Yet another question for religious types...

by **Norse** on Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:57 am

If god is all-seeing and all-hearing, can you clarify this for me...

If a tree fell in the forest and no-one was around to hear it, did the chicken or the egg come first? :-k

by **AlgyTaylor** on Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:59 am

God would hear the tree, surely.

The egg came first - and no, I'm not going to explain why.

by **Norse** on Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:01 am

Even if the tree landed on the chicken?

by **griffin_slayer** on Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:02 am

by **Norse** on Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:16 am

But what if the tree fell in a frictionless environment, onto an egg that was just about to hatch?

by **unriggable** on Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:17 am

If a tree falls and nobody's around, and it lands on a mime, does anyone care?

by **MeDeFe** on Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:37 am

If a tree falls and noone is around, who's going to eat it?

by **cena-rules** on Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:41 am

wait.

If you believe the bible then the chicken came first.

An egg isnt an animal until it hatches into a chicken.

God created ANIMALS

therefore the chicken came first.

ill take that £10,000,000 in cash please

by **unriggable** on Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:42 am

cena-rules wrote:wait.

If you believe the bible then the chicken came first.

An egg isnt an animal until it hatches into a chicken.

God created ANIMALS

therefore the chicken came first.

ill take that £10,000,000 in cash please

But then if the egg isn't an animal than a fetus isn't a human and the whole pro-life argument topples over.

by **cena-rules** on Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:44 am

unriggable wrote:
cena-rules wrote:wait.

If you believe the bible then the chicken came first.

An egg isnt an animal until it hatches into a chicken.

God created ANIMALS

therefore the chicken came first.

ill take that £10,000,000 in cash please

But then if the egg isn't an animal than a fetus isn't a human and the whole pro-life argument topples over.

a fetus isnt a human until it is out of the mothers womb. It is in fact another form of life altogether

by **unriggable** on Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:49 am

cena-rules wrote:
unriggable wrote:
cena-rules wrote:wait.

If you believe the bible then the chicken came first.

An egg isnt an animal until it hatches into a chicken.

God created ANIMALS

therefore the chicken came first.

ill take that £10,000,000 in cash please

But then if the egg isn't an animal than a fetus isn't a human and the whole pro-life argument topples over.

a fetus isnt a human until it is out of the mothers womb. It is in fact another form of life altogether

The prolifers disagree.

by **cena-rules** on Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:52 am

unriggable wrote:
cena-rules wrote:
unriggable wrote:
cena-rules wrote:wait.

If you believe the bible then the chicken came first.

An egg isnt an animal until it hatches into a chicken.

God created ANIMALS

therefore the chicken came first.

ill take that £10,000,000 in cash please

But then if the egg isn't an animal than a fetus isn't a human and the whole pro-life argument topples over.

a fetus isnt a human until it is out of the mothers womb. It is in fact another form of life altogether

The prolifers disagree.

People disagree all the time i just have 3 letter for them
G
F
Y

by **Serbia** on Thu Aug 09, 2007 1:00 pm

Tell me this then. If you attack a pregnant woman with a baseball bat, and manage to kill the unborn child (the fetus, for those of you following along), why then are you charged with murder?

by **cena-rules** on Thu Aug 09, 2007 1:02 pm

Serbia wrote:Tell me this then. If you attack a pregnant woman with a baseball bat, and manage to kill the unborn child (the fetus, for those of you following along), why then are you charged with murder?

because it is murder. If you kill an animal it should be murder.

however if you eat an egg it isnt murder as the egg hasnt been fertilised

by **Serbia** on Thu Aug 09, 2007 1:05 pm

Ah, but an unborn child (fetus) is not an animal. And simply because YOUR OPINION says that killing an animal should be considered murder, doesn't make it so, nor does it have any bearing on current law. So again, why is it murder? Do you have an explaination for it?

by **Serbia** on Thu Aug 09, 2007 1:06 pm

Also, chickens naturally would want to fertilize the egg. So if we prevent that ferilization from taking place, by removing the egg before the process is complete, then, in your opinion, aren't we at fault, and shouldn't you, with your twisted logic, consider THAT murder as well?

by **Coleman** on Thu Aug 09, 2007 1:07 pm

Forget religion the egg came first because whatever laid it was one step below chicken in evolution. For a chicken to lay an egg it must have first hatched from an egg. Not necessarily a chicken one.

by **Jasona** on Thu Aug 09, 2007 1:07 pm

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

Therefore The Chicken came first because god created it and gave it the ability to "Be fruitful and multiply"

by **Minister Masket** on Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:32 pm

STOP!
The simple answer is thus:

Dinosaurs were around before chickens right? Dinosaurs laid eggs, like most reptiles right? Henceforth: the EGG came first!

It is pointless to argue against my faultless answer.

by **dustn64** on Thu Aug 09, 2007 3:25 pm

Minister Masket wrote:STOP!
The simple answer is thus:

Dinosaurs were around before chickens right? Dinosaurs laid eggs, like most reptiles right? Henceforth: the EGG came first!

It is pointless to argue against my faultless answer.

So, what came first? the Dinosaur or the egg?

by **Greencrew** on Sun Aug 12, 2007 10:31 am

AlgyTaylor wrote:God would hear the tree, surely.

The egg came first - and no, I'm not going to explain why.

I agree with the tree, but the egg didn't come first. The chicken had to come first because god created the animal, and if he had created the egg first it would have died because there would be no chicken to take care of it.

So the chicken had to come first

by **CrazyAnglican** on Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:21 pm

Norse wrote:If god is all-seeing and all-hearing, can you clarify this for me...

If a tree fell in the forest and no-one was around to hear it, did the chicken or the egg come first?

An excellent question! I'm assuming that's directed at the Zen Buddhists among us.

by **Minister Masket** on Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:29 am

dustn64 wrote:
Minister Masket wrote:STOP!
The simple answer is thus:

Dinosaurs were around before chickens right? Dinosaurs laid eggs, like most reptiles right? Henceforth: the EGG came first!

It is pointless to argue against my faultless answer.

So, what came first? the Dinosaur or the egg?

Still the egg. There were reptiles around before dinosaurs.

by **Norse** on Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:56 am

Right.....

Maybe we could argue this then....

Which came first, the chicken or the ameoba?

by **Balsiefen** on Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 pm

The ameoba came first, then the egg, then the dinosaur, then the chicken (with a few assorted animals and eggs between)

Thats the evolutionist answer

For creationists they all came at the same time exept the egg which came a bit after (I'm not sure whare the dinosaurs fit in to this)

Also i belive some japanese mith claims the entire universe came out on an egg in which the egg came first.

Yet another question for religious types...

Yet another question for religious types...

Re: Yet another question for religious types...

Who is online