PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Fun Debates
     chicken vs. egg

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
squirt1983

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Which came first the chicken or the egg?


-------
Happiness is wetting your pants--the whole world can see it, but only you can feel its warmth.
-Author Unknown
 


Posts: 41 | Posted: 2:04 PM on November 19, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The egg. A species similar to a chicken mated, but there was a slight genetic mutation (crossover or otherwise) that caused a slightely different species of offspring, the modernday chicken. but the egg was still their to hatch it, the mother just wasnt a chicken.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 3:02 PM on November 19, 2002 | IP
kc2gwx

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The chicken, which God created.

There is no evidence of microevolution, of which dsadevil speaks, leading to macroevolution. They are seperate, and macroevolution has never been observed.

If you disagree dsadevil, give me an example of macroevolution. There should be hundreds of examples if evolution were true.


-------
Sam, KC2GWX
 


Posts: 101 | Posted: 10:37 PM on November 19, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I would venture that every similar but different species would be such evidence. The problem i have is that I have trouble believing that every single biology textbook, authored by hundreds of the most respected university profs in the world, and accepted by thousands more, is part of some vast government consipracy to undermine god. forgive me for being skeptical.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 11:03 PM on November 19, 2002 | IP
kc2gwx

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I never once said that there is a vast conspiracy afoot. I don't believe that.

However, I do believe that most scientists are mistaken. If you disagree with this, I can give you many quotes of scientist (evolutionist) who admit that there is no true evidence of evolution.

I forgive you for being skeptical. Will you forgive me for being skeptical about a theory which every evidence ever presented as proof was later shown to be false? No one takes 'The Origin of Species' as scientific fact anymore! In fact, there are probably not many 'evidences' for evolution taken seriously that are much older than 50 years. The theory will continue to change once certain parts are proven wrong until eventually it can do so no longer. I believe this is happening right now. The new knowledge of biochemistry is asking questions that evolution can not answer. I truely believe that within 50 years, evolution will no longer be. That's my opinion.


-------
Sam, KC2GWX
 


Posts: 101 | Posted: 11:27 PM on November 19, 2002 | IP
Cool-Hand-Dave

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you seem to be strict creationist, kc.  i'm a Christian, but prove God to me by the same means you expect evolutionist to prove their ideas.  there are faults in both theories, thus they are called theories and not facts.


-------
Cool Hand Dave
 


Posts: 134 | Posted: 01:50 AM on November 20, 2002 | IP
kc2gwx

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Cool-Hand-Dave at 01:50 AM on November 20, 2002 :
you seem to be strict creationist, kc.  i'm a Christian, but prove God to me by the same means you expect evolutionist to prove their ideas.  there are faults in both theories, thus they are called theories and not facts.



Actually, many people do call evolution a fact, but that isn't important.

I am a strict creationist. I have been debating my point for years. I don't see why people accept evolution so easily without even asking some of the most basic questions. For example, in schools, they do not teach any problems with evolution, they just say, 'Evolution is fact, we have seen it happen.' And the students usually just accept it, because their teacher said to.

Sorry, got a little of the point there. Both creation and evolution are based on faith. I have faith that God created the world in 6 days. Evolutionist have faith that the universe arose from nothing, at a random time, for no reason. They also have faith that life arose from non-living material, which is mathematical impossible.

Do you see the point I'm getting at? Yes, both theories are faith based.  But evolution has never had any support! I'm not kidding! Like I said before, at the present time they use all this evidence, then find out it's wrong, and grab something else. If you look back on evolution's history, you see...nothing! No orginial idea still stands!

By the way, you can just call me Sam.


-------
Sam, KC2GWX
 


Posts: 101 | Posted: 10:55 AM on November 20, 2002 | IP
mrmazet

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I mainly believe in evolution, but, also, believe that creation may coexist.

By the coexistence theory, life came from something, and yet things evolve. Why can't god act through science?

I've heard that if you stretched each "day" from genesis on a while longer, it matches the theory of evolution.

Also, I've heard that over the past few hundred years people have grown taller.

(Edited by mrmazet 11/20/2002 at 10:24 PM).
 


Posts: 122 | Posted: 7:36 PM on November 20, 2002 | IP
Exxoss

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Neither came first; i created them at the same time.  I am the creator of all things, muahahahahaa!!!1

But seriously, i think the chicken;  Mother nature created the chicken as one of her origional familiers to help her.

Not with my religional bias, which i like more, the egg.  I think evolution happens;  mammals adapt to nearly any climate/condition, so how could this not be another example of adaption to having to be able to have many babies at once?


-------
I am Exxoss, come to save you all from your impending doom!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

-Exxoss
 


Posts: 438 | Posted: 8:41 PM on November 23, 2002 | IP
Galileo

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

For example, in schools, they do not teach any problems with evolution, they just say, 'Evolution is fact, we have seen it happen.' And the students usually just accept it, because their teacher said to.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
"The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 140 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences"

Thats why. So, no evolution is not based on faith.

Do you see the point I'm getting at? Yes, both theories are faith based.  But evolution has never had any support! I'm not kidding! Like I said before, at the present time they use all this evidence, then find out it's wrong, and grab something else. If you look back on evolution's history, you see...nothing! No orginial idea still stands!


Oh, you're NOT kidding, oh well, I guess you're right then aren't you?

Its obvious that you don't understand what you're talking about. Creationists and science never seem to mix.


(Edited by Galileo 8/20/2009 at 2:24 PM).

(Edited by Galileo 8/20/2009 at 2:24 PM).


-------
Hallowed are the Invisible Pink Unicorns
 


Posts: 160 | Posted: 2:22 PM on August 20, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from kc2gwx at 10:55 AM on November 20, 2002 :
Quote from Cool-Hand-Dave at 01:50 AM on November 20, 2002 :
you seem to be strict creationist, kc.  i'm a Christian, but prove God to me by the same means you expect evolutionist to prove their ideas.  there are faults in both theories, thus they are called theories and not facts.



Actually, many people do call evolution a fact, but that isn't important.

I am a strict creationist. I have been debating my point for years.


Sam, head over to the DNA debate in evolution forums, we like to hear your point of view.



-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 2:44 PM on May 14, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 2:44 PM on May 14, 2010 :
Quote from kc2gwx at 10:55 AM on November 20, 2002 :
Quote from Cool-Hand-Dave at 01:50 AM on November 20, 2002 :
you seem to be strict creationist, kc.  i'm a Christian, but prove God to me by the same means you expect evolutionist to prove their ideas.  there are faults in both theories, thus they are called theories and not facts.



Actually, many people do call evolution a fact, but that isn't important.

I am a strict creationist. I have been debating my point for years.


Sam, head over to the DNA debate in evolution forums, we like to hear your point of view.




Doesn't appear that he's been around since 2002.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 4:32 PM on May 17, 2010 | IP
NIF

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

for all those Evolutionists out there:

The EGG

Dino's where laying eggs long before chickens came along ^_^
 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 11:36 PM on January 23, 2011 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.