inhospitable wasteland, or some short-fused political leader is going to kick off a deadly nuclear war that ends up annihilating all of humanity. I really really really hope we manage to develop the technology to terraform other planets, so that we have the chance to "start over" and not make the same mistakes we made with Earth, and also so that we don't have to concentrate the entire human population on one measly celestial body, but I don't see this happening any time soon, if ever.

Here's a song that illustrates my above point:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjlgUx7_aN0&feature=kp[/youtube]

I know I'm going to die some day, so I plan on trying to make the best of things and enjoy my life until then. It's a pain in the ass sometimes, and sometimes I wish I weren't burdened by the fact that I'm a living, breathing organism with wants and needs, but then I remember that this is all I've got, and that there's no use wasting it. The fact that I don't believe in an afterlife actually makes me somewhat more compelled to put some effort into living my life.

My biggest problem with religion = no evidence.

I am interested in science as well, always have been

The question i ask,
is God an atheist....
boom boom...
just joking.

What if the chicken and egg both came into existence at the same time?
The big bang theory could fit Hindu, Buddhist and even Abrahamic religious beliefs of creation.
This would mean that science and religion are all right?... lol

what if the chicken and the egg (and everything else past present future) were all one and the same

Last edited by madbutnotmad on 06 Dec 2016, 7:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Overheard conversation between
Frosty and that Cop that hollered STOP.

NO ocifer, I was created by random falling snowflakes.


"If we can't laugh at ourselves, others will beat us to it."