The classic argument over which came first.I wanted to bring this up, because I was thinking a little bit and realized something.Why do scientist believe that the egg came first, if it had no mother to lay it, then keep it warm, and also after the eggs hatched they would have no way of surviving on their own without a parent to take care of them.So why do some scientist think this way when it is common sense that the chicken came first.I want to here your opinions on this matter.
Since we're going to throw in God in this conversation, here's my POV.
We all may remember the story of Noah's ARK. He built an ark carrying on male and female of each species. Long story short, God flooded the place for 40 days and nights. In the end Noah released all the animals to the new land. Case in point one rooster and chicken. So using The Bible story as my reference...
Evolution is a fact in the sense of it being overwhelmingly validated by the evidence. Frequently evolution is said to be a fact in the same way as the Earth revolving around the Sun is a fact.[15][17] The following quotation from H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" explains the point.
There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. There are many people who believe evolution is untrue. There are other people who, due to religion, refuse to accept things as fact. Take this, for example: "As recently as 1966, sheik Abd el Aziz bin Baz asked the king of Saudi Arabia to suppress a heresy that was spreading in his land. Wrote the sheik:
"The Holy Koran, the Prophetâs teachings, the majority of Islamic scientists, and the actual facts all prove that the sun is running in its orbit . . . and that the earth is fixed and stable, spread out by God for his mankind. . . . Anyone who professed otherwise would utter a charge of falsehood toward God, the Koran, and the Prophet."
The good sheik evidently holds the Copernican theory to be a "mere theory," not a "fact." In this he is technically correct. A theory can be verified by a mass of facts, but it becomes a proven theory, not a fact. The sheik was perhaps unaware that the Space Age had begun before he asked the king to suppress the Copernican heresy. The sphericity of the earth has been seen by astronauts, and even by many earth-bound people on their television screens. Perhaps the sheik could retort that those who venture beyond the confines of Godâs earth suffer hallucinations, and that the earth is really flat." [1] I am certain you do not believe that the Earth is flat based on your beliefs, despite that it is stated in the Bible. "The Koran and the Bible do not contradict Copernicus, nor does Copernicus contradict them. It is ludicrous to mistake the Bible and the Koran for primers of natural science. They treat of matters even more important: the meaning of man and his relations to God. They are written in poetic symbols that were understandable to people of the age when they were written, as well as to peoples of all other ages." [1] You see, the Bible does not disprove religion. But to think that this evidence is blatantly wrong is blasphemy - "Shiek bin Baz and his like refuse to accept the radiometric evidence, because it is a "mere theory." What is the alternative? One can suppose that the Creator saw fit to play deceitful tricks on geologists and biologists. He carefully arranged to have various rocks provided with isotope ratios just right to mislead us into thinking that certain rocks are 2 billion years old, others 2 million, which in fact they are only some 6,000 years old. This kind of pseudo-explanation is not very new. One of the early antievolutionists, P. H. Gosse, published a book entitled Omphalos ("the Navel". The gist of this amazing book is that Adam, though he had no mother, was created with a navel, and that fossils were placed by the Creator where we find them now â" a deliberate act on His part, to give the appearance of great antiquity and geologic upheaveals. It is easy to see the fatal flaw in all such notions. They are blasphemies, accusing God of absurd deceitfulness. This is as revolting as it is uncalled for." [1]
Because I know none of you want to take the time to read the entire article, I brought out a few of the good bits from the intro, along with my commentary. [1] Dobzhansky, Theodosius. Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution. http://people.delphiforums.com/lordorman/light.htm
The following quotation from H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" explains the point.
I lied, check my citation. Should be The following quotation from Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"
I don't think its a question, rather a statement to use when explaining questions that cannot be answered relating to the start of something. What if neither came first, what if both? What if it was a cross-bred animal product between a pterodactyl and a rabbit?
I don't know if anyone has said this yet but it's obvious that the egg came before the chicken because dinosaurs layed eggs WAY before chickens came along...there, problem solved...GOODNIGHT!
