What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up-Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
200 Comments
- zach_sp, on 10/12/2007, -6/+60My southern home living cookbook says the egg comes first. Page 93. You coat the chicken in an egg-based batter before frying. I tasted it, and it was good.
Discuss. - TheAttacks, on 10/12/2007, -3/+45I would guess a lot of people on Digg believe the evolution theory over the creation theory, which is essentially what this question boils down to. I, for one, believe in evoluion, but respect your religious outlooks.
- portis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22According to Xenu, neither chicken nor egg exist.
- aplusplus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22Next up on Digg: Why did the chicken cross the road? New revelations are revealed!
- violentvinyl, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Digg 5:26
If thine opinion is unpopular, thou shalt be buried, and not heard. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -19/+32Some religious fundamentalist is still going to challenge this.
- soogy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Why did the chicken cross the road? Now with AJAX.
That would make the front page. - pilot3033, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Everything is possible in science, that's the beauty of it. You propose a theory, and everyone else in the community spends their life trying to prove it's not true, while you spend yours trying to prove it is true.
- fgsfds, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11"This is getting really lame."
I think we can all agree on that.
"Intelligent design is as much science as evolution is, in fact it is more. To say ID is not science because it involves God is ludicurous."
Yes, that would be a ludicrous statement. That's why nobody is saying that.
Instead, they say that it's not science because it's not fallible.
In order to DISprove creationism, you need to conclusively prove that an entity which is completely undetectable and all powerful does not exist, and that's impossible. Since the theory relies on a being which is undetectable and all powerful, it is rejected on the grounds that it can never be tested to tell if it's true or false.
It also commits a horrible scientific 'crime', in that it writes-off fossils as being evidence forged by said undetectable all-powerful being.
You see, science doesn't care if creationism is true or not. It cares what the evidence which we CAN collect indicates as being what happened, and the evidence which exists points to evolution.
"It is similar to saying explain how this computer came into being - and by the way, saying that man created the computer is not allowed. You have to explain how the computer naturally evolved."
Unfortunately for you, we've found plenty of records of human evolution. We also have hard evidence that man DID create computers. The difference between man and god is that one is composed of physical matter and leaves evidence of their work, while the other does not.
Can you prove that god did NOT create the world last Tuesday? Assuming he did, wouldn't there be NO evidence to the contrary?
"Evolution cannot explain fundamental questions - the origin of the universe, the formation of the stars, the formation of the elements, the origin of life."
Scientific theories are far less interdependent than your belief structures, they're more modular. Evolution doesn't benefit at all from the big bang theory or the theory of abiogenisis, as it doesn't need them at all.
"People get all hyped about evolution by talking about evolution of species and the quote natural selection (minor changes within the species) as support for macro-evolution."
Imagine that you have a bucket. A single drop of water in the bucket would be "micro evolution", while graduated marks on the side would be "macro evolution". Small changes over a long time lead to a huge change.
Look-up ring species sometime.
"The fact is that the Big Bang cannot explain the universe."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Yet it does a much better job than shrugging and saying "God did it!"
"I find it fascinating that saying the universe came into being from an infinitisemally small spinning object that was always there is considered science while the statement the universe was created by God is rejected. Where did the matter come from? Why did it decide to explode?"
We don't know, yet. However, science admits to it's shortcomings - It freely admits when it doesn't understand something, and will readily change what it believes when something better comes along. Creationism is incapable of both of those things - all it can do it throw it's hands in the air and blame God for everything.
However, science is capable of *predicting* what will happen in the future, and that's something that Creationism is incapable of doing.
In short, it all boils down to this: Science can only work with things that can be tested and shown to be either true or false, and since it's completely impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god, science can't accept any theory that requires god to work. - dexim, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11What gets me about creation vs. evolution, is that nowhere in the Bible does it state how God created everything, other than "he spoke". I personally believe that God used evolution to create everything. There is too much evidence supporting evolution, and my faith says that God did it, why couldn't he have used evolution?
- adam84a, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13@ TheAttacks
Your reply has got to be the first mature and respectful post I have ever seen on digg.
Thank You.
You should win something. - templest, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Read the works by L. Ron Hubbard, you will see that everything you "know",
was really put there by Xenu to confuse you and not see the real truth.
Before you attack this post, ponder the following question:
Sure, you may think Scientology is a sham, but, can you *really* discredit it?
I mean, it's all about faith, right? There's just as much evidence to support Scientology
as there is Christianity. Shelf life is a non-issue. Just because one theory is older than
the other, doesn't mean it should be given any more merit.
(NOTE: I am *not* a Scientologist, and in fact *do* think it's a sham. But then again,
I also think every other religion is as well. Just trying to prove a point). - justice7, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13Scientists don't support intelligent design, but they generally don't deny it either; its simply something that has yet to be proven.
If there were sufficient proof to provide a solid theory on intelligent design, scientists would indeed support it. - quasipalm, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11It's not that no scientist believes in intelligent design. It's that ID isn't science.
A real scientist can believe we were created by aliens or on scientific understanding. It's just a hunch, or faith, or something else. - actionscripted, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8That'd probably make front page.
- CedanticPunt, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Have you not been paying attention. The dinosaurs were just god's little joke at our (collective) expense... duh!
- dallen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You farm raise bears? That is SO cool!
- BloodJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13Would a "scientist" who supports intelligent design argue that the chicken came first?
- fgsfds, on 10/12/2007, -10/+15"Since neither evolution nor intelligent design/creationism has as of yet be scientifically proven, let's not start attacking people on opposite sides of the debate."
Gravity hasn't been proven either, and there's even LESS evidence supporting that then there is to support evolution!
We need to start teaching children "Intelligent Falling" in schools, which states that things fall because the hand of god pushes down on those who are not pure in spirit. This theory explains how Jesus was able to fly around and fight the Nazi zombie army back in '44. - supermanjosh1, on 10/12/2007, -33/+37The Bible says the chicken came first. Read it in Genesis 1:21 "So God created great sea creatures and every sort of fish and every kind of bird. And God saw that it was good." And there you have it. I guess I am the religious fundamentalist that "OBKenobi" is talking about.
- pauldonnelly, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Amazing. How is this news? It's pretty obvious -- I reached the same conclusion long ago, and I bet many other people did too.
- robmeist, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I'm glad to see people talking about their views of evolution and religion without getting outright mad with each other. It's good to see respect for another persons point of view and opinion. We need more of that in the world today.
- soogy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10The Bible doesn't say evolution didn't happen. Make up your own minds, don't have one person read the Bible and interpret it for you.
- fgsfds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Mutation within somebody's life doesn't carry over to future generations.
Additionally, the copying method used by gamuts is orders of magnitude more error-prone than the one used by your own cells. You really don't mutate that much, and when you do your immune system tends to kill most of the mutant cells off pretty well. - noumenon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5That's what I'm saying... I thought of this a long time ago.
@dexim - bet it was the same guy who decided to drink cow's milk (nice Calvin and Hobbes reference). :) - wyrdness, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8What does middle-eastern bronze-age tribal mythology have to do with science anyway?
- tsupersonic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Well the egg had obviously had to come first, because it wouldn't make sense if there was a chicken first. I don't know how to explain that more... That is just my logic and my IMO.
@greenbox - the dinosaur wasn't the first species... - soogy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@templest:
Hence the problem with religion. Everyone joins a religion or a smaller branch of a religion and expects them to get all the answers. However, only a few people (these are the leaders of the religions) actually make up their own minds. The rest (the followers) simply accept what they are told.
They don't want to interpret the Bible or the Qur'an, or whatever it is you read, for themselves. They expect to be told what it means.
Personally, I believe in God, yet I don't identify as a part of any religion. At the same time, I believe in evolution. Does the Bible say God appeared one day and made everything as it is today? No. The Bible hints at things that could be interpreted in infinite ways. - jdstorer2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Amazing. I think this article just gave me fodder for the block button. Unfortunately, it becomes a silly overblown debate on *who*, and not *what* is actually correct. I can't for the life of me figure out why, when evolution stares you in the face, that you can blatantly look away! Of *course* the egg came before the chicken. You can believe in God, Buddha or whatever you wish, it doesn't change what actually is. "Intelligent Design" is a failing attempt at getting Creationist views into Science, that's all it is, it's not really an opponent to Evolution, because in itself Evolution is already a provable theory, and Intelligent Design is an unprovable theory. To see so much debate on something so obvious is an embarrassment to the human species.
- gwax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Yup, I came up with this answer many years ago as well.
- BitwiseMcgee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3For things like eating an egg/drinking milk, that's easy:
egg: a guy sees a fox stealing eggs from chickens, and eating them ( or any other animal eating an egg )
milk: sees the calf drinking it.
I bet most anything we eat can be traced to an instance where an animal was eating it first. - violentvinyl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4You must be a huge hit at cocktail parties.
- WilliamTanksley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Great logic! It's got an error, though: it assumes that the mutation that changed the organism from prechicken to chicken was in the egg's genetic code. That's not neccesary; the critical mutation could have been in the sperm, in which case the chicken would have been first (although I suppose this is no refutation, since in both cases the gamete comes before the chicken).
OTOH, there's a bizzare but facinating theory I read that pointed out that the real difference between species isn't as much in the genes as it is in the chromosomes; and chomosomal variations aren't capable of being sexually produced. Therefore, the first chicken was asexually produced from a protochicken (and as the article said, the chicken therefore came first). - jblithe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4on the topic of ID vs. Evolution, i propose "which came first, the chicken or the huevos?"
in cold blooded animals, the testicles are inside because they work inside a cold blooded animal. in warm blooded animals, the testicles are outside the body, because they don't work in higher temperatures. wouldn't an almighty god have been able to intelligently design some nuts that work inside warm blooded animals, instead of putting such vital organs outside the body, in an all but unprotected sack of skin?! i guess he was just too busy with the platypus to bother, huh. - postapoc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2the rooster
- Flankk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3If you believe in intellegent design, then it's the chicken.
If you believe in evolution, then it's the egg.
Both are matters of opinion with religious and scientific bias, respectively. Neither hold any real truth; rather an argument between the logical thinking and the faith based. - justice7, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5there are plenty of wild chickens in asia
where do you live? Texas? - lnxaddct, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2wtf? what moral law are you talking about? One man's morals are another man's sins, one man's freedom fight is another man's enslavement. Stop kidding yourself. Evolution exists and the Big Bang happened, get over it... you're not as significant in this universe as you want to be. Oh well.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2CECIL ANSWERD THIS IN 84!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_218.html - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Ah, but proof denies faith, and without faith, God is nothing. Your argument proves that God exists, and so therefore he doesn't, QED.
On a more serious note, what about the possibility that we have morality because, as a species, we wouldn't have gotten very far without it, hmm? God doesn't necessarily factor into the equation - if we were a lawless, amoral society, we'd self-destruct, God or no God. It's simply natural selection at work. - brhad56, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Chickens of course... Doh!
- violentvinyl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Gods moral law dictates that you get buried.
- borntobedown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The chicken came first because chicken eggs have to come from chickens, not the other way around. You are all taking the question too literally. It is not saying, which one existed first (other animals lay eggs), the question is asking, for a particular genetic species of animal, (the chicken in this case), was the first true form of that animal embodied in the egg or in the functional form. To say that the egg came first would suppose that an egg magically appeared out of nowhere.
- fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3if we had an "innate moral law as humans", why do we slaughter each other at such a great rate? Clearly there is nothing inate here, or it would be a struggle to kill another person, whereas huge numbers of people seem to derive great pleasure from it.
- Waldense, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3No, the Chicken came first.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
Psa 14:1 . . . . The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. - MuZiKMafia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The chicken is just an egg's way of making another egg.
- MephistoX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This is old news - we always knew the egg came first!
Its simple really:
You have eggs for breakfast and chicken for dinner.
Therefore, the egg came first - WilliamTanksley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I agree that this is the best discussion I've seen on this topic. Surprising.
But about scientology: you're just wrong there. There are huge differences between religions; one difference is philosophical basis (for example, scientology says that reason is counterproductive until you're cleared, christianity says that it's fundamental and useful to understanding the world, atheism in general says that reason isn't anything special), and another is historical claims (scientology makes very few verifiable claims, christianity makes many, atheism in general claims only that whatever happened, it's all part of a cause and effect chain). - templest, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"templest, I guess I offended you"
I'm not offended, I'm just playing devil's advocate.
And the whole point of a debate is to poke hole's in the other side's comments,
while trying to prove your own.
I'm gonna stop right here in order to avoid a stupid flame-war,
which this is slowly starting to turn into. - enderu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Exactly. This should be pretty obvious after a basic lecture on evolution.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 200 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is