official cb7tuner.com debate thread. topic #1

[deevergote]

Back to the original question, eh?

Is it assumed that the egg is a chicken egg? If not, there were eggs long before there were chickens.

If it truly is "which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?" what marks the existence of the chicken? It's life, or it's recognition by humans? A chicken is not a chicken to itself... it's a chicken because we call it a chicken. Is the chicken we know today the same as the chicken that originally carried the name? The chicken may be evolving. It may have evolved. Therefore, the chicken in its current form is not the same as before, and not the same as it will be in the future.

So the real question is... does the chicken really exist?

[Accord R33]

the chicken and egg debate seems to frivolous to me...anyone else have any debate topics?

i wish i wasnt at work all the time when im posting my thoughts..i feel so rushed and i cant get into as much detail as i would like to. it sucks..

[souldoubt]

LOL!!
i'm going to think like a man, and say the rooster "came" first.

[souldoubt]

sounds good. new topic to come now!!

[Davids92Accord]

lol guess what guys i was watching today in the morning some shows on the scifi channel called In Search Of.... and they were talking about that aliens are what created people that it first man was the CRO MAGNUM MAN and that the aliens came to earth made them smarter and some other stuff so they can have them as slaves so the people can do there work for them..

so many different opinions and facts on how life started ..
________
Motorcycle Tires

[Accord R33]

lol guess what guys i was watching today in the morning some shows on the scifi channel called In Search Of.... and they were talking about that aliens are what created people that it first man was the CRO MAGNUM MAN and that the aliens came to earth made them smarter and some other stuff so they can have them as slaves so the people can do there work for them..

its no more far fetched than the idea god plopped us here

[bracersi]

Well I was very interested in this incest theory so I did something that I have not done in a long time. I cracked a bible.
Unfortunately the bible is a very horribly written piece of literature.
genesis 4:1 all the way to 4:17 it talks about the birth of Cain and Able and how Cain got into a fued with his brother and killed him. Then Cain left the garden of Eden for the Land of Nod.
Right after he left for the land of Nod, they said Cain laid with his wife, and she became pregnant....?Then it goes on to say he had a son and his son had sons and so on and so forth....I am wondering where these magical hos are coming from that just like to fuck and get pregnant... I need to go to the land of Nod....

[Davids92Accord]

its no more far fetched than the idea god plopped us here

yea i know but i just wanted to put this in because i never heard of that until now
________
Babes live

[cp[mike]]

never understood the original question.

whether you believe in creation or evolution, the chicken came first, the egg is its method of reproduction. its not like a hard shell egg is the result of evolution, and i dont think god made a whole bunch of eggs on the earths surface when he made it.

the egg needs a chicken to incubate and hatch and become a chicken anyway.

[souldoubt]

Creationism is science. It has discovered evidence for a young earth and for the biblical flood. It has pointed to the absence from the fossil record of intermediate forms between known species. It has argued that certain species could not have evolved gradually because of their particular chemical or physical make-up. All of these discoveries and observations confirm the truth of the Genesis account of creation.

however, the other side of the coin says.

Creationism is not science. It takes the Genesis account (actually there are two Genesis accounts, in Gen 1.1-2.3 and Gen 2.4-3.24, but let’s not get into that) as true in every particular, and bends the evidence to fit that so-called ‘hypothesis’ - in fact it is not a hypothesis at all, since it is in principle unalterable for the creationists. Meanwhile, evolutionists come up with hypotheses which they test, modify and, where necessary, abandon as appropriate.

[gutterslide]

i'll ask just one of my hundreds of questions i have for evolution:
Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?

* The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
* The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
* The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
* DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
* The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
* The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
* The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
* The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
* The immune system or the need for it?

nice copy/paste from creationist ministry websites.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a

[Accord R33]

nice copy/paste from creationist ministry websites.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a

that web site makes me giggle....

there are just as many questions to ask creationists....in fact most of those questions could be turned around on the creationist theory. they dont have ANY facts that god in fact put the universe here, created matter, make the laws of physics (and thats just the first 3 questions!) Creationism has just as much speculation as they are claiming evolution has, the only difference being that creationists have ZERO physical evidence, where evolution at least has some.

and for the record. the answer to question number 8 is that the early single cell organisms could reproduce without a mate...

im sure science will answer those questions eventually (if most of them are not answered already), just like it has done with everything else we know as facts today...it just takes time.

you have to remember that there was a time when we didnt know what the sun was, what water was, why it rained etc...

['93accordse]

yeah, Dr. Kent Hovind is one of the reasons i started researching Evolution. But just because its from a creationist website doesnt mean it doesnt make some valid points. i dont agree with everything he says or "preaches" (he is overbearing on the creationism) but i do wonder about some of the points he makes.

[gutterslide]

Creationism is science. It has discovered evidence for a young earth and for the biblical flood. It has pointed to the absence from the fossil record of intermediate forms between known species. It has argued that certain species could not have evolved gradually because of their particular chemical or physical make-up. All of these discoveries and observations confirm the truth of the Genesis account of creation.

however, the other side of the coin says.

Creationism is not science. It takes the Genesis account (actually there are two Genesis accounts, in Gen 1.1-2.3 and Gen 2.4-3.24, but let’s not get into that) as true in every particular, and bends the evidence to fit that so-called ‘hypothesis’ - in fact it is not a hypothesis at all, since it is in principle unalterable for the creationists. Meanwhile, evolutionists come up with hypotheses which they test, modify and, where necessary, abandon as appropriate.

dude, really... stop plagiarizing.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:...ient=firefox-a

[Accord R33]

dude, really... stop plagiarizing.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:...ient=firefox-a

i dont think he was trying to pass that off as his own words...what he posted is not plagerism, as he took no credit for those ideas. he was simply compairing two views on a single subject