Chicken or Egg

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
Danieltwotwenty
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2879
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:01 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Aussie Land
Has liked: 37 times
Been liked: 11 times

Chicken or Egg

#1

Post by Danieltwotwenty » Sun Jul 03, 2011 11:40 pm

Hi
i was thinking today about evolution and was pondering the chicken or the egg argument.
i know what i beleive that God created a chicken that lays eggs ( problem solved ) or God plays his part in evolution as the guide force behind it ( still undecided about either concept ).
What does evolution theory suggest? Does a chicken like creature all of a sudden through sudden random genetic mutation start laying eggs?? or is there no substantial argument to support a rational explanation??

Your Friend in Christ :wave:
Daniel
1Tim1:15-17
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.Amen.

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 227 times
Been liked: 106 times
Contact:

Re: Chicken or Egg

#2

Post by neo-x » Mon Jul 04, 2011 1:23 am

Hi, Dan

If you go by evolution, then by definition the DNA could only be changed when the organism which conceived the egg must not be a chicken, only then can you jump out of the circular reasoning. Since evolution takes place by natural selection and mutation, it would require an ancestor of chicken that produced the first egg but that ancestor could not be a chicken. Also remember the egg produced could not be a chicken as we know today it must have carried some change from the parent bird but not a complete change as mutations evolve slowly and they do not just change something over night. Also, 99% of mutations are lethal for the organism, only a rare mutation is beneficial to the organism by natural selective means. These changes, mutations, are copied from the parent DNA to the offspring DNA, which triggers the change again and again so that at a time, the organism changes. But that is the problem since it takes millions of years for some mutations to get the change right without harming the creature and that is why science don't have something concrete to show as proof of evolution. That is why it is called theory of evolution, not the proof of evolution, because technically, a theory can be disproved. However for some things, evolution does seem logical.

So you can say that with the passage of time these birds became more and more changed, each new egg generation being stronger in change than the previous ones. And finally we have the chicken in its present form, though why would the mutation and change stop, no one has a clue. :ewink: will it happen again? no one knows for sure.
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com

User avatar
Reactionary
Senior Member
Posts: 534
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 3:56 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Republic of Croatia
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Chicken or Egg

#3

Post by Reactionary » Mon Jul 04, 2011 1:43 am

Hello to you too, Daniel.

For one thing, I don't believe in trying to reconcile creation and evolution. Evolution is just a man-made idea, a philosophy pushed by the people who try to disprove God, which is the reason why it's still present in the scientific world, although it should have been discarded years ago. Atheists know, if they let the theory of evolution fall, then atheism is fallen as well. I don't believe in reconciling God's Word with an ever-changing theory with a questionable future. Namely, more and more scientists have been rejecting evolution recently, they wouldn't be doing so if the theory was proven, as alleged. After 150 years of pumping millions into the research of evolution, there are still no proper transitional fossils, no beneficial mutations that increase the amount of information in the genome, no life from scratch, and evolutionists still resort to probability. That's not science, that's pushing an agenda - a godless one. Logically, I reject every possibility of making compromises with them.

As for your question about mutations, a chicken is a chicken, an egg is an egg. You don't suddenly get a mutation which produces an egg within a non-egg-laying chicken, which then produces a new chicken that also has an ability to reproduce via eggs... That's just as believing that a frog can turn into a prince when kissed by a princess. No offense really, but a sudden change in the reproduction system, which is retained? Impossible.

"God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:25
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." Matthew 7:6

"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." Romans 1:20

--Reactionary

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 227 times
Been liked: 106 times
Contact:

Re: Chicken or Egg

#4

Post by neo-x » Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:06 am

Hi Reactionary,

We are on the same page here but a couple of things,
After 150 years of pumping millions into the research of evolution, there are still no proper transitional fossils, no beneficial mutations that increase the amount of information in the genome, no life from scratch, and evolutionists still resort to probability. That's not science, that's pushing an agenda - a godless one. Logically, I reject every possibility of making compromises with them.


Very good point but only when we say that God and evolution can't co-exist. Though there is no solid evidence of evolution, just logical inferences, that you are right about, 100%.
You don't suddenly get a mutation which produces an egg within a non-egg-laying chicken, which then produces a new chicken that also has an ability to reproduce via eggs.
Mutations are in fact mostly copying errors in cells or changes due to radiation. These changes would get embedded in the DNA plasm and then copied to the offspring, the change would retain, if the DNA retains it.

God bless
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com

User avatar
Reactionary
Senior Member
Posts: 534
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 3:56 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Republic of Croatia
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Chicken or Egg

#5

Post by Reactionary » Mon Jul 04, 2011 3:08 am

neo-x wrote:Hi Reactionary,

We are on the same page here but a couple of things,
No problem.
neo-x wrote:
After 150 years of pumping millions into the research of evolution, there are still no proper transitional fossils, no beneficial mutations that increase the amount of information in the genome, no life from scratch, and evolutionists still resort to probability. That's not science, that's pushing an agenda - a godless one. Logically, I reject every possibility of making compromises with them.


Very good point but only when we say that God and evolution can't co-exist. Though there is no solid evidence of evolution, just logical inferences, that you are right about, 100%.
In theory, they could co-exist, but highly unlikely. The mechanism of evolution, if it exists, doesn't necessarily need or imply God. There is a good parable about a horse and a tractor that explains the situation in an allegorical way: http://creation.com/the-horse-and-the-tractor

neo-x wrote:
You don't suddenly get a mutation which produces an egg within a non-egg-laying chicken, which then produces a new chicken that also has an ability to reproduce via eggs.
Mutations are in fact mostly copying errors in cells or changes due to radiation. These changes would get embedded in the DNA plasm and then copied to the offspring, the change would retain, if the DNA retains it.
You're right - I expressed myself inaccurately (second language!). I was trying to point out the near impossibility of such a leap happening by chance, plus if such a change happened abruptly, the question is whether that individual animal would produce (enough) offspring and therefore retain this positive mutation.
neo-x wrote:God bless
Likewise.
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." Matthew 7:6

"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." Romans 1:20

--Reactionary

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 227 times
Been liked: 106 times
Contact:

Re: Chicken or Egg

#6

Post by neo-x » Mon Jul 04, 2011 3:36 am

neo-x wrote:
After 150 years of pumping millions into the research of evolution, there are still no proper transitional fossils, no beneficial mutations that increase the amount of information in the genome, no life from scratch, and evolutionists still resort to probability. That's not science, that's pushing an agenda - a godless one. Logically, I reject every possibility of making compromises with them.

Very good point but only when we say that God and evolution can't co-exist. Though there is no solid evidence of evolution, just logical inferences, that you are right about, 100%.

In theory, they could co-exist, but highly unlikely. The mechanism of evolution, if it exists, doesn't necessarily need or imply God. There is a good parable about a horse and a tractor that explains the situation in an allegorical way: http://creation.com/the-horse-and-the-tractor
Yes but that is a straw man, because in theistic evolution, God comes at the right time to start the mechanics necessary to sustain the system. It would be like a parable, if I say that the tractor is there but it can't harvest on its own, it needs the farmer to drive it. I'm sorry but the horse-tractor thing is merely a wrong model to compare. Now you need the driver to start the tractor, the tractor can't function on its own. So you need the tractor and the farmer both to function.

Why would it be highly unlikely that God and evolution can't exist? could you elaborate on that, if time permits. :esmile:
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com

User avatar
Reactionary
Senior Member
Posts: 534
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 3:56 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Republic of Croatia
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Chicken or Egg

#7

Post by Reactionary » Mon Jul 04, 2011 4:30 am

neo-x wrote:Why would it be highly unlikely that God and evolution can't exist? could you elaborate on that, if time permits. :esmile:
Well, let's put it this way. God may be behind evolution (if it happened). Or may not. The thing is, there is no way to prove the statement because it's unfalsifiable. Through the history, we've been discovering more and more about the world, and I believe it would be dangerous to rely our faith on something we don't know, because we may discover it in the future. If evolution by naturalistic means is proven and described in the future (it won't, but I'm speaking "what if"), it would shatter most of Theism. Sure, we could still be saying that God is behind it, but insisting on that scenario would then seem like walking on thin ice. Because, we could in the same way say that God influences our thoughts all the time (may or may not be true), that God initiates, for instance, the formation of clouds (we know how they form naturally, but the statement could still be true or false), etc. Someone else could in the same way insist on the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (atheist's favourite) because it's impossible to prove his absence, but I think you understand what I mean - it's dangerous to rely our faith on such shaky foundations. That's why I hold on to literal creation, and I believe one's faith is much firmer that way, but hey, it's everyone's individual choice.
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." Matthew 7:6

"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." Romans 1:20

--Reactionary

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 227 times
Been liked: 106 times
Contact:

Re: Chicken or Egg

#8

Post by neo-x » Mon Jul 04, 2011 5:19 am

I see your point clearly and respect your belief. :esmile:
If evolution by naturalistic means is proven and described in the future (it won't, but I'm speaking "what if"), it would shatter most of Theism.
This is only because classic theism involves God made everything as by his own hand, that the system does not need to go on automatically. However if our initial position is unscientific to begin with we would of course end up in the shattering of theism, not because it was wrong but because it was undefended, not by its own lack of abilities but how we modeled and upheld it.

Evolution may be proven, (if ever that is the case), but suppose it does, it will disregard the classical Dogma we all were raised with, man made theism, for sure. But not God.
Sure, we could still be saying that God is behind it, but insisting on that scenario would then seem like walking on thin ice.
I would not think so, why? so to establish the fact that evolution does not de-glorify God. In fact if it is ever proved than we can all admire the powerful system that God wrote, defined the laws, the intricate patterns, the self governing behaviors, all by his power.
Through the history, we've been discovering more and more about the world, and I believe it would be dangerous to rely our faith on something we don't know, because we may discover it in the future.
Yes, I would not rely my faith on scientific findings, nor should any. I would believe nonetheless. I have no trouble seeing God can do it in six days, I actually think God could do it in the 6000th part of a second, if he wished to. The question is, did he?

Because if what we believe was the right model of creation and somewhere in the distant future - it is proved to be false - than what change would it demand for us to rationalize what we think of our explanation. Though I am pretty sure we can never establish for certain how it all started, unless we make a time machine (and still who is to say that it took us to the right universe and the right time :ewink: ) and the best we will do is to choose whether it started like this or not. Even if evolution is ever proved, creationists can still say, "Very well but that is not how it started!" :D

You are correct it is a choice and thank God it has nothing to do with salvation and our inheritance with God.
Someone else could in the same way insist on the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (atheist's favourite) because it's impossible to prove his absence, but I think you understand what I mean - it's dangerous to rely our faith on such shaky foundations.
I understand, btw most atheists are poor learners and biased analyzers, if you begin with a no-god equation, you will end up at a no-god answer. I don't give atheists much credit for all the intelligent nonsense they toss about, it is still nonsense.
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com

Danieltwotwenty
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2879
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:01 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Aussie Land
Has liked: 37 times
Been liked: 11 times

Re: Chicken or Egg

#9

Post by Danieltwotwenty » Mon Jul 04, 2011 3:18 pm

Hi
thanks guys, i am now more clear on why evolution cannot say wether it was the chicken or the egg.
As for creation i guess i will find out when i die, but in the mean time i wil rejoice and marvel at what was created.

Your Friend
Daniel
1Tim1:15-17
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.Amen.

Proinsias
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:09 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Scotland
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Chicken or Egg

#10

Post by Proinsias » Mon Jul 04, 2011 4:05 pm

From an evolutionary perspective I'd have to say the egg came first. From what I gather egg laying animals have been around for a long while and chickens are the decedents of some of these animals. Over the course of evolutionary history things looking more and more like chickens were coming out of eggs, at some point in the past 10,000 years or so we domesticated some of these and they became chickens.

From a pro life point of view, it isn't isn't just an egg anyway, if fertilized it's a little chicken in a protective coat.

User avatar
Murray
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1102
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 3:54 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Williston, North Dakota
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

Re: Chicken or Egg

#11

Post by Murray » Mon Jul 04, 2011 6:03 pm

I think a mutated Fish-squirrel laid the egg, just sayin.
in nomine patri et fili spiritu sancte

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 227 times
Been liked: 106 times
Contact:

Re: Chicken or Egg

#12

Post by neo-x » Mon Jul 04, 2011 9:33 pm

I think a mutated Fish-squirrel laid the egg, just sayin.
:lol: :clap:
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com

Legatus
Established Member
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 6:01 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: California, USA, Earth, Sol System, Milky Way Galaxy
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Chicken or Egg

#13

Post by Legatus » Tue Jul 05, 2011 2:50 am

Well, let's put it this way. God may be behind evolution (if it happened). Or may not. The thing is, there is no way to prove the statement because it's unfalsifiable. Through the history, we've been discovering more and more about the world, and I believe it would be dangerous to rely our faith on something we don't know, because we may discover it in the future. If evolution by naturalistic means is proven and described in the future (it won't, but I'm speaking "what if"), it would shatter most of Theism.
First, it may indeed be falsifiable to show that God may be behind evolution, and to some extent it may have already been shown that God must have been behind some of it at least. Check these out and you learn that for life to even be possible in this universe is extremly unlikely, so unlikely that it must have taken a God of infinite intelligence to dream up a universe like this one http://www.youtube.com/user/IDquest#g/a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTS5ZVuK6Jw . This includes the possibility for life to be able to either evolve or even exist in this universe. One can therefore say from the scientific evidence that for life to exist OR evolve, there MUST be a God. Basically, we may have falsified the idea "the universe happened by random chance", which basically leaves only God as a possibility (non random) and PLANNED chance. Another way of saying it, we have scientifically falsified the idea "the universe can exist as we know it without a God".

So now we have an entire universe that cannot have happened by random chance, but must have been planned, I have to ask, if evolution is another thing that cannot happen by random chance (and there is a lot of evidence for the truth of that), could it ALSO have happened by PLANNED chance? After all, we have a LOT of evidence for planned chance, in fact, the entire universe and every one of it's natural laws we have discovered by science, in short, exactly 100% of all the evidence we have of anything everywhere (you can't get more evidence than that). If something that cannot happen by random chance happend anyway once, why can't it happen again? Our mistake is to accept the idea told to us by scientists that evolution must ONLY happen by random chance (known as a faulty dilemma). They are simply starting with the unproven idea (in fact, disproven, see above) that there is no planner, God, and that therefore that leaves only random chance to be around to do it. Since the entire universe and everything in it shows that there must be a planner, then we can say that evolution IS possible IF IT WAS PLANNED. Since we have tried and tried to get evolution to work in a lab, and failed, so far we have falsified the idea, using the scientific method, that life can evolve out of non life by random chance. That does not disprove evolution in this universe where we have already shown that a God must exist for it to exist, however, since it CAN happen by PLANNED chance.

The idea that if evolution were proven "by naturalistic means" would disprove most of theism is a false idea. Already we know that the entire universe shows that there must be a God, so we are stuck with there being a God evolution or no. This basic idea, that if evolution is shown true it would disprove theism is based on a deliberatly false interpreation of the first chapter of Genesis (by Satan, based on the idea that "you have to stop those evolutionists!"). The false interpretation is saying that God made the life by miracle, it is false because no such method is specified in the bible. The bible itself does NOT specify any method of creation except for Adam and Eve, where it very definatly does specify a method. Now, any God, who can and did in the presence of many witnesses walk on water, feed 5000 with a few loaves and fish, and raise others and himself from the dead, could indeed create life out of nothing. Since the bible only specifies a method of creating Adam and Eve however, we cannot say that God DID do a miracle, a breaking of natural law, when God created the plants, and later the fish and birds and animals. Basically speaking, we cannot put words in Gods mouth that God did not say. Therefore we cannot say that God is shown false if life did not happen by miricale, or if life did happen by naturalistic, ie natural laws, ie non miraculous, ways, since God DID NOT SAY that he created the first life by miracle, by breaking natural laws. All it says is "let the earth bring forth grass", that sounds like an "earthly" ie. a natural, method, one that follows natural laws, rather than breaks them (known as a miracle).It is talkling about things we know today, the way we know them, when it talkes about the first plants, it talks to us about plants we know, it does not specify what process they may have gone through or how long that took to arrive at the forms of grass and trees we the readers know. It does NOT say "and God fashioned grass out of clay, and breathed life into it, and it became living grass", therefore WE cannot say that either. If you insist on putting words in Gods mouth that God did not say, go write your own bible.

In short, you cannot prove that the bible is false if you disprove something that the bible did not even say. The bible did not say "God did it by miracle" so if this God, that we have already proven exists (see links above) did it by natural, or "naturalistic" means, this does not disprove God.

And above " it would be dangerous to rely our faith on something we don't know, because we may discover it in the future", you are basically expecting that God will be disproved by science in the future. You are acting as if we must reject, even fear science, because any day now it could prove our faith wrong. However, check this out Rom 1:20, here, it says that the visible world, what has been made, back to the foundation of this world (when all that life came along) shows Gods invisible qualities, "clearly" so that we are without excuse to say there is no God. And what do we see? We see two things 1. Evolution is impossible by random chance 2. Evolution seems to have happened anyway 3. Conclusion, there must be a God, since it must have happened by non random, by planned, chance, Rom 1:20 is shown true. That being true, what, exactly, are you "afraid" of? Are you going to go through your life always afraid that some newly discoverd fact is going to disprove God? That would mean that, secretly, you beleive that such a fact exists, right? Otherwise, why are you afraid, why are you willing to reject science, which is Rom 1:20 "that which has been made"? If you say you beleive in God, why is it that you do not believe God, what God said?

Here is what I mean by "planned chance", and it also sorta answers the question, which came first, the chicken or the egg. Once, long ago, there was a birdlike dinosaur (hollow bones, relatively small, that sort of thing). It laid an agg. At the beginning of this universe, the "big bang", God planned a long string of causes and effects so that, say, a cosmic ray arrived billions of years later just at the right time to cause exactly the desired mutaion so that what is inside that egg is a viable mutation that makes it either a bird or at least a viable more bird like critter, that will have offspring that will also run into carefully arrainged and planned mutations that will eventually see it become a true bird, and eventually the first true chicken (the egg having been laid by a non chicken, although it might be a mostly chicken by that time). One does not need random chance for this (which does not work anyway), and it only has to happen ONCE (or a relatively small number of times, too small to be likely to find the transitional fossils), so the desired mutation can happen quickly, one fossil can show dinosaur, the next bird, with no transitional fossil or missing link needed (in the case where God knew that there was no viable transitional form).

What I mean by planned, non random chance, imagine God playing pool. God racks the balls just so, then he hits the cueball just so, it strikes the balls, they all roll around and hit the sides of the table and each other, and, because God is so VERY skilled at it, and is able to anticipate an infinite number of different ways to strike the ball and what would happen if he did, ALL the balls eventually go into the pockets, just on that first break. This is what I think of as a "natural miracle", where something is physically possible, it is possible for balls to go in pockets, but statistically impossible unless it was planned by a being of infinite intelligence. Another example, God in Vegas, at the blackjack table. He watches for a while, then joins the game just before the dealer shuffles. He watches the dealer shuffle, he has already seen the cards as they were played, because he has infinite intelligence he can tell by watching the dealer shuffle exactly where each card is ending up (and thus exactly which card will be played next as the dealer deals), and that is true to matter how many times they are shuffled. When he plays, it ain't gambling... result, God is asked to leave, and is no longer allowed back in any casino in Vegas, he being the ultimate card counter. We say it happened by random chance, it's a gamble, God sees it happening exactly the way he planned it, for him, it ain't gambling, it's skill. Never EVER play cards with God. God could, say, treat cosmic rays just like cue balls, planning a billions of years long series of interactions that will result in that cosmic ray arriving just right to cause the desired mutation in something to create the thing called "chicken".

Of course, God could do it by miracle, but there are several problems with that. First, if you do it by miracle, why take millions, even billions of years, to do it, when you could do it instantly? Despite what the young earthers say, there is tons of evidence that it really did take that long for life to arrive here, and that it really did take place sequencially (as Genesis also says), starting simple, then getting complex later. If you are God and decdide to do it without breaking natural laws, thus leaving evidence of your existnace and nature as seen in Rom 1:20 by the physical evidence that it could not happen unless you existed, you might have to take millions and billions of years, becaus even for you, doing it "by the rules", without breaking natural laws, would take a lot of time for setup of all those billiard balls (cosmic rays, atoms, moleceuls, stars etc) and then carefull timeing of that cueball.

If God does it this way, God would have to do it a certain way, say small dinosaur to bird, rather than some other path that might not work. That makes mutated fish/squirreles unlikely as ancestors of chickens. However, for the platypus...

BTW, from a pro life point of view, it's just an egg or chicken, fertilized or not it does not have a soul...

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 227 times
Been liked: 106 times
Contact:

Re: Chicken or Egg

#14

Post by neo-x » Tue Jul 05, 2011 3:10 am

And above " it would be dangerous to rely our faith on something we don't know, because we may discover it in the future", you are basically expecting that God will be disproved by science in the future. You are acting as if we must reject, even fear science, because any day now it could prove our faith wrong. However, check this out Rom 1:20, here, it says that the visible world, what has been made, back to the foundation of this world (when all that life came along) shows Gods invisible qualities, "clearly" so that we are without excuse to say there is no God. And what do we see? We see two things 1. Evolution is impossible by random chance 2. Evolution seems to have happened anyway 3. Conclusion, there must be a God, since it must have happened by non random, by planned, chance, Rom 1:20 is shown true. That being true, what, exactly, are you "afraid" of? Are you going to go through your life always afraid that some newly discoverd fact is going to disprove God? That would mean that, secretly, you beleive that such a fact exists, right? Otherwise, why are you afraid, why are you willing to reject science, which is Rom 1:20 "that which has been made"? If you say you beleive in God, why is it that you do not believe God, what God said?
Leg, I think reactionary meant we should not rely on our faith on theories that are not proven, and although I believe it, evolution still is a theory. I don't think he meant we should shun science, just that we should not be moving our faith goal post to adjust every new theory.
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 227 times
Been liked: 106 times
Contact:

Re: Chicken or Egg

#15

Post by neo-x » Tue Jul 05, 2011 3:27 am

Of course, God could do it by miracle, but there are several problems with that. First, if you do it by miracle, why take millions, even billions of years, to do it, when you could do it instantly? Despite what the young earthers say, there is tons of evidence that it really did take that long for life to arrive here, and that it really did take place sequencially (as Genesis also says), starting simple, then getting complex later. If you are God and decdide to do it without breaking natural laws, thus leaving evidence of your existnace and nature as seen in Rom 1:20 by the physical evidence that it could not happen unless you existed, you might have to take millions and billions of years, becaus even for you, doing it "by the rules", without breaking natural laws, would take a lot of time for setup of all those billiard balls (cosmic rays, atoms, moleceuls, stars etc) and then carefull timeing of that cueball.
I actually think the same...but to be honest I still have some things nagging me. for example, if you can do it instantly, why wait for billions of years. I know we have a heap of evidence that earth is not young. But still what makes me wonder is the fact that why didn't God do it instantly, to be candid, he can. My mind just stops here, because there are only two outcomes, either God can't, he can only do it by natural means - or there must be a higher reason for taking so much time but it couldn't be natural means, it is trivial to God's power and awesomeness.

For example, even if God did it instantly, wouldn't that be through the same processes, cell behavior, governing traits, just speed-ed up. I am amazed when I read that a single human brain contains 100 billion neurons and probably more, more than there are perhaps known planets out there. And then why would God wait for billions of years to just set it up, you know. why not do it once in a quick way and then sit back and let the ride roll.

Just me thinking out loud. 8)
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com

Post Reply