[_ Old Earth _] Derailed, lol

[Free]

the jungle fowl had changed enough to call it a chicken.

Mmm...KFJF.

 

[Jayls5]

Dinosaurs laid eggs way before chickens were around, so that answers that question.

Edit, oops beat to it... didn't realize this thread was already 3 pages.

 

[Free]

Dinosaurs laid eggs way before chickens were around, so that answers that question.

Which came first: the dinosaur or the egg?

 

[Barbarian]

Eggs. A long time before.

 

[Free]

So, if dinosaurs produced dinosaur eggs and chickens produce chicken eggs, etc., what produced the first eggs and how did the first hatchlings end up producing the eggs?

 

[Patashu]

The first egglayer would preceed the first egg and the first chicken egg would preceed the first chicken.

Although I dunno; it's not discrete but continuous. You wouldn't suddenly get a creature laying eggs, you'd go through steps of proto-egg layers. You wouldn't suddenly get a chicken in an egg, it'd again be a long line of proto-chickens you could say.

 

[Jayls5]

The first egglayer would preceed the first egg and the first chicken egg would preceed the first chicken.

Although I dunno; it's not discrete but continuous. You wouldn't suddenly get a creature laying eggs, you'd go through steps of proto-egg layers. You wouldn't suddenly get a chicken in an egg, it'd again be a long line of proto-chickens you could say.

It boils down to a question of definition.

An egg is a certain material surrounding an embryo of what thickness? If mutation developed that led to an animal capable of producing something we define as an "egg," then yeah, the animal that laid it came first. The animal that laid the first "egg" itself would have come from something too thin to be called an egg by our set definition. If you defined a species based on the ability to produce the first "egg" as we define it, then by definition and deduction, we have asserted that the animal came first before the egg. It's up to the classification of biologists really. There's your answer.

 

[Jayls5]

JohnMuse... out of curiosity, do you ever actually think we have refuted an argument on this forum? I mean, usually it appears to me that we are pretty cohesive, and at the very least, we expose the fundamental flaw behind almost every ID argument I've seen within a very short time period.

You usually abandon the argument at some point and start another one, and that's why I am asking.

 

[John]

JohnMuse... out of curiosity, do you ever actually think we have refuted an argument on this forum? I mean, usually it appears to me that we are pretty cohesive, and at the very least, we expose the fundamental flaw behind almost every ID argument I've seen within a very short time period.

You usually abandon the argument at some point and start another one, and that's why I am asking.

I can lead the horse to water but i can't make it drink, i abandon them because its not worth my time trying to help you guys in most cases, i presented truths its up to you from there.

 

[Deep Thought]

I can lead the horse to water but i can't make it drink, i abandon them because its not worth my time trying to help you guys in most cases, i presented truths its up to you from there.

:crazyeyes: :crazyeyes: :o : : :

 

[Jayls5]

JohnMuse... out of curiosity, do you ever actually think we have refuted an argument on this forum? I mean, usually it appears to me that we are pretty cohesive, and at the very least, we expose the fundamental flaw behind almost every ID argument I've seen within a very short time period.

You usually abandon the argument at some point and start another one, and that's why I am asking.

I can lead the horse to water but i can't make it drink, i abandon them because its not worth my time trying to help you guys in most cases, i presented truths its up to you from there.

One might suggest the same thing is being done for you.

 

[jmm9683]

I can lead the horse to water but i can't make it drink, i abandon them because its not worth my time trying to help you guys in most cases, i presented truths its up to you from there.

Delusion at its finest. You abandon them because you can't argue a topic on its actual merits. It's just you giving a flawed creationist argument with no science backing it... (and no, Kent Hovind, Creation Wiki, and AiG don't count).

 

[John]

I can lead the horse to water but i can't make it drink, i abandon them because its not worth my time trying to help you guys in most cases, i presented truths its up to you from there.

Delusion at its finest. You abandon them because you can't argue a topic on its actual merits. It's just you giving a flawed creationist argument with no science backing it... (and no, Kent Hovind, Creation Wiki, and AiG don't count).

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge. I will also reject thee..." - Hosea 4:6

 

[jmm9683]

[quote="johnmuise""My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge. I will also reject thee..." - Hosea 4:6[/quote]

Well I'd say that pretty accurately describes the proponents of YEC...

 

[John]

[quote="johnmuise""My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge. I will also reject thee..." - Hosea 4:6

Well I'd say that pretty accurately describes the proponents of YEC...[/quote]

I think i said it before. get your own 2000+/- year old book with your own quotes.

 

[Snidey]

[quote="johnmuise""My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge. I will also reject thee..." - Hosea 4:6

Well I'd say that pretty accurately describes the proponents of YEC...

I think i said it before. get your own 2000+/- year old book with your own quotes.[/quote]

That's the thing though, newer books tend to be better.

 

[Jayls5]

Well I'd say that pretty accurately describes the proponents of YEC...

Just remember, they only play the game of logic as far as it suits them. Once logic destroys their argument, they retreat to their fortress of "truth" where they feel safe. They don't have to argue with the bible, it just "is."

We live in the realm where we admit we can be swayed by sound reason and argumentation, and that's probably why they try our methods. However, the same cannot be said of them in a lot of cases because of early age indoctrination in their religion. The very logic they use to argue with us will often show their beliefs to be unfounded and unsupported, but they will cling to it out of necessity. I feel a genuine sorrow for people like this... probably similar to the sorrow they feel about me not being "saved."

 

[jmm9683]

I think i said it before. get your own 2000+/- year old book with your own quotes.

Most Christians aren't YEC no matter how much you want them to be. You have been misled by your pastor, family, etc. about evolution, the age of the Earth, and all of the science from different disciplines supporting it.

 

[John]

[quote="johnmuise""My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge. I will also reject thee..." - Hosea 4:6

Well I'd say that pretty accurately describes the proponents of YEC...

I think i said it before. get your own 2000+/- year old book with your own quotes.

That's the thing though, newer books tend to be better.[/quote]

The God delusion was not all that great, after i read it it smeared gelled napalm on it and lit it up last week.

 

[John]

I think i said it before. get your own 2000+/- year old book with your own quotes.

Most Christians aren't YEC no matter how much you want them to be. You have been misled by your pastor, family, etc. about evolution, the age of the Earth, and all of the science from different disciplines supporting it.

How did that have to do with anything you quoted?

Give me census type results on your claim. The Gap theory is debunked.