The first item is very true. The point of course was that one species gave birth to another (even though they had closer relations).
To the second item... you're likely right.
which came first, the cow or the chicken?
- Thread starter scifes
- Start date
The first item is very true. The point of course was that one species gave birth to another (even though they had closer relations).
To the second item... you're likely right.
The "stand" has nothing to do with atheism. It's pure biology. If you want to take it as a biologists stand then that would be correct.
Neither, and both.
I hope you are intelligent enough to lay out your point a little more.
Chickens are domesticated animals, so the first chicken appeared not long after modern humans. Not that this makes much of a difference, the changes in genetics happened slowly, but faster than ordinary evolution. The traits would have been evident in the first eggs before they hatched.
If God doesn't make the chicken first then there is no point in Him making an egg. Unless He makes a fertilized egg and sits on the nest until it hatches. But then He would also need at least one more fertilized egg. It makes more sense for God to make chickens first and let them make their own eggs or chickens if you prefer....a la Adam & Eve. :shrug:
Dawkins has nothing on this!!! Yes, this proves God doesn't have a god
However, He has a chicken.There is no single, definitive atheist stance on the origins of chickens (or life in general), and there likely never will be.
maybe, but looky here:
haha, fine, atheists claim they stick to science, or they stick to proof, which seems only science provides, so if this is the scientific stand, i think i can say it's the atheistic stand.
loool, nope. i'm sorry i'm not. but thanks for shedding a light on the situation by "neither and both"
ok, so we'll proceed from this:
The egg. What we call a chicken hatched from an egg. The very first chicken had an ancestor that wasn't a chicken but laid a chicken egg.
if a chicken egg was NOT laid from a chicken which was once a chicken egg, and the chicken egg hatched to lay another chicken egg and so on, while its origin is NOT a chicken which was laid by another chicken, why can't god who is NOT created, create humans, who create other things which create other things, while the human's origin was NOT created by something which was created by something?
if that's too easy or too hard, look at it this way:
i will assume that whatever hatches, according to biology, must have come in it's deepest origin, from something that haven't hatched which came from something which didn't hatch.
now replace the word "hatch" with "create". and "biology" with "logic"
lol
Wrong.
Some atheists believe in flying saucers, some believe in ghosts and psychic powers. You can't generalise what the atheist view is.
So the egg god hatched from wasn't laid by an earlier god but something else entirely.i will assume that whatever hatches, according to biology, must have come in it's deepest origin, from something that haven't hatched which came from something which didn't hatch.
now replace the word "hatch" with "create". and "biology" with "logic"
lol
Logic?
You mean you've come across the word before?
no smarty it seems you didn't follow me.
hatch is replaced by create. god hatched things (humans) which hatched other things..but god himself didn't hatch from anything.
got it?
Last edited:
I would guess the chicken, but there seems to be some disagreement. I guess they did not have very good record keeping back then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication
It seems our friends the cannines were amoung the first to be domesticated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication
It seems our friends the cannines were amoung the first to be domesticated.
Last edited:
Actually I followed you perfectly, and then continued where you had neglected to go.
Dywyddyr covered this quite nicely. There are atheists who believe in the paranormal / paraphysical / anal probing alien abductions etc. The one and ONLY position that is common amongst atheists is not accepting the assertion "god exists" as being true.
There are two components to your line of thought that are being overlooked. One is that there is no evidence of an omnipotent life form while there is evidence of a Chicken's most recent ancestor. The second is that a Chicken's ancestory didn't magically appear. It had ancestor and it's ancestor had an ancestor... and the process repeats all the way back to the point where life forms were no longer life forms.
if that's too easy or too hard, look at it this way:
i will assume that whatever hatches, according to biology, must have come in it's deepest origin, from something that haven't hatched which came from something which didn't hatch.
now replace the word "hatch" with "create". and "biology" with "logic"
lol
The thought process doesn't quite make sense. Whatever hatches comes from something that lays eggs.
Ahh, I see what you are saying. In biology, the ancestor of all hatched life was a life form that didn't hatch but was still a product of reproduction.
hey i'm relatively new to atheism, and the only ones i know are the ones on this forum and they always stick to science, i don't know about others
thanks for actually pointing them out for me
i didn't know that, what i collect of evolution is that it is more speculation than evidence or science, with more missing links than present ones, but it makes up for that by the system being "reasonable"..anyway if such evidence hard enough for me not to be able to claim something along it's lines as a proof of god as well, then i'd appreciate it if you provided it.
no one said god magically appeared, all what we're saying is that the concept of creator needing a creation is one bounded with us humans and our creations and down the chain i.e or world..it was a trait passed down to the first human just like hatching was a trait passed down from the first chicken ancestor, in both cases such trait albeit given to an entity which "labeled" it and its "off springs", did NOT apply to the giver of the trait.
of course all living beings are "born" one way or another, even the ancestor of the chicken, it, as you said, came from a course of reproduction, but i'm here talking about hatching; a real life concept demonstrating how a concept can be passed down a link without being applicable to the passer.
also, just because an entity passes down a trait not present in itself doesn't mean such entity is void of all traits, and it gives them all at once, although the chicken ancestor starts off the trait of hatching, doesn't neglect the fact that other traits such as the need for food were not present in it(the chicken ancestor).
similarly, although god passed down the concept of (need-for-)creation down to us, doesn't mean that we don't share some traits with him too, which were passed but also applicable to the passer, such as life..so you can't say:"oh well if we have to be crated but who passed this to us didn't need to be created, then as we are alive then that who passed it down to us did not have life, so he's dead"
god created humans, humans created machines.
god has intelligence , life, ability to create..
humans have intelligence, life.
machines have intelligence.
i hope that has been something new or useful to some of you.
yes, and for god you can substitute "production" with "life" or any other trait we actually share, needing a producer is not one of them, which is the point of the whole thread.
WHAT? you actually watched that stupid cartoon? how unintelligent of you
it's just a pun
..
Last edited:
That would make sense as this is a science site.
Ooooh, I think that your science teachers have failed you in a big way. Biological evolution is an observable phenomenon (there is zero speculation in its existence). The details of how it works are in the process of being discovered. The current model of how it works is called the "Theory of Evolution". Many of the fossil gaps for primates (humans included) have been found. You'll find a general behavior with people who subscribe to magical thinking. Whenever there is a gap in scientific knowledge they fill it with their imagination.
If you're seriously interested in understanding Evolution, I can recommend some good courses at one or more Bay Area universities. Not only will they help you understand the theory but they will show you the observable evidence that the theory is modeled after.
I'm not sure if you understand how hatching works. It is a result of sexual or asexual reproduction. If you were born of an egg for example, your mother and father would have had sex but instead of your embryo growing in your mothers body it would grow in an egg that your mother expelled from her body.
Additionally, the human lineage has been traced all the way back to a set of sponges (and virual components beyond that). There was no egg.
I don't think you have a clear idea what a biological trait is. Needing food or water aren't traits. That's a result of physics. You (as well as every life form on Earth) are an energy collection machine. You collect energy so you can persist (day to day and through sexual reproduction). You collect energy by detecting difference in the environment and eating / drinking the differences that satiate you. A trait on the other hand would be a property of yourself. For example eye color. That trait can be passed down and it follows a very well known set of rules on how, when, and the probability of it being passed down.
similarly, although god passed down the concept of (need-for-)creation down to us, doesn't mean that we don't share some traits with him too, which were passed but also applicable to the passer, such as life..so you can't say:"oh well if we have to be crated but who passed this to us didn't need to be created, then as we are alive then that who passed it down to us did not have life, so he's dead"
god created humans, humans created machines.
god has intelligence , life, ability to create..
humans have intelligence, life.
machines have intelligence.
i hope that has been something new or useful to some of you.
Currently there is no evidence that a life form "god" exists and there is uncontestable evidence that humans are not created. What does exist concerning god is the claim of god. The reason that claim exists is because of how humans are psychologically hard wired. We anthropomorphize, we are social, and we are hierarchical. Put them all together and the concept of a god is natural... but has no correspondence to actual reality.
I think what you are trying to say is that only life can cause life. As humans were once nothing but viral components (which are not alive), the assertion that only life can cause life is incorrect. The exact cause of life is not presently known but what is known is that there has to be plenty of energy, plenty of time, and good old fashioned chemical reactions.
no no no NO!
you are NOT getting what i'm saying, i don't care for the biological term. i'm talking "trait" as in peculiarity, mark, attribute, property.. and the matter of evolution not being more missing than found is another matter but unrelated to the OP, so i'll drop it. plus, I KNOW HOW HATCHING WORKS!, but how does that relate to anything? and who said humans hatched? ever since when did humans hatch and when did ii say such a thing? you are sooo missing the point, i hope you're not doing it deliberately.
we say: proof of god's existence are all of his creations, which are so complex to be done otherwise, besides, every creation needs a creator, you say; no that's actually proof of your wrong and illogical idea of god, if everything needs a creator, then who created god?..we say; no one.. you laugh your asses on us.
and so now i have a reply.
why can't everything need a creator except the creator of it all... if all those who lay eggs have once hatched eccept that which laid the egg that hatched them all?
just re-read post#27 and down please.
you are NOT getting what i'm saying, i don't care for the biological term. i'm talking "trait" as in peculiarity, mark, attribute, property.. and the matter of evolution not being more missing than found is another matter but unrelated to the OP, so i'll drop it. plus, I KNOW HOW HATCHING WORKS!, but how does that relate to anything? and who said humans hatched? ever since when did humans hatch and when did ii say such a thing? you are sooo missing the point, i hope you're not doing it deliberately.
we say: proof of god's existence are all of his creations, which are so complex to be done otherwise, besides, every creation needs a creator, you say; no that's actually proof of your wrong and illogical idea of god, if everything needs a creator, then who created god?..we say; no one.. you laugh your asses on us.
and so now i have a reply.
why can't everything need a creator except the creator of it all... if all those who lay eggs have once hatched eccept that which laid the egg that hatched them all?
just re-read post#27 and down please.
There is zero evidence that humans, the planet, etc. are created but there is lots of evidence that they are naturally caused.
That's a subjective judgment. There is no such thing as "too complex" or "too non-complex" objectively.
There is no evidence a "creator" exists. There is evidence that everything is naturally caused.