This is a rather basic question that I happen to find myself asking sometimes. What is your opinion? State which you think would've come first and give a good reason as to why. I don't know if there has already been a thread on this, but I apologize if there has.
Ok, this is one of the biggest loopholes ever but I have not met even one person that has found it. The question does not say it was a chicken egg. Obviously the first egg, most likly a dinosaur egg or some sort of lizard like that, came first and then the chicken egg. So the egg came first.
Also. . .do you think scientists conspire against religion or something?
Of course they don't, but they really can't name creationism as reasoning because it isn't scientific. In a way it is. Scientist try find the answer without going back to creationism for the one fact that it isn't proven just like abiogenesis isn't proven.
How does that disprove abiogenesis? It's still just a theory - it's possible that the molecules were spontaneously created due to a chemical reaction of nonliving matter, no? Not definite either way, but possible. Also, evolution doesn't deal with the creation of life.
Sorry, I should have been a bit more clear. I meant to say that it proves creationism. Abiogenesis and creationsim can coexist. The creation of amino acids and such. Then science playing it's roll for the many molecules to form to actually make a cell.
