Atheists: Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

[yrreg]

Atheists: Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

Don't dodge this question on your IQ in regard to practical creativity.

If you have any practical creativity, how would you answer the question, and why?


In not more than fifty words.


I just want to see if atheists have any practical creativity, instead of depending on the slogans of their hack masters who laugh at their slavish gullibility to their dodge-ful fallacies against God's existence while rushing all the way to their bank.




Yrreg

[fromdownunder]

The egg preceeded the chicken by many millions of years.

Above Word count: 9

Norm

[Nogbad]

Egg

1 word

[yy2bggggs]

Egg.
In not more than fifty words.Would one do?
I just want to see if atheists have any practical creativity,I have brown hair too (just in case you're interested in whether or not people who have brown hair have any practical creativity--I have a feeling you're as interested in this as you are in whether or not atheists have the same).

[Neverfly]

Atheists: Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

Don't dodge this question on your IQ in regard to practical creativity.

If you have any practical creativity, how would you answer the question, and why?


In not more than fifty words.


I just want to see if atheists have any practical creativity, instead of depending on the slogans of their hack masters who laugh at their slavish gullibility to their dodge-ful fallacies against God's existence while rushing all the way to their bank.




Yrreg

The egg.
Two words.


Now.. Off topic but I'm just curious... See, I'm a total nubie here and shamefully, I must confess; I am quite ignorant.
Yyreg, why are your posts so filled with derision, assumption, judgment and hatred?

[Hokulele]

Chicken? Pfft.

Try one of these (http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2007/01/terror_bird_arrived_in_north_a.php) on for size.

[Jeff Corey]

gge

[joobz]

Allow me to expand upon everyone else's brief, yet accurate answers.
The egg came into being evolutionarily long before chickens had.
We know this, because the fossil record demonstrates it to be so.

[Fronzel]

It would be the egg. What laid the egg wasn't a chicken, but a proto-chicken that had most of the DNA of what we call a chicken.


I have no idea what this has to do with god or atheism.

[Nogbad]

The egg.
Two words.


Now.. Off topic but I'm just curious... See, I'm a total nubie here and shamefully, I must confess; I am quite ignorant.
Yyreg, why are your posts so filled with derision, assumption, judgment and hatred?

It wets his sponge

A boy needs a hobby

[schlitt]

In practical terms this is not the conundrum you perceive it to be. The answer is well known, and the answer is the egg. (As Fromdownunder has already noted)

I suggest you research what an IQ test actually is. Ignorantly musing over banal cliches has nothing to do with IQ.

[Andrewsarchus]

The answer depends on what animal the egg is from and what is meant by "comes first". If the question was about which of the two is the first to come out of the hen house in morning then my bet is on the chicken. If the question is about which is the first to come out of the nether regions of my wife during her menstrual cycle, then the answer is egg. I hope.

[slingblade]

Yyreg, why are your posts so filled with derision, assumption, judgment and hatred?

Everyone needs a hobby. Yrreg's is not collecting brain cells.

Nogbad, get out of my head! :D

[HansMustermann]

Don't dodge this question on your IQ in regard to practical creativity.

Yrreg, you still think that "IQ test" means "some arbitrary tolling device made up on the spot by a retard"?

[Elizabeth I]

The chicken. Always the chicken. That's because the chicken is a selfish fowl beast concerned only with ITS own pleasure and doesn't care that the egg has needs, too.

[X]

If you really want to get into trivialities, the egg must have come first.

Speaking from the perspective of evolution, the modern chicken evolved from pre-chicken ancestors.

This was a slow process, taking thousands of years and involving miniscule graduations.

But, the process is a slippery slope.

At one end, you have pre-chickens. At the other, chickens.

One can assume, then, that there must have been one generation wherein a pre-chicken that is indistinguishable from a modern chicken gave birth to a modern chicken that is indistinguishable from a chicken. Thus, the first modern chicken hatched from an egg (both eggs and birds having been around a lot longer than chickens).


A point of interest: The Red (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Junglefowl) and Grey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_Junglefowl) Junglefowl are the domestic chicken's ancestors.


Easy.



Any chance Yrreg is going to make a thoughtful reply instead of his usual insinuations of low intelligence?

[Nogbad]

The chicken. Always the chicken. That's because the chicken is a selfish fowl beast concerned only with ITS own pleasure and doesn't care that the egg has needs, too.

Chickens are prolly atheists

[joobz]

The Rooster.

[Crundy]

Egg. Simple.

I see gerry's got bored of being whupped in his other thread. Try again...
Fail.

[Fiona]

Does anyone know why Yrreg starts new threads? Is there something about my little task? I ask cos I would bring it here, only I don't want to be the cause of yet another move just when folk are getting comfy

[paximperium]

The egg. It evolved as a method of reproduction in fish and sea dwelling organisms before birds.

[paximperium]

BTW: I consider a chicken and egg sandwich exceeding creepy and just wrong.

[HansMustermann]

Now.. Off topic but I'm just curious... See, I'm a total nubie here and shamefully, I must confess; I am quite ignorant.
Yyreg, why are your posts so filled with derision, assumption, judgment and hatred?

Well, there's always the possibility that he's just a troll. Not too shabby as a troll too, given the number of answers he gets.

But there's something... strange about it. If you look at what he claimed before about his professed religion, he rejects key tenets of Christianity (and even goes as far as to call those who believe in them idiots), he seems to decouple God entirely from Christianity -- which isn't necessarily a bad move as a concept -- and then talks about picking a Christian denomination as just a weird sort of comparative shopping, whatever suits his interests as long as it's about God.

I think he might be just skirting dangerously close to atheism himself. And apparently he has never heard of Deism as a compromise, if he still wants to keep believing in God without Christianity's trappings.

So the whole "atheists are stupid" show might be more to convince himself than anything else.

[Macoy]

24 hours.

It passed as a dream

[RoboTimbo]

The chicken. Always the chicken. That's because the chicken is a selfish fowl beast concerned only with ITS own pleasure and doesn't care that the egg has needs, too.

Since you didn't tell yrreG this was humor, he'll never get it.

[Minarvia]

Now.. Off topic but I'm just curious... See, I'm a total nubie here and shamefully, I must confess; I am quite ignorant.
Yyreg, why are your posts so filled with derision, assumption, judgment and hatred?

I've been wondering that myself. :boggled:

[Neverfly]

Well, there's always the possibility that he's just a troll. Not too shabby as a troll too, given the number of answers he gets.

But there's something... strange about it. If you look at what he claimed before about his professed religion, he rejects key tenets of Christianity (and even goes as far as to call those who believe in them idiots),
Strange? Oh.. I dunno... I come across quite a lot of that.
he seems to decouple God entirely from Christianity -- which isn't necessarily a bad move as a concept -- and then talks about picking a Christian denomination as just a weird sort of comparative shopping, whatever suits his interests as long as it's about God.
I think he might be just skirting dangerously close to atheism himself. And apparently he has never heard of Deism as a compromise, if he still wants to keep believing in God without Christianity's trappings.
That would be the premise of religion as a whole- Believe whatever you want to believe and insult anyone that doesn't believe it.

So the whole "atheists are stupid" show might be more to convince himself than anything else.
Seems he is giving Christians a bad name then- the same as an atheist that rudely insults and makes derisive comments about religion gives atheists a bad rap.

[yy2bggggs]

Does anyone know why Yrreg starts new threads?
He's fishing, of course.
Is there something about my little task?Depends on what he's fishing for.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Atheists: Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

Don't dodge this question on your IQ in regard to practical creativity.

If you have any practical creativity, how would you answer the question, and why?


In not more than fifty words.


I just want to see if atheists have any practical creativity, instead of depending on the slogans of their hack masters who laugh at their slavish gullibility to their dodge-ful fallacies against God's existence while rushing all the way to their bank.




YrregGeese, could you be any more snotty? It seems a bit 'unchristian' of you.

Don't dodge? Why the hell would we?

Practical Creativity? What does that even mean?

Eggs evolved before the chicken. It's pretty straight forward.

[slingblade]

Seems he is giving Christians a bad name then- the same as an atheist that rudely insults and makes derisive comments about religion gives atheists a bad rap.

Are you trying to take ALL the fun from my life? Fine. Run about naked so I have something to snicker over. :p

[fromdownunder]

Does anyone know why Yrreg starts new threads?

Attention whore?

Norm

[HansMustermann]

That would be the premise of religion as a whole- Believe whatever you want to believe and insult anyone that doesn't believe it.

Sort of, but it's always interesting to see someone who essentially rejects almost everything from Christianity except God, but still insists that he's a _theist_. Most other theists seem to have a bit more faith in their scriptures and doctrines.

Seems he is giving Christians a bad name then- the same as an atheist that rudely insults and makes derisive comments about religion gives atheists a bad rap.

Well, depends among who. In the right circles, both extremes can pass for cool.

[Neverfly]

Snicker or drool? Because your request creates a contradiction in possible reactions...

[I Ratant]

Still invincibly ignorant.

[Ginarley]

Eggs:

http://www.cbe.wwu.edu/Krieg/Econ470/Homework/Chicken%20and%20Eggs.pdf

[Doubt]

And on the 6th day, God created idiotic beings who could not reason clearly and created BS explanations for themselves which, in turn, allowed them ignore reality.

Or maybe some dumb things tend to evolve into slightly less dumb things over time.

The former explanation works quite well if we all think like Yerrg. The later works quite well if we follow the facts.

Eggs first. Long before there was ever a bird, let alone a chicken.

[Elizabeth I]

Since you didn't tell yrreG this was humor, he'll never get it.

I know, and it gives me a lovely warm feeling in my heart.

[Macoy]

All us know yrreg is an atheist?

[Doubt]

And on the 6th day, God created idiotic beings who could not reason clearly and created BS explanations for themselves which, in turn, allowed them ignore reality.

Or maybe some dumb things tend to evolve into slightly less dumb things over time.

The former explanation works quite well if we all think like Yerrg. The later works quite well if we follow the facts.

Eggs first. Long before there was ever a bird, let alone a chicken.

[slingblade]

Snicker or drool? Because your request creates a contradiction in possible reactions...

Hmmm... I'll need photographic evidence, and possibly a plane ticket....

[TX50]

In the worlds before Monkey, primal chaos reigned.
Heaven sought order.
But the phoenix can fly only when its feathers are grown.
The four worlds formed again and yet again,
As endless aeons wheeled and passed.
Time and the pure essences of Heaven,
the moisture of the Earth,
the powers of the sun and the moon
All worked upon a certain rock, old as creation.
And it became magically fertile.
That first egg was named "Thought".
Tathagata Buddha, the Father Buddha, said,
"With our thoughts, we make the world."
Elemental forces caused the egg to hatch.
From it then came a stone monkey.
The nature of Monkey was irrepressible!

[X]

Also, according to the Chinese: Egg (http://www.pantheon.org/articles/p/pan-gu.html)

[alfaniner]

Which chicken?

Which egg?

[Ron_Tomkins]

The egg preceeded the chicken by many millions of years.

Above Word count: 9

Norm

I believe that's 10 words, Normie :)

[Ron_Tomkins]

Now.. Off topic but I'm just curious... See, I'm a total nubie here and shamefully, I must confess; I am quite ignorant.
Yyreg, why are your posts so filled with derision, assumption, judgment and hatred?

Don't derail the thread now, kiddo

You wouldn't wanna be the Troll's Troll, would ya? ;)

[Cainkane1]

The egg came first. The creature that laid the first egg with a chicken inside had not itself evolved into a full fledged chicken.

[Lord Emsworth]

The farble knit both of them at the same time.

[normdoering]

Atheists: Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

Too hell with your stupid rules. This needs clarity.

Obviously, the way the question is explicitly stated, it has to be the egg. Fish laid a kind of egg, no hard shell, and they're millions of years older than birds. If you mean a hard shelled egg, you still got primitive reptiles laying hard shelled eggs millions of years before birds evolve from them.

If, however, you meant the question in a way that was not explicitly stated such as: "Which came first, the chicken or the _chicken's_ egg?" Then obviously the chicken had to come before the chicken could lay its egg. In which case your question is stupid, obvious and phrased as a cheat.

[Dr Adequate]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster came first. Then the egg. Then the Egg Noodle.

Chickens were more or less an afterthought.

[Shalamar]

So... Not only are Atheists lacking working brains, have no working penis, can not finish an IQ test (And thus, are lacking intelligence) but are lacking creativity?

Try something new, Yrreg. Its obvious that since you are a theist, theists are lacking morals.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

BTW: I consider a chicken and egg sandwich exceeding creepy and just wrong.


Mother and child reunion.

[fuelair]

The egg.
Two words.


Now.. Off topic but I'm just curious... See, I'm a total nubie here and shamefully, I must confess; I am quite ignorant.
Yyreg, why are your posts so filled with derision, assumption, judgment and hatred?

Your last line makes a farce of your next to last line. You clearly follow the situation just fine.:)

[Prometheus]

If a picture's worth a thousand words, I guess a video doesn't meet yrreg's word limit, but I still like Morel Oral's take on it:

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/142988/1423334

[UnrepentantSinner]

BTW: I consider a chicken and egg sandwich exceeding creepy and just wrong.

Interestingly enough, while reading this thread I found myself hankering for a chicken omlette.

[Damien Evans]

I had a chicken schnitzel while reading this thread.

[sleepy_lioness]

The answer depends on what animal the egg is from and what is meant by "comes first". If the question was about which of the two is the first to come out of the hen house in morning then my bet is on the chicken. If the question is about which is the first to come out of the nether regions of my wife during her menstrual cycle, then the answer is egg. I hope.

Your wife produces chickens at the end of her period? :jaw-dropp

[Neverfly]

Your wife produces chickens at the end of her period? :jaw-dropp

Could be worse.

Some have cows.

[Ernie M]

The egg came first.

This is evident so we as a society, could use the egg to make the batter for chicken nuggets.

[JetLeg]

In the worlds before Monkey, primal chaos reigned.
Heaven sought order.
But the phoenix can fly only when its feathers are grown.
The four worlds formed again and yet again,
As endless aeons wheeled and passed.
Time and the pure essences of Heaven,
the moisture of the Earth,
the powers of the sun and the moon
All worked upon a certain rock, old as creation.
And it became magically fertile.
That first egg was named "Thought".
Tathagata Buddha, the Father Buddha, said,
"With our thoughts, we make the world."
Elemental forces caused the egg to hatch.
From it then came a stone monkey.
The nature of Monkey was irrepressible!

Great.

[geonuc]

Atheists: Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

Don't dodge this question on your IQ in regard to practical creativity.

If you have any practical creativity, how would you answer the question, and why?


In not more than fifty words.


I just want to see if atheists have any practical creativity, instead of depending on the slogans of their hack masters who laugh at their slavish gullibility to their dodge-ful fallacies against God's existence while rushing all the way to their bank.


Yrreg

Wow. I have no good answer.

I am now a believer in the christian god. Thanks, yrreg, for so clearly showing me the evil of my former ways.

[linusrichard]

Oh my. What a disturbing thread. I'm writing, of course, on behalf of your hack masters. We were expecting you all to depend on our slogans, so we could laugh at your slavish gullibility to our dodge-ful fallacies.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to rush all the way to the bank. I'm not sure why I have to rush; they don't open for another 24 hours or so, but that's just the way your hack masters like it.

Take care!

[Andrewsarchus]

Your wife produces chickens at the end of her period? :jaw-dropp


Yep, but only after her egg has passed. In this economy we need to save money somewhere. Free chicken dinners at least once a month is a nice treat. At least for myself anyway. :bananalama:

[fuelair]

Could be worse.

Some have cows.
You have the way - you definitely belong here!!:D

[Pardalis]

Funny that yrreg hasn't come back to this thread yet, he probably didn't expect people to actually give him the answer! :D

[joobz]

Funny that yrreg hasn't come back to this thread yet, he probably didn't expect people to actually give him the answer! :D
no. He'll come back and say something like:

See, no atheist has a mind. They are unable to answer this simple question. I win!! LA LA LA LA

[Esperdome]

Strangely enough, my uncle thinks he's a chicken.

We've considered taking him to a psychiatrist, but we really can use the eggs.

:boxedin:

[slingblade]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_560449bd43ae38397.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15694)

[TraneWreck]

All right you pussy atheists, maybe that one was easy, but try this on for size.

And don't give me any of your BS "science" mumbo jumbo, answer it in three lines with the first and third lines containing five syllables and the second seven.

How much wood could a woodchuch chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

[Fiona]

A woodchuck could chuck
A thousand cords of cedar
but it hates to work

[Terry]

could chuck wood, I guess
a cord or maybe seven
in winter, at least.

[Hokulele]

A common woodchuck
Is no large beast, and its paw
Holds not the chainsaw

[HansMustermann]

Why would a woodchuck chuck wood if a woodchuck could chuck wood? ;)

[X]

How much wood could a woodchuch chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?



A woodchuck would chuck all the wood he could chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood.

Sorry. Doesn't make a Haiku.

My grandpa taught me that.



And for the record, I feel this question is far more interesting and relevant than the OP.
Especially with Hans bringing motive into the thing.

[TraneWreck]

Why would a woodchuck chuck wood if a woodchuck could chuck wood? ;)

Cause that's how god made them, duh.

Forest: trees abound
chucking practice, sharp teeth, yet
they let the cross stand

Yes, I blame woodchucks for the death of Jesus.

[Neverfly]

A woodchuck wouldn't chuck wood even if a woodchuck could chuck wood.



*I know... I broke the rules. It's my way- My Thing. I'm sorry.


ETA: I just noticed that mine was very similar to X's. And here I was thinkin' I was all smart. Damnit.

[phantomb]

It makes sense that the fertilized egg has to be the first member of the new species (the chicken), but isn't it likely that a member of the same species as the individual that laid that egg (the 'proto-chicken') would be so similar to the new species that it would be able to mate with members of the new species and produce viable offspring?

To someone who knows about taxonomy, it is usually the case that species blend into each other like this, right?

[TraneWreck]

It makes sense that the fertilized egg has to be the first member of the new species (the chicken), but isn't it likely that a member of the same species as the individual that laid that egg (the 'proto-chicken') would be so similar to the new species that it would be able to mate with members of the new species and produce viable offspring?

To someone who knows about taxonomy, it is usually the case that species blend into each other like this, right?

Technically, there's really no such thing as "species," that's just how we categorize animals with similarities.

Imagine a color spectrum. At what point does red become orange? It's an arbitrary distinction made for convenience. All organinsms evolve smoothly, there's no point at which one becomes another, just like you can never show the "transitional" point between red and orange.

This is why the creationist's hunt for a transitional species is a red herring. Either nothing is a transitional species, or everything is a transitional species. When scientists use that term, they're talking about filing in massive gaps of morphology in the fossil record. But if you had a sample of every animal that ever existed it would look like an extended version of a color spectrum. Imagine twenty feet of colors between aqua and blue-green.

[HansMustermann]

Technically we draw the line between species at the point where they can't produce fertile (or even viable, or in some cases at all) offspring with each other. So maybe it's not the best imaginable way to split them up, granted. But it's not entirely arbitrary either.

[LarianLeQuella]

Yrreg, you still think that "IQ test" means "some arbitrary tolling device made up on the spot by a retard"?

Nominated! :cool:

[LibraryLady]

BTW: I consider a chicken and egg sandwich exceeding creepy and just wrong.

Do you have a problem with milk and meat together?

[phantomb]

Technically we draw the line between species at the point where they can't produce fertile (or even viable, or in some cases at all) offspring with each other. So maybe it's not the best imaginable way to split them up, granted. But it's not entirely arbitrary either.

I agree that our current methods of taxonomy are very useful, but the system is faced with challenges like trying to pinpoint the exact line between one species and another e.g. when studying ring species, can you ever draw a definitive line between the neighboring populations?.

[TraneWreck]

Technically we draw the line between species at the point where they can't produce fertile (or even viable, or in some cases at all) offspring with each other. So maybe it's not the best imaginable way to split them up, granted. But it's not entirely arbitrary either.

It's arbitrary in the sense that there's nothing evolutionarily important about the ability to mate as a designation, it's just an effective marker of basic morphological similarity. There are counterexamples, there are a couple of orioles that have given people trouble. And I know there's a bird type, maybe finches, that as you travel from east to west around the globe, each subgroup can mate with the group directly next to them, but none of the others. I tried to look this up, but I couldn't find anything about it, so feel free to ignore it.

Here's a wikipedia verson of the debate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

But conceptually, if every instance of every species were alive at once, you could draw a line of mating from humans all the way back. So like a color spectrum, your going to have to make a designation at some point, it's more for practicality than actual definitive reason.

[LarianLeQuella]

Technically, there's really no such thing as "species," that's just how we categorize animals with similarities.

Imagine a color spectrum. At what point does red become orange? It's an arbitrary distinction made for convenience. All organinsms evolve smoothly, there's no point at which one becomes another, just like you can never show the "transitional" point between red and orange.

This is why the creationist's hunt for a transitional species is a red herring. Either nothing is a transitional species, or everything is a transitional species. When scientists use that term, they're talking about filing in massive gaps of morphology in the fossil record. But if you had a sample of every animal that ever existed it would look like an extended version of a color spectrum. Imagine twenty feet of colors between aqua and blue-green.

Request permission to steal your analogy and make a powerpoint out of it! I think this may actually be worth investing some time in and still make something simple that even a simpleton could understand. (Or has it already been done?)

[TraneWreck]

Request permission to steal your analogy and make a powerpoint out of it! I think this may actually be worth investing some time in and still make something simple that even a simpleton could understand. (Or has it already been done?)

Of course, I doubt I'm the only person that came up with that, but I didn't intentionally get it from anyplace.

[Piggy]

Atheists: Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

The egg. That's easy. There were eggs before there were chickens.

Next!

[TraneWreck]

The egg. That's easy. There were eggs before there were chickens.

Next!

Sucks to your Auntie and your ass-mar!!

[Piggy]

Sucks to your Auntie!!

You be quiet, I got the conch!

[Hokulele]

It's arbitrary in the sense that there's nothing evolutionarily important about the ability to mate as a designation, it's just an effective marker of basic morphological similarity. There are counterexamples, there are a couple of orioles that have given people trouble. And I know there's a bird type, maybe finches, that as you travel from east to west around the globe, each subgroup can mate with the group directly next to them, but none of the others. I tried to look this up, but I couldn't find anything about it, so feel free to ignore it.


Ring species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

[TraneWreck]

Ring species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Nice, Gulls, I thought they were finches for some reason.

[Lisa Simpson]

The single cell prokaryote came first.

[Elizabeth I]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_560449bd43ae38397.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15694)

See? SEE? That's what I said!!!:h2:

All right you pussy atheists, maybe that one was easy, but try this on for size.

And don't give me any of your BS "science" mumbo jumbo, answer it in three lines with the first and third lines containing five syllables and the second seven.

How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

With thanks to Walt Kelly: How much ground round would a hound dog hog if a ground hog were ground round?

I miss him.

[Neverfly]

We have found the enemy and they is us.

[Chupacabras]

How come nobody has "stolen" the X-Rated response I thought of?

[Beanbag]

Atheists: Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?Don't dodge this question on your IQ in regard to practical creativity.

If you have any practical creativity, how would you answer the question, and why?


In not more than fifty words.


I just want to see if atheists have any practical creativity, instead of depending on the slogans of their hack masters who laugh at their slavish gullibility to their dodge-ful fallacies against God's existence while rushing all the way to their bank.




Yrreg
Farging idiot. The question has as much sense as if I asked, "Do you walk to school, or do you carry your lunch?"

The slime came first, then the egg.

Beanbag

[Beanbag]

How much wood could a woodchuch chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
The correct following line (remembered from elementary school, back in The Bronze Age) is:

"He'd chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could, if a woodchuck could chuck wood."

Consider it argument FROM authority -- I was there.

Beanbag

[Lisa Simpson]

The correct following line (remembered from elementary school, back in The Bronze Age) is:

"He'd chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could, if a woodchuck could chuck wood."

Consider it argument FROM authority -- I was there.

Beanbag

At MY school it was:

A woodchuck could chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.

[TraneWreck]

At MY school it was:

A woodchuck could chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.

Careful, I think this is the debate that sparked the contentious Sunni-Shia schism in Islam.

[paximperium]

Careful, I think this is the debate that sparked the contentious Sunni-Shia schism in Islam.
Well, the great Woodchuck Schism did lead to the formation of Canada we all know and love today.

[Redtail]

BTW: I consider a chicken and egg sandwich exceeding creepy and just wrong.

Which is why you should add bacon, proving once again that bacon solves everything!

To the op,

I used to say egg, then McDonald's came up with the chicken biscuit...

[XLDS03]

Are we talking domesticated chicken, or red and grey junglefowl?

If it's the domesticated chicken, humans came first.

[Dr Adequate]

Request permission to steal your analogy and make a powerpoint out of it! I think this may actually be worth investing some time in and still make something simple that even a simpleton could understand. (Or has it already been done?) This (http://www.vtutorials.com/curefaith/micro-vs-macroevolution.html) is rather neat.

[alfaniner]

Are we talking domesticated chicken, or red and grey junglefowl?

If it's the domesticated chicken, humans came first.

I was thinking more along the lines of African or European chickens.

[LarianLeQuella]

Well, the European ones couldn't very well carry a coconut!

Thanks Dr. A. I'll have to hit that when I get off work since it's blocked by CENTAF.

[yrreg]

The egg.
Two words.


Now.. Off topic but I'm just curious... See, I'm a total nubie here and shamefully, I must confess; I am quite ignorant.
Yyreg, why are your posts so filled with derision, assumption, judgment and hatred?


Hatred? More like extreme dismay with you guys.


But we are all playing a script here, only I am playing a more intellectual and objectively real script than you atheists.



There is an objective hierarchy of beings and God is at the top, hierarchy means order of ranking on greater and lesser; but you atheists are subscribers to the non-idea of disorder which in your zeal for the atheist theory or pseudo-theory of evolution you call what for you is total objective real disorder, random mutation.

But you never see the bigger picture implied in your total disorder of a random mutation that rules everything, and is the first phase of the pseudo-theory of origin (there is never actually any talk with and among yourselves about origin -- because species are already accounted for as the 'origin' of species in your socalled theory of evolution), that picture namely that in the midst of total disorder that is random mutation in all time and in all place you still have order for you to take a leak and take a crap properly and daintily and safely.


Total disorder in random mutation means the whole universe of being is in a gigantic concrete mixer that is churning all existence hither and thither, up and down, left and right in all directions to the nth times and nothing can be any stable stage for you to ever have any order in order [sic] to take a pee or a crap.


Think about that.

And that is why I can see very clearly that you are full of pseudo theoretical crap but nothing of creativity specially what I call practical creativity inside your disorderly cranium ruled by the concrete mixer of random mutation.






Yrreg

[HansMustermann]

Now that was unexpected ;) Yrreg showing up to finish the "all you guys are stupid" ego-masturbation after he created a blatantly obvious setup for it? And turn it into some kind of utterly illogical proof of God? Who would have guessed? ;)

[Hokulele]

There is an objective hierarchy of beings and God is at the top, hierarchy means order of ranking on greater and lesser...


What quality is this hierarchy based upon? Horses are faster, elephants are stronger, trees live longer, chickens taste better (or so I have heard)...

[paximperium]

Well he is amusing. He is deluded enough to believe that his nonsense and exceedingly smug and arrogant rants are somehow effective...in what nobody is sure, but they sure are funny.

[D'rok]

What quality is this hierarchy based upon?

Penis design?

[HansMustermann]

There is an objective hierarchy of beings and God is at the top, hierarchy means order of ranking on greater and lesser; but you atheists are subscribers to the non-idea of disorder which in your zeal for the atheist theory or pseudo-theory of evolution you call what for you is total objective real disorder, random mutation.

But you never see the bigger picture implied in your total disorder of a random mutation that rules everything, and is the first phase of the pseudo-theory of origin (there is never actually any talk with and among yourselves about origin -- because species are already accounted for as the 'origin' of species in your socalled theory of evolution), that picture namely that in the midst of total disorder that is random mutation in all time and in all place you still have order for you to take a leak and take a crap properly and daintily and safely.

Yrreg, baby, all you've said above is that you don't even know what you criticize, and are talking against your own strawmen, born of your own diseased imagination and ignorance. As usual. Read a bit about it before you criticize it.

I'd say it's an argument from personal disbelief fallacy, except in your case it seems to be an argument from stonking stupidity. You don't really understand randomness, you don't really understand statistics, you don't really understand IQ tests, you don't even seem to understand theism, etc. Is that anything you actually understand? You know, speaking of IQ, and all.

Trust me, I don't take calling someone stupid easily. I realize that even very smart people are capable of cognitive dissonance and self-delusion. But I'd say that in your case all the evidence you've presented, well, it goes far beyond reasonable doubt.

[paximperium]

Trust me, I don't take calling someone stupid easily. I realize that even very smart people are capable of cognitive dissonance and self-delusion. But I'd say that in your case all the evidence you've presented, well, it goes far beyond reasonable doubt.
Please do not insult the stupid people by equating them with the caricature of a Turing machine called yrreg.

[HansMustermann]

Fair point, pax. Sorry.

[slingblade]

[Dame Maggie Smith]

Hans? You know, I like him. I really, really like him.

[/Dame Maggie]

[quarky]

I'm ashamed to see all of you here, yet again, like junkies.
yrreg has the power.
We are tossed around like fru-fru. masturbating, penis-ridden, defecating and urinating fluffo.

The chicken and the egg are simultaneous.

[quixotecoyote]

I'm ashamed to see all of you here, yet again, like junkies.
yrreg has the power.
We are tossed around like fru-fru. masturbating, penis-ridden, defecating and urinating fluffo.

The chicken and the egg are simultaneous.

If it is an ostrich egg, is the chicken Islamic?

[RoboTimbo]

But we are all playing a script here, only I am playing a more intellectual and objectively real script than you atheists.

Yrreg

On the contrary, you are getting spanked. You and Kathy are the only ones who don't have the capacity to realize it.

Everyone is laughing at you and you seem to be getting more and more inane and insane with every post.

By the way, the egg came first.

[Beanbag]

Gee, yrreg, you still haven't answered my question. Do you walk to school, or do you carry your lunch?

Beanbag

[yrreg]

I'm ashamed to see all of you here, yet again, like junkies.
yrreg has the power.
We are tossed around like fru-fru. masturbating, penis-ridden, defecating and urinating fluffo.

The chicken and the egg are simultaneous.


I have not read all the posts here, but I will tell you without any flattery, quarky:

You have finally among these hack atheists the beginning of creative intelligence.

The chicken and the egg are simultaneous.


You see it is not enough to just guess that egg or chicken comes first, I ask you guys from the very start for an explanation why you say the one or the other comes first.


Atheists: Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

Don't dodge this question on your IQ in regard to practical creativity.

If you have any practical creativity, how would you answer the question, and why?


In not more than fifty words.


I just want to see if atheists have any practical creativity, instead of depending on the slogans of their hack masters who laugh at their slavish gullibility to their dodge-ful fallacies against God's existence while rushing all the way to their bank.




Yrreg



Good, quarky, your brain cells have not been pickled to death by reading and engorging indiscriminately the miasmatic shadow boxing spurious arguments of dodge-ful masters of atheists who are laughing at you guys for being so gullible, all the way to their bank to stash their swindle gain from writing swill to make you guys feel so satisfied with proclaiming yourselves atheist.



Now, quarky, imagine yourself to be an intelligent practical housewife or househusband, think further on how to bring forth the chicken and the egg together simultaneously.

Hint: If you be a woman look into yourself, if you be a married guy who has ever had conceived a baby with a woman, think of what is it in a woman that can solve the problem of which comes first, the chicken or the egg.


That is what I call creative intelligence or intelligent creativity on the practical level of everyday existence and life.


Remember, everyone, after all the theories and fallacies of wrong thinking, you must always come back to and be intelligent on the one and only domain we have as humans, everyday existence and life.





Yrreg

[RoboTimbo]

The chicken and the egg are simultaneous.

Yrreg

And you wonder why?

[AkuManiMani]

Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

Neither. The feathered therapod dinoasaur comes first ;)

[Chupacabras]

I have not read all the posts here, but I will tell you without any flattery...

Da Rulez prevent me from responding in kind.

[Ryokan]

Who came first, the chicken or the egg? therefore God.

This is an argument I've never seen before....

[Lisa Simpson]

Who came first, the chicken or the egg? therefore God.

This is an argument I've never seen before....

He's almost achieved a kōan.

[Pantaz]

I have not read all the posts here, but I will tell you without any flattery, quarky:

You have finally among these hack atheists the beginning of creative intelligence.

The chicken and the egg are simultaneous.


You really don't "get" sarcasm, do you?

[phantomb]

Alright, I think I've got it:

If an animal hatched from an egg, then there is an egg that came before that animal.

All chickens are animals.

All chickens hatched from eggs.

There is a chicken that came before all other chickens.

Therefore, there is an egg which came before all chickens.

[Neverfly]

If you look at how the question is structured- The chicken came before the egg.
"Which comes first: the chicken or the egg?"








Please forgive me; I had a creative moment. It shall soon pas... nevermind. Just did.

[Fiona]

So Humpty Dumpty is god?

[Lisa Simpson]

No. John Lennon.

"I am the eggman."

[Fiona]

Yrreg learned all he knows from Humpty Dumpty. You can tell by the way he uses words

[Hokulele]

Neither.

http://www.ehow.com/how_2289462_make-vegetarian-chicken-substitute.html

[TraneWreck]

IGood, quarky, your brain cells have not been pickled to death by reading and engorging indiscriminately the miasmatic shadow boxing spurious arguments of dodge-ful masters of atheists who are laughing at you guys for being so gullible, all the way to their bank to stash their swindle gain from writing swill to make you guys feel so satisfied with proclaiming yourselves atheist.


This is some kind of awesome. It's like the evil-twin version of the Dr. Bronner's soap bottle.

But more importantly, how did you find out about the stash of "swindle gain?" Dawkins said everyone outside the club who knew about it was dead.


Now, quarky, imagine yourself to be an intelligent practical housewife or househusband, think further on how to bring forth the chicken and the egg together simultaneously.


Whoa, slow down big fella, I'm getting aroused...


Hint: If you be a woman look into yourself, if you be a married guy who has ever had conceived a baby with a woman, think of what is it in a woman that can solve the problem of which comes first, the chicken or the egg.


Arr, matey, what be inside a woman, indeed...arr


That is what I call creative intelligence or intelligent creativity on the practical level of everyday existence and life.


Remember, everyone, after all the theories and fallacies of wrong thinking, you must always come back to and be intelligent on the one and only domain we have as humans, everyday existence and life.


Now that's how you bring home the crazy. If only every semi-retarded troll on these forums was this entertaining.

[D'rok]

A challenger appears.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1394149bdaf894848b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15696)

[joobz]

The chicken never came. Roosters are selfish.

[X]

Hatred? More like extreme dismay with you guys.


Your dismay is your own fault for adhering to untenable and false initial assumptions. You have been informed of these errors repeatedly. That you are dismayed is a reflection of your inability to come to terms with the fact that your preconception of atheists is inaccurate. Which is not our problem.



But we are all playing a script here, only I am playing a more intellectual and objectively real script than you atheists.


Insult count +2
You're on fine form.



There is an objective hierarchy of beings and God is at the top,


I know I'm going to regret the inevitable discussion of my penis, but...
Evidence?



hierarchy means order of ranking on greater and lesser;


Woohoo! You got something correct!



but you atheists are subscribers to the non-idea of disorder


Wrong. Error count +1 (running tally = 1)
There is no central idea that atheists subscribe to.
The only thing all atheists have in common is a lack of belief in god(s). Your god and many other gods.
Also, insult count +1 (running tally = 3) for implying that we subscribe to nonsense ideas.


which in your zeal for the atheist theory or pseudo-theory of evolution


Wrong. Error count +1 (running tally = 2)
The Theory of Evolution is neither atheistic nor pseudo-science.
It is simply an explanation of observed facts.



you call what for you is total objective real disorder, random mutation.


Wrong. Nonsensical. Error count +1 (running tally = 3)
The Theory of Evolution is not dependent on us, and relies on much more than random mutation. Natural Selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection) ring any bells?



But you never see the bigger picture implied in your total disorder of a random mutation that rules everything,


Repetition.
Again, the Theory of Evolution does not say that random mutation rules everything. That you continue to insist it does shows that you don't actually know what the theory you are attacking states.
Thus, I am awarding a dishonesty point for not being responsible and professional enough to learn about the subject you are attacking. Dishonesty count +1 (running tally = 1)



and is the first phase of the pseudo-theory of origin


Wrong.
The Theory of Evolution does not explicitly address the origin of life. That would be abiogenesis. Although the boundaries are hazy. Due to the haziness, I won't add to the error count for this error.



(there is never actually any talk with and among yourselves about origin -- because species are already accounted for as the 'origin' of species in your so-called theory of evolution),


Wrong. Error count +1 (running tally = 4)
Also, 2 dishonesty points, for the "so-called" bit and for the repeated claim of origins which demonstrates again that you aren't honest enough to actually study the subject you attack.
Dishonesty count +2 (running tally = 3)



that picture namely that in the midst of total disorder that is random mutation in all time and in all place you still have order for you to take a leak and take a crap properly and daintily and safely.


Holy run-on-sentence, Batman!
Non-Sequitur. Nonsensical.
Wrong. Error count +1 (running tally = 5) because Evolution is not random.
Dishonesty count +1 (running tally = 4) for still making claims showing your ignorance of that which you attack.
And your obligatory obsession with bodily functions quota is now filled.



Total disorder in random mutation means the whole universe of being is in a gigantic concrete mixer that is churning all existence hither and thither, up and down, left and right in all directions to the nth times and nothing can be any stable stage for you to ever have any order in order [sic] to take a pee or a crap.


Wrong. Error count +1 (running tally = 6) because Evolution is not random.
Dishonesty count +1 (running tally = 5) for still making claims showing your ignorance of that which you attack.
And enough with the bodily functions. We get it already. You



Think about that.


Physician, heal thyself.



And that is why I can see very clearly that you are full of pseudo theoretical crap


Insult count up to 4 now.
Also, error count +1 (running tally = 7) and dishonesty count +1 (running tally = 6) for the pseuso-theory crack.



but nothing of creativity specially what I call practical creativity inside your disorderly cranium ruled by the concrete mixer of random mutation.


Let's see...
Insult count +2 (running tally = 6)
Dishonesty count +1 (running tally = 7)
Error count +1 (running tally = 8)




Final tally:
Word count: 292
Claim count: 11 (number of individual statements or claims made)
Error count: 8 (72% of your statements were wrong)
Dishonesty count: 7 (64% of your statements were dishonest)
Insult count: 6 (55% of your statements were insulting)








He's almost achieved a kōan.


Oddly, I can clap with one hand. Hold the wrist stiff and let the fingers go floppy. It it legitimate clapping. And for some reson, people who see it are grossed out.

[XLDS03]

Yrreg,

Personally, I don't see how a philosophical parody destroys evolution, unless I've misread your aim.

Even proving that the mind precedes the body, which I imagine the chicken/egg conundrum springs from, doesn't destroy evolution.

If your goal is to make atheists like me look stupid, you haven't. I can't understand your poor writing enough to miss your point.

May I suggest a new philosophical tongue-twister? How many angels can fit on the head of a pin? That will drive us atheists batty!

[Twiler]

Yrreg, if you're right, why don't I agree with you?

[Piggy]

But we are all playing a script here, only I am playing a more intellectual and objectively real script than you atheists.

There is an objective hierarchy of beings and God is at the top <snip>

Y'see, you just can't write irony like that as fiction.

It's gotta come from the heart. (Cause it sure ain't coming from the head.)

I mean, suppose I was to write a story where a character says something like that.

My editor would send it right back with a huge note in red ink: "Piggy, no one's that dense... clean this up!"

[Elizabeth I]

You see it is not enough to just guess that egg or chicken comes first, I ask you guys from the very start for an explanation why you say the one or the other comes first.

But I TOLD you. The CHICKEN comes first. The chicken ALWAYS comes first because it doesn't care about the egg or anything else.

Boy, you're slow.

[Piggy]

I don't know which comes first, but I know the chicken goes first in a game of checkers because the egg, hey... no arms.

[MIKILLINI]

Hatred? More like extreme dismay with you guys.

That would be your misguided perception Gerry, not ours.

But we are all playing a script here, only I am playing a more intellectual and objectively real script than you atheists.

No, you have only succeeded in creating a thread(s). What you're not doing is moving the script forward. This is now your fifth thread and the pattern remains the same: The threads begin with you asking us to debate the topics, but as soon as a salient point is made about how, where, and/or why your conclusions are what they are, you ramble on and ask us to write essays.

You proceed to ramble on more while accusing us of not comprehending your posts. Of course we understand these questions of yours perfectly, but the questions are disingenuous in their design.

You don't address the real solid arguments so you ignore them and accuse people as lacking intellect or the ability to argue intelligently.

It's easy to show the proof of what I describe above; Here it is:

There is an objective hierarchy of beings and God is at the top, hierarchy means order of ranking on greater and lesser; but you atheists are subscribers to the non-idea of disorder which in your zeal for the atheist theory or pseudo-theory of evolution you call what for you is total objective real disorder, random mutation.

But you never see the bigger picture implied in your total disorder of a random mutation that rules everything, and is the first phase of the pseudo-theory of origin (there is never actually any talk with and among yourselves about origin -- because species are already accounted for as the 'origin' of species in your socalled theory of evolution), that picture namely that in the midst of total disorder that is random mutation in all time and in all place you still have order for you to take a leak and take a crap properly and daintily and safely.


Total disorder in random mutation means the whole universe of being is in a gigantic concrete mixer that is churning all existence hither and thither, up and down, left and right in all directions to the nth times and nothing can be any stable stage for you to ever have any order in order [sic] to take a pee or a crap.


Think about that.

And that is why I can see very clearly that you are full of pseudo theoretical crap but nothing of creativity specially what I call practical creativity inside your disorderly cranium ruled by the concrete mixer of random mutation.

You haven't changed or learned anything at all, have you Gerry?

ETA:The Egg..Not Yrreg

[yrreg]

Statistics, stochastics, big words, more dodges for you to duck for cover.


Just tell me and don't try to be funny to save your intellectual shop window veneer of a skin.


Does random mutation the situation take a rest or an absence while socalled natural selection does its work on the, err, population -- and how can there be a population without individuals?


Hahahahahahahaha!


You guys are really so naive.


Random mutation means the situation inside a furiously rolling concrete mixture.


And billions and billions and billions and billions of years are not going to produce a random mutation of a controlled environment for nature (a name for your god of evolution) to get anything done and completed to produce a new species of life.


Ah, yes, now you want to tell me that the word species does not mean what it is understood by Darwin.


Hahahahahahahahahaha!

You guys are so corny, you are full of holes by which you are no different from a piece of Swiss cheese that is more holes than casein.


Anyway, tell me what is the situation like during random mutation which is supposed to produce by luck a happy mutation, etc. etc. etc. etc.


And please go back to the question which comes first, the chicken of the egg, and come up with an answer and explanation that is an elucidation of someone's serendipitous hazard that they come together not one after the other.

If that guy was being sarcastic, he was inspired by his muse of creative intelligence whatever his intention otherwise.

Even an embecile can say something insightful but totally dumb in reference to atheists, which is the genuine condition, namely, being an atheist endows the atheist with rational consistency and affords him guiltless masturbation.






Yrreg

[Piggy]

yrreg, you're either a troll or you're really unbalanced.

And yeah, did you write those Dr. Bronner labels? Just curious.

[fromdownunder]

Even an embecile can say something insightful but totally dumb in reference to atheists, which is the genuine condition, namely, being an atheist endows the atheist with rational consistency and affords him guiltless masturbation.

Yrreg

Yrreg, somehow I just knew that you would get back to a penis discussion. You really have an unhealthy obsession with this sewer/entertainment centre. Perhaps a visit to your doctor - he might be able to explain your problem to you.

Norm

[Ryokan]

Wow, where is the anti-Buddhist Yrreg of old, who at least had some wit. He didn't want to grasp any of the concepts back then, either, but at least he made me think.

Now, you can almost see him frothing at the mouth as he writes.

Can't you see how full of hate your posts are, Yrreg? Atheists are just people who don't believe in gods, they're not baby killers.

[MIKILLINI]

Statistics, stochastics, big words, more dodges for you to duck for coverYrreg



Just tell me and don't try to be funny to save your intellectual shop window veneer of a skin

Does random mutation the situation take a rest or an absence while socalled natural selection does its work on the, err, population -- and how can there be a population without individuals?


Hahahahahahahaha!

You guys are really so naive.


Random mutation means the situation inside a furiously rolling concrete mixture.


And billions and billions and billions and billions of years are not going to produce a random mutation of a controlled environment for nature (a name for your god of evolution) to get anything done and completed to produce a new species of life.


Ah, yes, now you want to tell me that the word species does not mean what it is understood by Darwin.


Hahahahahahahahahaha!

You guys are so corny, you are full of holes by which you are no different from a piece of Swiss cheese that is more holes than casein.


Anyway, tell me what is the situation like during random mutation which is supposed to produce by luck a happy mutation, etc. etc. etc. etc.


And please go back to the question which comes first, the chicken of the egg, and come up with an answer and explanation that is an elucidation of someone's serendipitous hazard that they come together not one after the other.

If that guy was being sarcastic, he was inspired by his muse of creative intelligence whatever his intention otherwise.

Even an embecile can say something insightful but totally dumb in reference to atheists, which is the genuine condition, namely, being an atheist endows the atheist with rational consistency and affords him guiltless masturbation.



There, fixed that for you.

[linusrichard]

yrreg, you're either a troll or you're really unbalanced.


My vote is "really unbalanced," but let's not forget the "both" option.

[Lisa Simpson]

My vote is "really unbalanced," but let's not forget the "both" option.

I don't think he's a troll. He used to be amusing in a Buddhist-hating kind of way. Sadly, he seems to have slid downhill from those halcyon days.

[blobru]

egg:smiloe:why did the egg SUDDENLY cross the road?


:eggdull:beats me


:egglaugh:because if it waited too long, it would be chicken!


:eggskeptical:there is no god

[Minarvia]

I am beginning to think he's a bit scary. If he keeps up the insults and the inappropriate "penis" comments he may just get himself banned. This looks like someone is going over the deep end and may need professional help.

[X]

Statistics, stochastics, big words, more dodges for you to duck for cover.


Insult.



Just tell me and don't try to be funny to save your intellectual shop window veneer of a skin.


Insult.



Does random mutation the situation take a rest or an absence while so-called natural selection does its work on the, err, population -- and how can there be a population without individuals?


Nonsense, belying a lack of understanding of the theory you are attacking.
This is inexcusable, actually, given the number of times it has been explained to you.



Hahahahahahahaha!


Your amusement stems from your hard-fought-for ignorance of the subject.



You guys are really so naive.


Insult.



Random mutation means the situation inside a furiously rolling concrete mixture.


Wrong.



And billions and billions and billions and billions of years are not going to produce a random mutation of a controlled environment for nature (a name for your god of evolution) to get anything done and completed to produce a new species of life.


Wrong, asinine, and ignorant.
Atheists don't recognize any god. So I'm afraid we don't have a "god of evolution" Not of your strawman of evolution, nor of the real theory.



Ah, yes, now you want to tell me that the word species does not mean what it is understood by Darwin.


It probably doesn't. Darwin wrote over 150 years ago. Advances in science and technology lead to better understandings of nature, as well as knowledge of previously undiscovered phenomenons and the ability to make more accurate observations.
Science changes to reflect these new and improved observations.
To do otherwise would be dogma.


Hahahahahahahahahaha!


Your amusement stems from your hard-fought-for ignorance of the subject.



You guys are so corny, you are full of holes by which you are no different from a piece of Swiss cheese that is more holes than casein.


Insult.



Anyway, tell me what is the situation like during random mutation which is supposed to produce by luck a happy mutation, etc. etc. etc. etc.


It has been explained to you. Further, the information is readily available.
That you do not bother to read it and learn about the subject you attack, instead preferring strawmen and insults, is your own shortcoming.



And please go back to the question which comes first, the chicken of the egg, and come up with an answer and explanation that is an elucidation of someone's serendipitous hazard that they come together not one after the other.


We have answered your question. Perhaps you would care to entertain us by providing the point?



If that guy was being sarcastic, he was inspired by his muse of creative intelligence whatever his intention otherwise.


In your opinion.



Even an imbecile can say something insightful but totally dumb in reference to atheists, which is the genuine condition, namely, being an atheist endows the atheist with rational consistency and affords him guiltless masturbation.


Wrong, asinine, ignorant and insulting.
A quadfecta!

[schlitt]

Yrreg clearly lacks even the most cursory understanding of evolution. Any attempt to explain specific instances to him will fail, because he has no solid basis for integrating new knowledge.

It would be like trying to explain the science of sending a rocket to the moon to someone who thinks the moon is a ball of cheese floating in water. Anything you say will not make sense to them because it contradicts what they “know” to be true; the moon is cheese floating in water.
You would have to go so far back into the very basics that it would take months, and most likely be impossible due to the person being unwilling to abandon their existing falsehoods.

Some people think that they do not need to know anything about a scientific theory, but they can still be an expert on it. When those with knowledge of the theory encounter these people it is both frustrating and saddening. The arrogance of these people keeps them from realizing their ignorance.

I don't think it is worth wasting your time with these sorts.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Strangely enough, my uncle thinks he's a chicken.

We've considered taking him to a psychiatrist, but we really can use the eggs.

:boxedin:

You realize that if you tell this joke, and you're not in front of a group of 3rd graders, you can legally be shot in Texas right? :p

:words:

more :words:

even more :words:

So. You weren't really interested in atheist's answers to the riddle?

[fromdownunder]

I don't think it is worth wasting your time with these sorts.


Naah! Every Board needs a chew toy to play with. He fits the role perfectly, because he does not even understand what he is.

Norm

[Miss_Kitt]

BTW: I consider a chicken and egg sandwich exceeding creepy and just wrong.

Equally OT: But there's a wonderful Moroccan food, "pastille" (or bastilla, or pastilla, depending on who transcribed it) that contains scrambled eggs, diced chicken, onions, celery, and herbs, baked inside a phyllo crust which is then dusted with sugar and spices. It is so tasty, I'd rather eat it than a chocolate truffle. No, really!

@ yrreg: The egg has been around for millions of years more. as noted by many posters above.

If you are asking the question about chickens only, it's a question of where it is convenient to draw the line. For a farm, count using chickens, not eggs, because not all eggs hatch--thus, chickens would "come first". But that's simply because it's convenient. A classroom of kids studying bird development would consider the eggs to have "come first" because they had started out with eggs in an incubator, and ended up with chickens later on.

Just as it is sometimes useful and convenient to treat photons as particles, and for other problems it is useful to treat them as waves, chicken lifecycles can be modelled based upon which starting point is appropriate to the problem at hand. Either model is good enough to use for some purposes; so you choose the one that makes it easier to solve the problem at hand--which, as an engineer, is all I care about.

Hope you enjoy this, Miss Kitt

ETA -- The explanation of concept efficacy ran more than 50 words. Not all ideas are well-stated in a few sentences.

[Lord Emsworth]

Investigating, are we, yrreg?

[Miss_Kitt]

All right you pussy atheists, maybe that one was easy, but try this on for size.

And don't give me any of your BS "science" mumbo jumbo, answer it in three lines with the first and third lines containing five syllables and the second seven.

How much wood could a woodchuch chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

Woodchuck in winter
Struggles to log much wood
But sees snow's beauty.

[Miss_Kitt]

Well, the great Woodchuck Schism did lead to the formation of Canada we all know and love today.

Not quite! It was in fact the chicken-egg controversy that led to the tenacious state of Montreal's attachment to Canada.

You see, to the other provinces and territories, an egg was just an egg; but the Quebecois decided that One Egg was An Ouef!




:p

Thank you, thank you...I'm here all week. MK

[Ryokan]

So. You weren't really interested in atheist's answers to the riddle?

Only if he gets the answer that they were created at the same time by God.

Until he gets that answer, all atheists are uncreative - including the guys who made up evolution and atheism to con us out of our money.

[DOC]

The egg preceeded the chicken by many millions of years.

Above Word count: 9

Norm

What laid it?

[Lord Emsworth]

What laid it?

God did, duh.

[Michelle Lyon]

Atheists: Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

If you have any practical creativity, how would you answer the question, and why?


In not more than fifty words.


I just want to see if atheists have any practical creativity, instead of depending on the slogans of their hack masters who laugh at their slavish gullibility to their dodge-ful fallacies against God's existence while rushing all the way to their bank.

Yrreg

The egg. Other creatures were laying them long before there were chickens. Because you didn't state specifically that you are referring to a 'chicken' egg, you just said an egg. :)

Thirty words and a smilie.

Not sure what that last paragraph is in reference to...if there's money for me to be had in this, fork it over. I need it. :D

[lionking]

Magnificant. DOC joins a yrreg thread.

[Michelle Lyon]

Re: woodchuck haiku:

A woodchuck would chuck
All the wood it wants to chuck
If it could chuck wood.

Not very creative though. Too many rules, too boring a riddle. Artists don't like to be caged. ;)

[UnrepentantSinner]

What laid it?

A sponge most likely.

[HansMustermann]

It probably doesn't. Darwin wrote over 150 years ago. Advances in science and technology lead to better understandings of nature, as well as knowledge of previously undiscovered phenomenons and the ability to make more accurate observations.
Science changes to reflect these new and improved observations.
To do otherwise would be dogma.

To be entirely fair, though, Darwin never said that some massive change would happen over night, like a population of foxes suddenly giving birth to a population of dogs. That is the creationists' canard, not Darwin's. Even the failed Lamarckism before Darwin acknowledged that the changes would be gradual.

[blobru]

Why does the egg come
Ere the chicken? Maybe if
It thought of baseball...

:eggconfused:

[Cavemonster]

What laid it?
Possibly Megasphaera ornata about 600 million years ago. But those eggs might actually be very large bacteria, so we're not sure yet.

[Darat]

This thread requires a lot of cleaning-up however given that we a tad short handed in the Mod Team at the moment and the thread pretty much started with nonsense I'm not going to expend any effort in trying to clean it up. Thread closed.

[yrreg]

This is no trick question.


Do you anyone ever give any attention to that question?


What is your answer to that question?




I have searched the web for answers to that question, but so far I have not found any satisfactory to myself.


I have myself in several websites given my answer to that question which I on my own thinking, i.e., reasoning and logic, see to be the most satisfactory, of course to myself.


Let me read your answers, then I will tell you my answer; and we can discuss it amicably with no rancor.


I have sent my answer to myself in my email account, so that you will not say that I made up my answer from your answers.



Yrreg

[Nogbad]

You have done this one before - either that or I am still hung over from last night and am a tad confused.

[Nogbad]

PS what sort of egg? and what sort of chicken, Rhode Island Red?

[Sun Countess]

Yes, he had this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=137528) before, from March 14th (the Sun Count's birthday).

eta: He had a word limit of 50 in that one. Because it's hard to answer the question "Chicken" or "Egg" in fewer than 50 words.

[MG1962]

The answer is obvious - the egg was invented millions of years before chickens came along. Fish in particular had great success in adopting this form of reproduction

[Agatha]

Egg. As was said last time you asked the question.

[VespaGuy]

Egg.

[Tricky]

Egg. Even if you require that it be a "chicken egg", then the first chicken egg was the first egg that contained a chicken, thus, the egg preceded the first chicken it contained.

[Dancing David]

This is no trick question.


Do you anyone ever give any attention to that question?


What is your answer to that question?




I have searched the web for answers to that question, but so far I have not found any satisfactory to myself.


I have myself in several websites given my answer to that question which I on my own thinking, i.e., reasoning and logic, see to be the most satisfactory, of course to myself.


Let me read your answers, then I will tell you my answer; and we can discuss it amicably with no rancor.


I have sent my answer to myself in my email account, so that you will not say that I made up my answer from your answers.



Yrreg

This one we have discussed in the science forum, the egg.

There is an n in the series that leads from non-chicken to chicken. At some point the n will be termed chicken, while that which precedes it n-1 is not chicken, so n-1 is not a chicken and n is.

Therefore nchicken came from the egg and was the first to be termed chicken but preceded from n-1 which was not termed a chicken. So the egg came first.

[Salerio]

This is no trick question.

Yrreg

The answer is obvious.

The cock who laid the chicken

[Hokulele]

Egg.

[Twiler]

Clarification required.

1. Is the 'egg' any egg? If so, the egg came first.

2. Is the 'egg' an egg that a chicken emerges from? If so, the egg came first.

3. Is the 'egg' an egg that a chicken lays? If so, the chicken came first.

I suspect that Yrreg's answer will be 'Unsolvable paradox, therefore we require a rule-breaking entity, which I will call YHVH.'

But with more words.

[RoboTimbo]

egg

[Terry]

egg

[Hokulele]

I suspect that Yrreg's answer will be 'Unsolvable paradox, therefore we require a rule-breaking entity, which I will call YHVH.'


Nah, yrreg is hoping to trap someone into saying "chicken", which he will then use to back up his claim of "if an egg requires a maker (chicken), clearly everything requires a maker, and clearly god exists".

Which, of course, ignores the fact that he cannot get around the problem of his version of god not requiring a maker.

It is chickens all the way down. Or ducks.

[Z]

Well.... what if the first chicken was ovoviviporous?

[Wowbagger]

I usually tell people that both emerged, at the same time, in gradual steps.

I don't like the "n-1 is not a chicken" argument, because there is no naturally distinct line between "chicken" and "not-yet-a-chicken".

Although, we humans may place an arbitrary line, of our own, somewhere in there; that's just for systematic purposes. It's not really a reflection on nature, which is not obligated to give us distinct lines.

[GeeMack]

The chicken who was the maker of God and everything.

[Tricky]

Nah, yrreg is hoping to trap someone into saying "chicken", which he will then use to back up his claim of "if an egg requires a maker (chicken), clearly everything requires a maker, and clearly god exists".
And it is silly anyway. A chicken doesn't "make" an egg. Eggs are part of the natural part of being a hen. They are no more the result of "making" than chickenpoop.

If the comparison is that a god made man in the same sense that chickens make eggs, then that god spent more than six billion years being pregnant. Most of it without having any pickles available.

[Hokulele]

And it is silly anyway. A chicken doesn't "make" an egg. Eggs are part of the natural part of being a hen. They are no more the result of "making" than chickenpoop.

If the comparison is that a god made man in the same sense that chickens make eggs, then that god spent more than six billion years being pregnant. Most of it without having any pickles available.


I think yrreg's comparison would be that god made the universe the way chickens make eggs. But now having had the chance to re-read the first few pages of this thread, it is apparent that yrreg thinks everything (including chickens and eggs) came to be in a Giant *Poof* rather than in a Big Bang.

quote of modded post removed.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I usually tell people that both emerged, at the same time, in gradual steps.

I don't like the "n-1 is not a chicken" argument, because there is no naturally distinct line between "chicken" and "not-yet-a-chicken".

Although, we humans may place an arbitrary line, of our own, somewhere in there; that's just for systematic purposes. It's not really a reflection on nature, which is not obligated to give us distinct lines.

I totally appreciate your sentiment, but we are talking about a "gotcha" rhetorical question and not a serious scientific inquiry. There wasn't a singular first genetic chicken (obviously it would have to come from and exist in a population), but it is likely that there was an LCA chicken from whom all chickens are descended.

{snip}

This thread was locked because of posts like this. Please review the Membership agreement you only recently agreed to abide by.

[proudnonbbeliever]

chicken or egg....

im gonna say the road they were trying to cross.

[learner]

Ch,Chi, Chic... Nope..Egg.

[Fiona]

I
Not that I want to adopt him or anything...

Norm

You Tease, you! :D

[H3LL]

"There is no egg". - Buddha



.

[Nogbad]

Do not include me in "everyone". I do not hate or wish death on anyone.

It would be helpful if yrreg would read the posts in his threads and replied to them, and it would aid discussion if he improved his communication skills. But we cannot force him to do so. The mods can delete his insults to other posters, but only he can develop the self-control and good manners to stop posting insults.

He's asked the question, the majority of the replies have been along the line of "egg". Now what, yrreg? Where are you going with this thread?

Well if it is like his previous threads, because we haven't answered "correctly" he will tell us we are thickies and that a retarded amoeba can see he is right...

to be honest those are the best bits of these threads and I always look forward to them.

[Dancing David]

I usually tell people that both emerged, at the same time, in gradual steps.

I don't like the "n-1 is not a chicken" argument, because there is no naturally distinct line between "chicken" and "not-yet-a-chicken".

Although, we humans may place an arbitrary line, of our own, somewhere in there; that's just for systematic purposes. It's not really a reflection on nature, which is not obligated to give us distinct lines.

Well, I know that, because the question does have your moreelegant answer. yet Yrreg would say that:

Both is not an option. Yes the chicken egg evolved along with the chicken is too elegant for the dichotomy of the question.

Both is the better answer.

[Dancing David]

"There is no egg". - Buddha



.

Ah yes from the Andimbha Sutta!

[remirol]

which came first, the chicken or the egg?

The buttermilk-and-flour batter.

[Tricky]

Several recent posts moved to AAH (I'm not digging into the old part of the thread). This thread was originally closed because people could not be civil and stay on topic. Those rules still exist. Please abide by them.

[Dutchman]

The chicken is just one of the many ways for eggs to make more eggs :D

[Egg]

"There is no egg". - Buddha

.
:eggshocked:

[Tricky]

Consider the egg. It's a miracle.
A marvel of nature, no joke.
It is oblate, not perfectly sperical,
With a shell to keep in white and yolk.

It is boilable, poachable, fryable.
It scrambles. It makes a sauce thicken.
It is also the only reliable.
Device for producing a chicken.

-----anonymous

[bokonon]

Even an embecile can say something [...] totally dumb in reference to atheists
Egg.

[John Jones]

Egg

[LightningStrike]

The perceiver or consciousness comes first. Then physical existence. Then the rational mind with the chicken and the egg thought.

Check it for yourself. Don't believe me.

[KingMerv00]

Egg.

[Twiler]

The perceiver or consciousness comes first. Then physical existence. Then the rational mind with the chicken and the egg thought.

Check it for yourself. Don't believe me.

Okay.

Evidence indicates consciousness is an emergent function of physical processes. Thus, physical existence precedes consciousness.

I don't agree with you.

Anyway, it occurs to me that the chicken and egg problem supports the idea that all philosophical problems are essentially caused by the limitations of language.

[Tricky]

The perceiver or consciousness comes first. Then physical existence. Then the rational mind with the chicken and the egg thought.

Check it for yourself. Don't believe me.
Where do I go to check out a consciousness without physical existence?

[Ron_Tomkins]

On a separate not:, if a tree falls in a forest and there are no schmaltzy philosopher's around to make silly semantic word games and try to sound smart; did it make a sound at all?

[Aitch]

The sound of one hand clapping? :boggled:

[remirol]

Mu!

[Nogbad]

On a separate not:, if a tree falls in a forest and there are no schmaltzy philosopher's around to make silly semantic word games and try to sound smart; did it make a sound at all?

I like the feminist version

If a man is alone in a forest when he speaks is he still wrong?

[Dogdoctor]

The question is supposed to be which came first the chicken egg or the chicken? Obviously stated the way it was in the OP the egg came first but stated the way I stated it the chicken came first. Ahhh but which came first the Chicken McNugget or the Egg McMuffin?

[Prometheus]

The question is supposed to be which came first the chicken egg or the chicken? Obviously stated the way it was in the OP the egg came first but stated the way I stated it the chicken came first. Ahhh but which came first the Chicken McNugget or the Egg McMuffin?

The Egg McMuffin came before Chicken McNuggets (1973 and 1983 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_McDonald's), respectively), as it should be. ;)

[BobTheDonkey]

Where do I go to check out a consciousness without physical existence?

Star Trek?

[ravdin]

The chicken. It was "poofed" into existence by the Intelligent Designer 6,000 years ago. The first chicken egg came later.

[Cainkane1]

The egg came first. The creature that laid it had not quite finished evolving into a chicken yet. The eggs completely the evolutionary cycle when it hatched.

[LightningStrike]

Where do I go to check out a consciousness without physical existence?

Well yes that is the tricky bit. Other than being dead when I find out for sure I see consciousness without existence as the state of deep dreamless sleep. There sensory existence disappears. I also disappear as "I". Upon waking the sensory reappears and yet there is the knowledge of deep dreamless sleep.

[remirol]

The chicken came first. When the nuclear plant in the Garden of Eden had a meltdown (Adam was off gettin' some in the bushes with one of the goats and forgot to reset the control rods), the mutations were pretty wack across the board. All the unicorns' horns fell off, for example. Some of those mutated creatures bred true, and that was where the first egg came from.

[LightningStrike]

On a separate not:, if a tree falls in a forest and there are no schmaltzy philosopher's around to make silly semantic word games and try to sound smart; did it make a sound at all?

No that would be a waste of energy making a sound that no one heard. A bit like the waste of energy I exhibit in thinking about things without the intention to take action.

[LightningStrike]

Okay.

Evidence indicates consciousness is an emergent function of physical processes. Thus, physical existence precedes consciousness.


That is the evidence deduced by the rational mind. The order of things is consciousness...sensory physical existence...rational mind. Proof is...by stopping thinking physical existence and consciousness still is (now). And then in my deep dreamless example physical existence is eliminated leaving consciousness as 'last-man-standing'.

Logical is not rational. The scientist is a rational creature using logical tools (mathematics). The scientist is rational not logical. It is logical to investigate what I am before investigating the effect.

[Beerina]

Atheists: Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

Don't dodge this question on your IQ in regard to practical creativity.

If you have any practical creativity, how would you answer the question, and why?


In not more than fifty words.


I just want to see if atheists have any practical creativity, instead of depending on the slogans of their hack masters who laugh at their slavish gullibility to their dodge-ful fallacies against God's existence while rushing all the way to their bank.




Yrreg



The chicken since at some point, they didn't lay eggs.

ON THE OTHER HAND, this egg-laying started when they were dinosaurs, so at some point, an egg was laid that would hatch what would now properly be called a chicken. Or a bird, let's make that the dividing line.

So technically, I believe the egg came first. It depends on whether you want "the oldest chicken ancestor that first started laying eggs", or the first bird/chicken, which was already laying eggs before their species/kinds formed.

[Stacy Head]

Atheists: Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

Don't dodge this question on your IQ in regard to practical creativity.

If you have any practical creativity, how would you answer the question, and why?


In not more than fifty words.


I just want to see if atheists have any practical creativity, instead of depending on the slogans of their hack masters who laugh at their slavish gullibility to their dodge-ful fallacies against God's existence while rushing all the way to their bank.




Yrreg

Please...next question

[Twiler]

That is the evidence deduced by the rational mind. The order of things is consciousness...sensory physical existence...rational mind. Proof is...by stopping thinking physical existence and consciousness still is (now). And then in my deep dreamless example physical existence is eliminated leaving consciousness as 'last-man-standing'.

Logical is not rational. The scientist is a rational creature using logical tools (mathematics). The scientist is rational not logical. It is logical to investigate what I am before investigating the effect.

Before we go any further, could you explain your own definitions of 'logical' and 'rational' and explain the difference between them?

[superfreddy]

I'm sure it was the egg, from the tree of fresh eggs next to the fruit tree in the garden of eden, according to my own interpretation of Genesis (aren't we all allowed a different interpretation of the "book"?)

[LightningStrike]

Well Twiler, Logic puts first thing first. Rationality simply refers to the success of goal attainment.

What the scientist does is first make a subjective or rational choice of what to study and then apply the logic of mathematics. That's cheating. Logic puts first thing first. And the first thing to study is the observer; or the subjectivity or rationality of the scientist himself or herself. Only then can the truth behind the form or the brain - the truth of the universe - be revealed or realised.

(source Barry Long 1926-2003)

[Twiler]

Well Twiler, Logic puts first thing first. Rationality simply refers to the success of goal attainment.

What the scientist does is first make a subjective or rational choice of what to study and then apply the logic of mathematics. That's cheating. Logic puts first thing first. And the first thing to study is the observer; or the subjectivity or rationality of the scientist himself or herself. Only then can the truth behind the form or the brain - the truth of the universe - be revealed or realised.

(source Barry Long 1926-2003)

Okay.

Now, are you arguing that all physical entities are the product of consciousness, or merely that a proof of their existence requires more assumptions than a proof of one's own consciousness?

[Simon39759]

First came the egg, around 7h00 AM, alongside bacon and a cup of joe.

The chicken will only come around 12h30ish. Between two slices of wheat bread, with some letuce and a few tomatoes...
I think I am also going to order a bag of chips and a diet coke, if it matters.

[wuschel]

Atheists: Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?
Well, it can reasonably be assumed that an egg is simply lacking the facilities necessary for holding an irrational belief. I therefore conclude that all eggs are atheists (lacking religious belief).

As far as chicken, however, it gets more complicated. Scientific research suggests that at least pigeons can develop rituals based on pure superstition.

http://ww2.lafayette.edu/~allanr/pigeon.jpeg

It therefore can be concluded that a chicken brain may indeed be all it takes for holding a religious belief.

[Dancing David]

Well Twiler, Logic puts first thing first. Rationality simply refers to the success of goal attainment.

What the scientist does is first make a subjective or rational choice of what to study and then apply the logic of mathematics. That's cheating. Logic puts first thing first. And the first thing to study is the observer; or the subjectivity or rationality of the scientist himself or herself. Only then can the truth behind the form or the brain - the truth of the universe - be revealed or realised.

(source Barry Long 1926-2003)

Oook?

The Librarian- Discworld

[wuschel]

Oook?
I think I know where he's coming from: The ultimate philosophical premise is the existence of oneself... "cogito ergo sum"... and everything else is sort of derived from that, e.g. "if reality behaves as if it was real, I might as well treat it as such".

On the same line as it is impossible to disprove solipsism. That sort of stuff.

Fallacy committed is that as soon as the existence of an objective reality is denied, anything goes, IOW one cannot assume, let alone conclude anything beyond that.

[remirol]

I prefer to stick with a more precise variant: "Cogito, ergo sum... cogito"

[wuschel]

I prefer to stick with a more precise variant: "Cogito, ergo sum... cogito"That's a tautology.

[lightfire22000]

The egg. Chickens evolved from a bird(that was 2 meters tall by the way) that laid eggs. I'll assume, perhaps somewhat riskily, that the embryo mutated into a chicken while it was in the egg. So, I'm going to say the egg came first.

[wuschel]

that laid eggs.That's the thing with eggs: It's all about chicks and getting laid.

[Stacy Head]

I prefer to stick with a more precise variant: "Cogito, ergo sum... cogito"



What Remirol said ;)

[wuschel]

what remirol said ;)οι άνθρωποι αποκαλούμενοι ελληνικά πηγαίνουν το σπίτι!

[Jaxe]

The egg came first. The creature that laid it had not quite finished evolving into a chicken yet. The eggs completely the evolutionary cycle when it hatched.

I find it more interesting to think about when it will be that the life born of a chicken egg will no longer be considered to grow into a chicken (or a rooster as things may go), and what will we call it?

My vote goes for Nekcihc, or maybe a latin name such as Similis Ignoramus :P

[UnrepentantSinner]

The egg. Chickens evolved from a bird(that was 2 meters tall by the way) that laid eggs. I'll assume, perhaps somewhat riskily, that the embryo mutated into a chicken while it was in the egg. So, I'm going to say the egg came first.

A better way to put it is that there was a first genetic chicken which was the LCA for all chickens and that first genetic chicken would have been an egg before it was hatched.

[arthwollipot]

Egg.

Is yrreg going to come back and realise that everyone here is in agreement on this matter? That a definitive answer has been provided?

Seriously - if you've never found a proper answer to the question before, you really can't have been looking very hard. Things existed that laid eggs long before chickens existed. It's very, very simple.

[critterrice]

The egg was there, then the chicken came, then the egg was fertilized, then another chicken was there.
(That's one of them cerebral jokes.)

[Egg]

Well, it can reasonably be assumed that an egg is simply lacking the facilities necessary for holding an irrational belief. I therefore conclude that all eggs are atheists (lacking religious belief).

egg:smiloe: What is it they say about assuming?

That's the thing with eggs: It's all about chicks and getting laid.

Nice quote! Mind if I borrow it for my sig? Credit to Wuschel?

[slingblade]

οι άνθρωποι αποκαλούμενοι ελληνικά πηγαίνουν το σπίτι!

It's all Greek to everyone.

[wuschel]

It's all Greek to everyone.
Yeah, but the (more applicable) "Romanes Eunt Domus!" horse has been beaten to death, I'm afraid. Thus I thought the racial slur theme against ancient European cultures could use some diversity ;-)

[wuschel]

That's the thing with eggs: It's all about chicks and getting laid.Nice quote! Mind if I borrow it for my sig?It's a profound philosophical insight, so, well, go ahead!Credit to Wuschel?
I cannot believe that I should have been the first one to say that, but I didn't consciously steal it from anywhere, either. And Google - the closest thing to an infinite monkey output - also does not come up with a reference to prior art.

[LightningStrike]

Twiler I am simply stating that scientists are illogical.

[remirol]

Twiler I am simply stating that scientists are illogical.

Evidence indicates otherwise.

[RoboTimbo]

Egg.

Is yrreg going to come back and realise that everyone here is in agreement on this matter? That a definitive answer has been provided?

In his own time. Remember his control issues?

Seriously - if you've never found a proper answer to the question before, you really can't have been looking very hard. Things existed that laid eggs long before chickens existed. It's very, very simple.

Does it matter what the answer is? Either way, yrreG will interpret it to mean that his personal god exists.

[Twiler]

Twiler I am simply stating that scientists are illogical.

Why?

Because they make assumptions about reality beyond a priori knowledge?

That's not being illogical, that's establishing a model based on scientific axioms. Those axioms can't be proved with pure logic, but that doesn't mean that conclusions drawn from them are illogical, it just means that they aren't a priori conclusions.

How can your conclusion that consciousness comes first be derived from pure logic?

[Marduk]

Yeah, but the (more applicable) "Romanes Eunt Domus!" horse has been beaten to death, I'm afraid. Thus I thought the racial slur theme against ancient European cultures could use some diversity ;-)

"the people called 'Romanes' they go the house"

huh ?

:D

[Dancing David]

Twiler I am simply stating that scientists are illogical.

Oook Oook Oook Oook Oook.
Oook Oook Oook Oook .
Oook Oook Oook Oook Oook Oook .
QED
Oook


(In other words)
Logic is an idiomatic construction.
Axioms are true by nature,
logic is based upon axioms and self referencing.
QED
Oook

[Ron_Tomkins]

Yrreg's Standard Thread Making and Conducting Model:


* Create thread asking a question
* Wait a few replies until you get the answer you secretly want to hear
* Wait a few more posts
* ........ hmm.... give it a couple more posts
* ..... One more page. Await for one more page of posts
* If no results, repeat the question again in a different way, using other examples. Provide a title for the post in which you facilitate the opening sentence, as means of a hook
* Wait for the desired response
* .... wait
* ................ waaait......
* Repeat process: Post a different example that may incite the desired answer
* Wait
* Wait
* ....... hmm....
* Create new thread